http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011…-miscarriages/
If this passes, then women who use abortion as birth control will be thrown in jail.
The Source 96.3 FM & 1370 AM
By Dan
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011…-miscarriages/
If this passes, then women who use abortion as birth control will be thrown in jail.
By Dan
I can prove that Tax Cuts will get us out of our Economic mess. People need to be confident about the solution to this problem, so that when things fall apart, the Left cannot convince people to give up the Constitution "because freedom didn’t work blah blah blah". This proof will use common sense and logic, so many Left Wingers may not get it.
If the Government taxed everybody at 100%, how many people would actually go to work? Answer: Not very many, the Economy would collapse. We could expect few people to go to work. Government would bring in almost zero tax dollars, so the Government would collapse. There would be starving in the streets.
If the Government taxed everybody at 0%, how many people would actually go to work? Answer: Assuming law and order could be maintained, the Maximum number of people would be working. The Economy would be roaring. There would be jobs for EVERYBODY who wanted one, including the handicapped. People would have so much money, that taking care of people in need would be easy. Private charities would flourish. But, since the Government would once again be bringing in zero tax dollars, the Government would not be able to do its job of protecting the Individual from having their unalienable Rights violated. The Economy to be less than it could be, as people would have to deal with crime when they could have been producing.
Somewhere between 0% taxes and 100% taxes, is an percentage of taxes which would generate the maximum amount of money for the Government. This is the Point of Diminishing Returns.
If taxes go below the Point of Diminishing Returns, the Economy will do well as long as the Government has enough money to do its job of protecting one person from another. If Government is NOT providing things with Government Handouts, the maximum amount of people will be working, creating the maximum amount of Prosperity.
If taxes go above the Point of Diminishing Returns, the Economy will start to recede, causing Poverty to increase and Tax Revenues to go down faster than the tax increase should have increased revenues. The Government is going to far towards making people give up, causing the Government to get less tax revenue than it would if taxes were lowered. If taxes are increased enough above the Point of Diminishing Returns, a depression will occur like we are in danger of today.
The Point of Diminishing Returns has been calculated to be somewhere between 13% and 23%. This 13% to 23% range includes the total taxation on the Taxpayer when all of the taxes are added together, Federal, State, County, City, Sales Tax etc. etc. If the Government has Handout Programs, like Food Stamps, it lowers the Point of Diminishing Returns towards the 13%, number by making it easier for people to be non-productive. Currently in the united States, the average middle class person is being taxed WAY PAST the Point of Diminishing Returns, which means that if the Government needs more money, Taxes MUST be lowered so that the Economy will create more wealth. Since the Government has so many Handout Programs, the Point of Diminishing Returns probably is below 18%. This means that Federal Taxes need to be below 10% in order to leave something for State, County, City and other local taxes.
Why isn’t Congress making a big deal about taxation being past the Point of Diminishing Returns? Is it because they don’t know or believe it? To cut taxes in order to increase Government revenue, you would have to be somebody who believed in the Truth of Economic Laws and Human Nature. In other words, you would have to be Wise -> Wisdom.
Whether our current Economic Crises is due to Blind Greedy Ignorance or Malice, it is Self Imposed, Ridiculous, and Unnecessary, and we could turn it around today with a LARGE tax cut. :dance:
So what are we waiting for?
By Dan
Do they KNOW they are going to lose this one?
Why else would they attempt to silence Justice Thomas’ voice?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-an…_b_821444.html
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas must recuse himself immediately from any cases regarding the constitutionality of the health care reform law.
The Thomas household has profited from opposition to health care reform. His wife has already taken nearly $700,000 from health care opponents and now openly advertises herself as a crack lobbyist with the "experience and connections" to overturn the law of the land.
Yesterday, 75 of my House colleagues sent a letter to Justice Thomas calling on him to recuse himself from deliberations related to health care. Now I need your help to show Justice Thomas that we won’t accept a biased Supreme Court
By Dan
Consider an obvious contradiction.
The Congress of the united states once again overrun by progressives in the spirit of early 20th century progressives like Wilson passes a law mandating the reduction of the killer gas CO2. As a part of the statute they declare the executive must take illegal immigrants when caught and provide them as slave labor to construct windmills and solar farms to facilitate saving the planet. (unlikely as that may be… they could)
The new GOP President, a lover of freedom, liberty and individual rights, vetos. (as he can)
The liberal fascist congress then overrides his veto (as they can)
Is it now a law the President must enforce?
Obviously NOT, it is clearly unconstitutional and the President is bound by oathe (which you’ll find in the constitution) to defend the constitution, not legal nullities which are anethema to it.
The finding in marbury is that ALL departments, agencies and courts MUST consider laws which are anethema to the constituion as void. IOW a law which is anethema to the constitution is not and never was actually a law as the constitution itself nullifies them, not the courts. It does not say the departments and agencies should enforce legal nullities until a court tells them not to… it says to consider them void. Period.
