Theft and Liberal Government

     Sometimes you see something on face book or the comments people make on it, which gives you a different impression on the post then your first.  That happened today when someone posted the following picture on face book:

      The person who posted didn’t want to start a debate on this, but why post such a provocative picture and as part of your commentary say “I am sharing this because it seems like a(n) accurate observation about 2 kinds of opposite thought patterns.”    So my first reaction was that this is not a very accurate depiction of the conservative viewpoint so I commented by saying “This picture generated some interesting discussion however, it is the old when is the last time you beat your wife approach so typical of liberals/progressives.”  My point being that they first depict their side as more fair (and say that it’s an accurate observation) and precede from there to discuss what other things the picture might mean.  I stand  by that observation, however, looking at the further discussion I noticed something else.

     What prompted this different take was comment the orginal poster added later.  Which was this “The wall is there to keep the non-paying public out of the stadium. Taking the wall down would be unfair to the people who paid and the players.”  Which I think brings up a completely different issue, theft.  The poster went on to elaborate that “I think the boxes are government programs”.  I had not perceived the picture as those outside the fence stealing the production of the players inside.  This brought me to an interesting conclusion, she had seen something that I did not, the people outside the fence are stealing from the players, the owner(s) of the team and the owner(s) of the stadium (whomever that might be), but further they are doing it at the expense of the people who had paid for their seats through their own effort, and they are being assisted by the government in the theft.  So maybe this really does represent the current government and the way it works, even though it doesn’t represent conservatives/libertarians it certainly represents the liberals and their big government.

Whats needed is reasonable security.

     Everyone is proposing something regarding the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut,  I thought I would add my two cents worth.  The first reaction of most lawmakers was of course shock and sadness, as one would expect.  What followed next was lawmakers doing what they always do when confronted with a problem, talk about how more laws are needed.  They seem to collectively think that if they just passed that one magic law human evil would disappear and no one would be harmed by it ever again. 
     As with other tragedies of this nature, they trot out the usual causes.  The Democrats always blame the gun, as if it magically does it without human contact.  The Republicans always say you can't restrict the rights of others because of the wrong doing of some, a position with which I agree, but that is beside the point we can argue "gun control" another day.  But is there a more simple solition to the problem that is being overlooked, I think there are ways that this particular act (attacking children at school) can be thwarted outside the gun debate and without creating new laws, that may infringe on others right to defend themselves.
     My solution is simply better security at our schools.  Here is a couple things which I think can be done, and rather cheaply so the tax and spenders don't take advantage of yet another crisis to further our collapse.  First all school doors should be locked so no one from the outside can gain access after the children come in for school (even the scumbags in Colorado where late for school that day).  There should be a electronic system so someone can let those that need access into the building, and a securtiy person to perform pat down searches where necessary (ACLU if you have a problem with this you can go to hell, people who want to avoid the pat down simply need not come to the school).  Further, with the ease and cheapness of installing a computer camera monitoring system schools could simply put one on every door and the door should be alarmed so if it is opened from the inside security will be alerted.  Finally, I think the security at the school should be armed, and as many of the teachers who desire be trained, be trained and given concealed carry permits. 
     This will serve to make schools a "harder target" for would be attackers.  It is possible the wackos and the creeps will move on to other targets, we cannot predict the future but we can protect our children with just a few very simple and very cheap actions.

Who is responsible for high energy prices?

The panderer in chief Barack Obama this week blamed rising gas prices on Oil "Speculators", and as usual his proposal is more bureaucrats and more government spending. I think we can save money because I think we can easily prove who the culprit is, and I think he can be out of the picture on the 20th of January 2013. 

Here is the first suspect:

More evidence:

if you still need more:

So there you have it we now know who the culprit is now we only have to address the problem.

One final note I think the President should spend less time counting Mitt Romneys money and more time watching the publics money after all he is the head of the executive branch and that is his responsibility.


  

I need a mob too

Is anyone else bothered by what has happened in Florida?  Have anyone else stopped to think how one States Attorney decides that what happened wasn’t prosecutable and the next one jumps manslaughter and third degree murder to the most serious charge without going before a Grand Jury?  Which lead me to ask why didn’t she take it before the Grand Jury?  Couldn’t they have the preferred the same charges if they were warranted?  These are just some questions I have about this but is there a larger issue here I think so.

     I don’t know how to start this but let’s began at where we are and sort of work our way backwards, with some detours along the way. The Special Prosecutor in Florida preferred 2^nd Degree murder charges on George Zimmerman and her speech sounded political.  It bothers me that she and her little helpers are seeking justice for Trayvon, pardon me for asking shouldn’t they just be seeking justice?  Or is it revenge that they are seeking?  Her press conference can be viewed here. 

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/11/ap-prosecutor-to-announce-george-zimmerman-will-be-charged-with-2nd-degree-murder-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-is-in-police-custody/)

I believe that this was and will continue to be a political thing.  It has been weighed in on by many from the president on down. So let’s look at a few of them and their comments. First President Obama video can be viewed here

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efZNgSEpB1k

He does rather well in the beginning it is serious and it should be investigated thoroughly and we should be apprised of the facts at the end of the investigation where ever it may lead.  But didn’t he make an assumption that may or may not be based in reality.   Hadn’t an investigation already taken place?  Its one thing to be not happy with the results and quite another to say it never happened.   Then we can take a look at the very last statement which was meaningless to nonsensical “if I had a son he would look like Trayvon” (with bigger ears would be my guess, and this man is said to be intelligent) well Mr. President if I had a mom (which I do) she would look a lot like your mom looked (and she does). 

