Two Republicans, Jim Demint and Peter Hoekstra, have proposed a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights.
The Parental Rights Amendment, the latest in a series of similar proposals, would establish in the U.S. Constitution that parents – not government or any other organization – have “a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit,” Hoekstra’s office said in a statement.
“The Parental Rights Amendment would help stop the assault on parental rights, whether it is an assault from Congress, from the courts or the U.N.,” Hoekstra told CNSNews.com on Tuesday.
It may seem as if this is an unnecessary amendment to the constitution but unfortunatelyit is not. Slowly but surely the government has been taking responsibility and control away from parents when it comes to child rearing. The rights of the parents have slowly been eroded in this country. To give you a local example of this I have to look no further that the “Parental Notification Bill” that has been a controversial issue right here in New Hampshire for the past few years.
New Hampshire had passed a Parental Notification bill that would have required parental permission before a MINOR child had an abortion, this case was to go before the Supreme Court but once John Lynch became governor he killed the bill. Since then there has been an ongoing attempt to pass another Parental Notification law but all attempts have failed.
The state of New Hampshire thinks that it can better raise our children than we can. Our children need a permission slip to give blood, hell they need a permission slip to go on a damn field trip but they can undergo an intrusive medical procedure and the parent has no right to know. Doesn’t a parent have a right to know what their child has been up to? Doesn’t a parent have the right to know if their child is participating in risky behavior? (Not to mention the fact that if the girl is a MINOR it means that she was raped.) It seems like a no-brainer to me.
This is just one example of the state assuming the role of the parents and actually superseding the rights of the parents. This is why we need an amendment to the constitution. We need to stop the government from extending it’s dirty little tentacles where they do not belong.
While I would guess that this proposal is going to go nowhere it is gaining a little steam, 71 representatives have signed on as co-sponsors.
It is bad enough we have to fight to get our country back, we shouldn’t have to fight to get our children back.
Moderate Democrats Balk at Obama’s Budget Proposal
There could be a little good news in regards to the $3 trillion budget that the president proposed. It seems as if there is some hesitation with the more moderate Democrats to sign off on this outrageous budget.
Twelve Democrats who call themselves the “Mod Squad” held their second meeting with Peter Orzag (the president’s budget director) to discuss their concerns with the out of control spending in the president’s proposal.
I think there’s a common concern about getting spending under control and making sure that there’s a budget that doesn’t have unsustainable requirements in it far into the future,” said Sen Ben Nelson, D-Neb
This certainly is good news. This budget needs to be severely cut. While this group may not be able or willing to completely stall the budget, any cuts that they are able to make will be at least a small victory of sorts.
I am still holding out hope, probably foolishly, that this budget will never make it to the president’s desk as it is constituted. I am still hoping that this budget will be seriously pared down. During this time of economic catastrophe, to use the president’s word, it is just plain stupid to spend more money. All across the country people are being forced to cut back. People are not buying what they cannot afford and yet during this same crisis the government, and the president in particular, take the opposite approach. It is foolishness, it is buffoonery.
Harry Reid has threatened to use reconciliation to pass the budget, this would require a simple majority to pass the bill and thwart any Republican attempt to filibuster the budget proposal. A majority of the “Mod Squad” Democrats oppose this idea as well and claim that they will vote against the budget if reconciliation is part of the bill.
The president is heeding Rahm Emanuel’s creed of never letting a good crisis go to waste. After all, as Rahm says, it allows you to do things that otherwise you wouldn’t dream of doing. The president is using this crisis to push his agenda on the American people, from socialized medicine to tax cap and trade economic initiatives and he doesn’t seem to care if he bankrupts the country as long as he achieves his goal of Europeanizing America.
Thankfully a majority of the Republicans and these twelve Democrats are taking a close hard look at this budget and are not just going to rubber stamp it.
There is still a glimmer of hope, I can still see that shining city upon the hill. We mustn’t let the light burn out.
Strike Five: Yes Another Obama Appointee is a Tax Cheat
It has been a while since we have had a story about an Obama nominee who had tax problems, but today came this news that Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s nominee for Health and Human Services had to go back an amend her last three tax returns.
It seems that she found some honest mistakes in those returns and had to pay $7000 in back-taxes. She also had to pay over $800 in interest, but interestingly enough she didn’t pay any penalties.
Her tax crimes pale in comparison to the others who have been nominated for cabinet positions by the president. I am surprised that she was nominated at all considering she owed under $10,000 in taxes, Obama likes to aim higher.
I guess Obama and his cabinet nominees don’t subscribe to Joe Biden’s creed that it is patriotic to pay higher taxes. Perhaps it would be wise that before the president raises our taxes he at least makes sure that his cabinet members are paying their taxes.