Moving along, suppose some giant Krupp industries type corporation (GE perhaps) sues the federal government for the President’s failure to enforce the law which harms their business by not providing them with slaves to construct windmills and solar farms making them more competitive with evil big coal. Should the President and AG now defend the law? If so, the giant corporation wins by default. Obviously the answer is no, the President and AG should defend the constitution.
Suppose the district court rules in their favor because the district judge is an environmental whacko activists who cares more about propping up the green movement than he does the constitution (say Van Jones was appointed and thinks slave labor is every bit as good as prison labor – again, as unlikely as it seems its possible)
Should the President aquiesce and enforce the law until the case moves on? Obviously not, his duty is to the constitution, not the courts.
Suppose now the appelate court full of obamabots in the ninth circuit screws the pooch royally yet again and interprets the clause "except as punishment for crime" as justification for the statute and decides the law is a reasonable exercize of power under the clean air act to reduce the killer polutant CO2, completely ignoring the "cruel and inhuman" aspect and affirms the lower courts ruling.
Should the President now throw in the towel and enforce the law? No, not if he’s worth a ****.
Now the case goes to the SCOTUS which is over run by O’Fascialist Obama appointees in the mold of Kagan and Sotomayor who find it a reasonable exercize of governmental authority deciding that the real cruel and inhuman thing to do would be to leave these poor undocumented workers at the mercy of evil big business coporate executives who will take advantage of them by paying them less than scale, and that nanny state government is the best place to ensure their happiness, productivity, and contributions to society. They put in requirements like "no chaining after the shift is done, and lobster on fridays" to show how caring and benefficient we are.
Should the President now enforce the law?
Likely? No. Plausible? No. Possible under our system? Yes.
The Presidents duty is to the constitution, not to the courts. The courts duty is to the constitution not the law. It is not the courts which make laws unconstitutional, it is the constitution, and unconstitutional laws are unconstituional before the courts ever see them, and thus are "void" when written.
the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. |
Bound by the instrument, not the courts.
By Dan
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio…nd-ignores-law
Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department has targeted Gov. Bobby Jindal’s, R-La., administration as part of a rushed investigation into whether Louisiana is complying with federal voting laws. Undercover investigators have flooded the state to interview welfare recipients to determine if state welfare offices are urging them to register to vote. During a time when DOJ travel is purportedly frozen, these numerous DOJ staffers have been deployed for days in New Orleans and around Louisiana trolling for stories of state officials failing to urge welfare recipients to register to vote.
The DOJ will use the evidence collected from welfare recipients to support a lawsuit against Jindal’s administration under Section 7 of Motor Voter.
The "Motor Voter" law passed in 1993 contained an important congressional compromise. Welfare and motor vehicle agencies would serve as voter registration offices, while states would be obligated to conduct voter roll cleaning to purge ineligible felons and dead voters. The two provisions act together as counterparts.
The Obama administration has refused to enforce the voter list integrity provisions while making the welfare agency registration law their top priority.
By Dan
By Dan
I’d like to see State Legislation written (to go along with losing DD of paychecks) that docks Congressional pay and refunds it to taxpayers, when legislators miss a session. This should also stop premium payments for their life and health insurances, again to be refunded. If a legislator doesn’t work, he loses the perks.
By Dan
I guess this is what it is coming to. So instead of combat troops doing… you know…combat training? They will now be forced to get gay sensitivity training.
hahaha! Wow! How pathetic…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/…vity-training/
American combat troops will get sensitivity training directly on the battlefield about the military’s new policy on gays instead of waiting until they return to home base in the United States, the senior enlisted man in Afghanistan said Thursday. ——- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has ordered a detailed training regime to make sure both sides, homosexuals and heterosexuals, treat each other with respect. He has said gays will be able to declare their sexual preference openly before end of the year. |
This is pretty much to be expected I guess. Lets not try to fit in, lets try to make the whole system change to fit a few.
Coming soon a reality show about military life? Cameras on base documenting the harsh, hard life of a prancing private?
I am disgusted.
By Dan
http://biggovernment.com/publius/201…and-pigford-4/
n a Friday afternoon news-dump, US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and a representative of the Obama Justice Department announced a bombshell: the Obama administration has set up their own “streamlined process” for women and Hispanic farmers to collect damages from the federal government for alleged past discrimination.
And this is the source of the first Pigford farmers,there is no college.
http://biggovernment.com/lstranahan/…oyd-institute/
In testimony before a congressional committee in 2008, John Boyd introduced himself and said “I am Dr. John Boyd. I am President and founder of the National Black Farmers Association, which has more than 94,000 members in 46 states.”
In addition to my strong back in agriculture, I also founded the John Boyd Agricultural and Technology Institute to help educate farmers of all educational levels in order to fight illiteracy. To teach familiarity with and use of the internet, and much more. The program has assisted several thousand farmers and has been expanded to Denmark Technical College.
By Dan
The Rebirth of Badd