Now for the Congressmen (and women):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3h-lX-Joqo&feature=relmfu) nice job congresswoman Notice the congresswoman’s fondness for mob’s and getting what she wants also interesting when asked if she would be as concerned if the person who was killed was white brings up a white woman who was killed but just can’t seem to remember her name, yeah right.    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn6QudaTK0E&feature=relmfu Mr. Hoodie aka congressman Bobby Rush founder of the Chicago chapter of the Black Panthers, he was not shot in the head he was shot in the chest at least get some of your facts right.  You can make your own decision about whether this is just them playing politics. But let’s move on.

     One cannot talk about this without bringing up the race hustler the Rev. Al Sharpton.  Who started his illustrious career as a rabble rouser and mob leader with his Hitler like attack on a Jewish clothing store in Harlem (http://www.jewishpost.com/archives/news/massacre-at-freddys-in-harlem-fire-fueled-by-anti-semitism-kills-8.html) this was so successful that the Reverend moved on to Tawana Brawley where in the end he had to pay several hundred thousand dollars to a person whom he slandered.  Turns out Ms. Brawley was a liar, go figure ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations ).  Moving right along in Al’s illustrious career as an investigator to the Duke Lacrosse case, guess what turns out them rich white Duke Lacrosse players were innocent as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_the_2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case ).  So now Al has moved on again to the Trayvon Martin case, my suspicion is it well turn out not to be all that different than the others, after all Al has a track record of being on the wrong side of the truth.  Further, anyone who things Al will be satisfied with anything other than guilt and the maximum penalty allowed under the law don’t know the racist Al Sharpton.  The reverend might want to start dialing it back so we don’t end up with innocent dead people like we did at Freddy’s or riots as we did after Rodney King, he also might want to take a look at this   http://teriobrien.com/2012/04/13/harvard-law-professor-alan-dershowitz-trayvon-martin-affidavit-so-thin-it-wont-make-it-passed-a-decent-judge/ , keep in mind that Mr. Dersowitz is not a right wing nut job, but a very liberal civil rights lawyer.  Watch the video of this from his interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews he alleges that the Special Prosecutor was unethical and says this was her re-election speech.

   Now lest anyone think I would leave out our illustrious Attorney General (not) Eric Holder here commenting before Al Sharpton’s group (see above) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t27ATBHMijI Guess he will bring down the weight of the home federal government on George Zimmerman.  This brings me to why I need a mob. 

    I am seeking justice for the following people: Michael Grant Cahill of Spokane, Washington, Libardo Eduardo Caraveo of Woodbridge, Virgina, Justin Michael DeCrow of Plymouth, Indiana,  John P. Gafney of Sera Mesa, California, Frederick Greene of Mountain City, Tennessee, Jason Dean Hunt of Tipton, Oklahoma, Amy Sue Krueger of Kiel, Wisconsin, Aaron Thomas Nemelke of West Jordan, Utah, Michael S. Pearson of Bolingbrook, Illinois  Russell Gilbert Seager of Racine, Wisconsin, Juanita L. Warman of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, Kham See Xiong of Saint Paul, Minnesota and Francheska Velez and her unborn child who were all brutally murdered on November 5, 2009 by Nidal Malik Hasan who has still not been brought to trial.  Mr. Holder justice delayed is justice denied.  Any volunteers for my mob?

Does Rachel Maddow have a point yes and no

I recently viewed this video

Does she have a pont for the yes part, if in fact they are not taking a roll call vote that the House procedure rules call for then she has a point on that part of it.  I believe rules should be followed by all concerned, as they were put in place for a reason.

Now for the no part, she shows what the state constitution says about how a bill goes into effect 90 days after the end of the session when it was passed, that is true.  She also shows where they can be given immediate effect with a 2/3 rds majority or super majority if you prefer, but notice how she sticks her word emergency in there, implying that there must exist and emergency to use this option, yet the state constitution doesn't say that at all.  This is the problem that all ideologs have instead of sticking to the issue were they believe the other party is doing wrong they cloud the issue with  fabrications, mis-information or out right lies, then wonder why no one will listen to them on the salient points.

Now as far as the Emergency Managers go I would have no problem if cities wish to opt out of the program provided they accept the following stipulation, that no state money would be used to bail them out from that point forward.  In other words if you take the money then you get our manager, if you don't take the money you can keep on running things yourself.  Lets face it Detroit is bankrupt from 50+ years of liberal Democratic Rule, the same can be said of every city and school district on the list that Ms. Maddow shows.  So what she is emplying is that they can waste our money anyway they choose and we should go on being taxed by Detroit (and others) without representation.  She complains that they have no democracy (they elected the councils and mayors that ran their city into the gound, Coleman Young and Kwame Kilpatrick are perfect examples of the mentality that put them in the position they now find themselves) what about us in the rest of the state who have to pay their way out of insolvency, what about our rights?  Ms. Maddow is silent on this issue.

So when should the state or federal government intervene, that is the real question posed by this emergency manager bill.   I would bet Ms. Maddow thinks it was appropriate for the government to intervene like it did in Brown vs. The Board of Education, and I would agree, but wouldn't it also be right for the state to intervene in the Detroit Public Schools because they are absolutely failing the students, the city, the state and the nation when they condemn so many people to a second rate education while they waste millions of taxpayer dollars?  Is not the School System of Detroit violating the civil rights of the students when they fail to give them an education that will make the prosperous and productive citizens?
So I say count the votes yes, pay for bailouts without control no.