FIrst let me say that if Rick Wagoner, GM CEO, ran General Motors during the fall of GM (which he did) than he should resign for leading the company into the state they are currently in. I do not feel sorry that this incompetent man has stepped down, perhaps if he did this a few years ago GM wouldn’t be in the situation that they are in.
Second let me say that I have gone on record as stating that once a company accepts federal (our) bailout money that I have no problem with the government stepping in and imposing some regulations and stipulations in return for that company taking our money.
Having stipulated both of the points above I have to say that the idea that the Obama administration had the wherewith all to call for, and receive, the resignation of Rick Wagoner way over the line.
We learned earlier today that Rick Wagoner had decided to step down as CEO of General Motors. While his resignation was justified and warranted what was not justified was the fact, which we learned later on, that the president of the United States demanded that Rick Wagoner step down.
Rick Wagoner did not deserve to keep his job, that goes without saying, but it should not be the president who has the ability to fire people who run private businesses no matter how inept that person is. The stockholders or the Board of Directors should be making that call. Even Obama’s biggest supporters have to realize that the president has vastly overstepped his bounds here.
This is a dangerous precedent that the president is setting here. While General Motors accepted federal bailout money and should be required to submit to some government oversight the idea that the president can decide who should be fired is pretty damned scary. Especially in light of the news that tax cheat toxic Timmy Geithner is pushing for a massive expansion of government powers that would allow the government to take over whatever company they decided needed taking over even if said company did not accept federal bailout money.
Under toxic Timmy’s plan the government could seize any company that the government felt might fail. If that is the case than once the government has control of that company couldn’t the president then decide if the CEO should be fired? We are treading on dangerous water here as a nation. Where will this stop?
The government is already talking about limiting the pay of executives, including executives of companies that do not receive federal bailout money, and the government is already talking about taking over companies that they deem it necessary to take over. The government is expanding power at an alarming rate and everyone who cares about the constitution should be worried about this turn of events.
Will this crisis reach the point where the president will decide that elections will have to be suspended until the crisis is under control? Will this crisis reach the point where the constitution will need to be suspended to help America survive?
Those questions may sound absurd and ridiculous, and I am just using them to illustrate my point, but the notion that a president could demand the CEO of a private company resign sounded absurd to me just a few short days ago. This administration has declared a war on capitalism and I find it just a little disturbing.
America once was the place where people came to realize their dreams, now it is the place where those dreams can be taken away at the whim of the president. To think that people still laugh it off when you call Obama a communist…..
Communism:
(emphasis mine)
- A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
- The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
We have seen the beginning of a revolution of the proletariat with the protests of the AIG bonuses, the same bonuses that were allowed and in fact orchestrated by the Obama administration in general and toxic Timmy Geithner in particular.
Broken Promises: Obama’s Tax Increase on the Poor
We all know the numbers that President Obama has been throwing around with regards to his tax plan. Nobody making under $250,000 will get a tax increase….Ninety-five percent of all Americans will receive a tax break…. you’ve heard them all by now. But these statements simply are not true, and on April 1st many Americans will find out the hard way. They will see their tax break literally go up in smoke.
That is when the cigarette tax jumps 156%. This is not a tax that will only be paid by the rich. As this article points out 55% of smokers are “working poor.” In other words these are the people that the president was claiming he would take care of. So much for that notion.
Here are the statistics from the article linked to above:
- 55 percent of smokers are “working poor”
- One in four smokers live below the poverty line
- On average, smokers, whose median income is a little more than $36,000, make about 30 percent less than non-smokers.
Those statistics point to a much lower economic target group than the group Obama claimed he would tax, they point to an economic group that Obama claimed he would help. This is a stealth tax being implemented on the people who can afford it the least but who will have no choice but to pay it. You can claim that they have the choice to quit and technically they do, but they are addicted. That is what makes this the worse kind of tax of all. The president is going after a group that he knows will pay the price no matter the cost and he doesn’t care that the majority of smokers are “working poor” and he doesn’t care that 25% of smokers are poverty stricken. He also knows that the majority of non-smokers don’t give a damn about how much a person pays for cigarettes and want to see the cigarette tax increase to punish those annoying, nasty smokers. They disapprove of this lifestyle and so they want to see the smokers punished.
The smokers have all of this working against them. They have been banished to the cold outdoors during the winter as if they have a contagious disease, and they are a group that the politically correct have decided it is acceptable to bear tax increases of astronomical proportions percentage wise.
President Obama claimed that nobody making under $250,000 would see ANY tax increase but as we can see in the numbers above that is a lie. The president’s defenders will claim that he was talking about payroll and income taxes, not this type of tax but here is what Obama claimed:
can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
He specifically states he WILL NOT RAISE ANY OF YOUR TAXES, that is pretty cut and dry if you ask me. But when his cigarette tax will disproportionately tax the poor one wonders how he can continue with that false claim.
Last week in the New Hampshire house a gay marriage bill was defeated by one vote but was almost immediately brought back up for reconsideration and it passed by seven votes.
Now the bill heads to the senate for debate where it sounds like it faces a tough challenge and may be defeated. Naturally if it passes the senate it will be headed to Governor Lynch’s desk, but where does Governor Lynch stand on the issue?
That should be an easy question to answer but it isn’t. Governor Lynch has said that he opposes gay marriage so doesn’t that suggest that he will veto this bill? Not so fast, he hasn’t come out and said that he would veto the bill. As a matter of fact he has been elusive when he has been asked about this bill. So why is this?
We don’t need to look any further than the last time the governor faced a controversial topic to see that there is a pattern here. Coincidentally enough it was during the civil union debate. Governor Lynch eventually signed the bill into law granting civil unions to gay couples in New Hampshire.
It was the way he handled that issue that will show us why he remains mum on whether he will sign the gay marriage bill if it makes it to his desk. The civil unions bill was written and ready to head to the house before the 2006 election, when debating Jim Coburn and asked about the civil unions legislation and if he supported it he would only say that he is against gay marriage and that he would not answer questions on the civil unions legislation before it reached his desk. He avoided taking a stand on an issue that had New Hampshire residents split.
After he was re-elected it was more of the same. He refused to answer whether he would sign the civil unions bill even as it was being debated in the house and then in the senate.
Finally when the bill reached his desk he signed it, but the way he signed it showed a lack of leadership and a lack of political courage. Instead of having a big signing ceremony he did it in private. One hour before the signing he called people that he knew were for the bill and invited them to witness the signing. He did this to avoid media attention and any possible protests.
So Governor Lynch has a history of dodging tough questions until the last minute and then privately addressing them without scrutiny. That is why he will not tell us whether he will sign or veto a gay marriage bill.
My guess is that he will not take a position and go on record until the bill passes the senate just in case it doesn’t pass the senate. I believe he is hoping that the bill fails in the senate, just as he probably hoped the civil unions bill would fail, so that he will not have to go on record one way or the other. The governor is hoping to avoid a tough decision. He knows that his position will upset half of the residents so he would rather leave us guessing.
He is hedging his bets by saying that he is personally opposed to gay marriage. If he were to sign the bill he would just say that while personally I am opposed to gay marriage but I can’t let my feelings stand in the way of what is right for New Hampshire’s citizens.
All I am asking for is just a little bit of leadership here. I just want the governor to stand up and tell us where he stands on this issue. If he does I will have more respect for him. Whether he chooses to sign or veto the gay marriage bill it isn’t going to change my opinion of him, he will not lose my vote because he has never had it. But if he were to stand up and declare his position that would go a long way in changing my opinion of him. It would at least show me that he can be a leader when the issue at hand is controversial. Up until now he has dodged the tough issues.
Governor Lynch, where do you stand? Are you for or against the gay marriage bill?
Harry Reid Tells the Far Left to Back Off
Elected Democrats loved the liberal activist groups when Bush was president. Any coverage by the media of their protests was welcomed as was the pressure they tried to apply to President Bush.
As the president’s approval ratings fell, the Democrats slid more and more to the left, to the delight of the far left wing of the party. Now that the Democrats hold the White House and a larger majority in the house and senate they don’t find the far left as useful as they once did.
The far left hasn’t changed their opinion of the war and they are also growing frustrated with moderate Democrats who are hesitant to agree to the president’s bloated budget. Far leftist groups are now beginning to target moderate Democrats in television ads, much to the chagrin of Harry Reid, who has a warning for them.
I think it’s very unwise and not helpful,” Reid said Friday morning. “These groups should leave them alone. It’s not helpful to me. It’s not helpful to the Democratic Caucus
The fact is that these people have beliefs, I disagree with all of them, but they are holding true to these beliefs and they should. If they see politicians who are not in agreement with them on the issues it seems natural that they would run ads against them.
The other fact here is that these Democrats used these far left groups to get elected by representing themselves as something they were not. Now they are upset that the far left is turning against them when it is they who are not holding up their end of the bargain.
Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrat leadership just assumed that once they got power the far left would be silent and they would be free to govern as they wished. This is not the case, the far left voted for these people for a reason and that reason was the promises they made. If Democrats are not going to keep the promises they made to the far left than they have no business becoming indignant towards the people they misled.
The far left expected too much from the Democrats and now they are becoming discontent. Harry Reid has nobody to blame but himself and his party, they are the ones who promised the world to the far left. Once they were elected they kicked the far left to the curb.
In the end President Obama is probably going to pass quite a bit of the far left’s agenda, with the exception of the war, and this will all be for naught and all will be forgiven. But I am going to enjoy it while it lasts.
Timothy Giethner has given conflicting statements when he has been asked about whether the United States should abandon the dollar in favor of a global currency. In front of one audience he said one thing in front of another he said the exact opposite.
While he was testifying in front of congress he said he wouldn’t consider the idea of abandoning the dollar but then the next day while in front of the Council on Foreign Relations he said he was “open” to the idea. This remark led to the value of the dollar plummeting and so Geithner had to again flip-flop on the issue. Where does he really stand? Was he lying while under oath to congress?
At least one congressman would like to hear Timothy Giethner explain himself and clarify his true position. Not that he can be believed, he has a history of dishonesty as Congressman Shadegg also points out.
Beginning with his tax difficulties, and continuing through the puzzling narrative of when and what he knew about the AIG bonuses, Treasury Secretary Geithner has done little to inspire the confidence of the American people,” said Shadegg. “Oddly, Secretary Geithner continued his bizarre and puzzling conduct this week, making flatly contradictory statements about the dollar in a span of only 24 hours. This weakens confidence not only in him, but in the currency he is entrusted to protect
On Tuesday,” said Shadegg, “Secretary Geithner testified before the House Financial Services Committee that he ‘categorically renounces,’ recent proposals from China and others to shift away from the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The next morning in New York, speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, he was asked about the same proposals and said he is ‘quite open,’ to them
How can this man be trusted? From his dishonest tax reporting, to his dishonest excuse for his tax cheating, to his outright lie about the AIG bonuses, to this latest example. The man is a tax cheat and a fraud.
Shadegg has just one question for Timothy Geithner and I feel that we should know the answer.
“Is he intentionally dissembling here, or is he just lost and is so much in over his head that he’s not up to the job?”
I don’t think that this question requires an either/or answer, I think the answer is both. This man should have been disqualified as Treasury Secretary the instant that it was learned he was a tax cheat, however being a tax cheat is a plus, just ask Charlie Rangel. Timothy Geithner’s tax problems were much more egregious than were Tom Daschle’s yet Daschle had to step aside while Geithner was excused because, we were told, he was uniquely qualified for the job. He was the only man that could save the economy.
Now we are learning that besides being a tax cheat he is incompetent, he is two faced, and he is a liar. He has all of the bases covered. Other than that he is an upstanding man.
President Obama ordered GITMO to be closed. Much like everything else that he has done so far, he rushed this executive order without taking the time to see what repercussions there may be. In this case he ordered GITMO to be closed without bothering to figure out what to do with the people still being held there.
Many of these prisoners are not welcome in the country they are from and no other countries will take them. So there is only one place for them to be released– right here in the United States.
The first group of people that may be released into the US are 17 Chinese Muslim separatists, the United States picked up these people around Afghanistan and they have been held at GITMO but now they have no place to go, most likely they will be released onto the streets of America.
But it gets worse. How are these people supposed to live if they are let go on the streets? They will need money– our money.
Blair said the former prisoners would have [to] get some sort of assistance to start their new lives in the United States.
“We can’t put them out on the street,” he said.
These people were picked up on the battlefield fighting against Americans and labeled enemy combatants and now we are about to let them go free right here in the country that they were fighting against and we are going to give them welfare. What could possible go wrong?
The War on Terror is Over– at Least in Name
First we had the Obama administration decide to stop using the term “enemy combatant” to describe those who were captured on the battlefield fighting against us and who are currently being held at GITMO, then we had the head of Homeland Security say that instead of calling terrorist attacks terrorist attacks we would now call them “man caused disasters”, and now we have learned that the global war on terror is over, at least in name. Instead of the global war on terror we are now involved in the “‘Overseas Contingency Operation.”
We are seeing this administration taking the politically correct lexicon to a whole new level. We are doing everything possible to coddle these terrorists men who cause man-made disasters even as we send more soldiers to Afghanistan to fight them.
I think this does a huge disservice to our brave men and women who will be headed over there. I am tired of this humanization of these inhuman terrorists. Why does this administration feel that they have to validate these people? Why are they so afraid to offend our enemy?
These changes in the terms are not going to make them any less belligerent towards us, it is going to justify their belief that we are a paper tiger and show them we are weak.
In the book “1984” the government and the people used a term called newspeak to describe the language. The government would do one thing while doing the opposite, as an example they would cut down rations while telling everyone they were increasing them. They would then destroy all the books and print new ones so that the actions of the government were confirmed. That is kind of like what is going on here. We are fighting terrorists in a war, yet we no longer use those terms in the hope that the war will fade from people’s memory. Political correctness is nothing but a form of newspeak.
