Minimum Wage increase by Republicans

Read about the Republican Minimum Wage bill here and the Democrat response.

Awesome Legislation!

Take me out to the Ballgame

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Congress has more important things to do besides investigate steroid use in Major League Baseball?

Lets look at some facts. Steroid use was neither illegal, nor banned from use in MLB during the time in question. Most of the players have not denied their use of steroids. Congress has many other issues of domestic and foreign interest to be concerned with.

With that said, I’ll start my discussion. I think the athletes involved were using steroids. I don’t think it was right, it sets a bad example for our kids. But they did nothing wrong. Basically they saved the game of baseball from the malaise suffered after the baseball strike. If it were not for the homerun derbies of McGuire and Bonds, only the hardcore fans would still be going to the games. What laws did they break? None! What MLB policies did they break? None! What basis does Congress have in the role of cleaning up baseball? NONE!!! There simply were no laws on the books banning these substances. Minor league players are tested for steroids I believe, but not in the Bigs. This is our tax money being spent so a few congressmen can say the met a couple of baseball superstars. This is a thinly veiled attempt at self gratification and justification of self importance. I want congress to go back to work for me. That means stay out of baseball. If baseball does not police themselves, then we as consumers can choose not to go to the games, or buy their caps and jerseys.

Morally though, my heart goes out to the young kid who starts taking steroids because he wants to be a big league player. He feels he has no option but to take the steroids just to compete “at the next level.” He messes up his life, and maybe he’s lucky and gets to play single A minor league ball for a couple of years before he gets cut from the team. He was hungry, too hungry for the dream of every little boy in America. The players in MLB have done nothing “wrong,” but they have done everything wrong, because at one time they too were that little boy.

I want congress to go back to doing what they are supposed to do. And that is providing for the common defense, general welfare, and domestic tranquility of our great nation.

Little known and less cared about facts

There are 400 million cups of coffee consumed in the U.S. every day.

 

Coconut oil melts at a temperature of 76 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

Help Save the Planet

It has been determined that the soot from cooking fires is the largest source of black carbon in the atmosphere in Asia. Everyone should now quit cooking for the sake of the planet. But that's OK. When you cook vegetables, they lose most of their nutrients anyway. As everyone knows, red meat is bad for the body. Fish can be eaten raw, hello sushi bar. Why do we really need to cook anyway. Read the article here.

In light of this new research, I think we should petition the UN to pass a new international law banning all cooking of food for humans (and domestic cats). After all, it is not nessessary, and it will help save the planet. Nevermind that climate change has been happening since the creation of the planet. This is serious! We must do everything we can to quit cooking. Our practices are killing the planet.

Our new non-cooking culture will produce some unemployment at first. Restaurant workers will be out of a job. However we can use this as an excuse to grow government. These people can be retrained as food police officers to enforce the new laws for the UN. This is but one step toward the eutopia we all want, but it is an important step and we must act now to save the planet. By the way, it's obvious this is all W's fault.

Global Flyer, Salina Tower, You are cleared to land on runway 35, Welcome Home

Ken Fossett is the new world record holder for non-stop circumnavigation of the globe in an airplane. He landed safely in Salina Kansas after 67 hours in a single engine airplane. Read about it here.

Cha...Cha...Cha...Changes

I am announcing today that soon I will be changing the Title for my blog. I felt I needed to warn my loyal fans and readers (both of them). I'm still tossing around ideas for a new one, but the thoughts are becoming more concrete. First of all, I must admit I ripped off the title from a good friend who uses "Echoes from an Empty Mind" as the heading to really soul bearing emails and letters. I liked it and used it. Today he tells me that he is collecting several of his writtings and may be publishing a book by the same title. Soooooo, to keep me from having to sue him for copywrite infringement or something when the book comes out and he becomes famous, I will be changing the title. Keep reading the blog and I will let you know when the book will be available. I will also provide a permanent link so you can get the book from me at a highly marked up premium (Just kidding).

On the Soapbox......

According to a survey I saw, (Read it Here), 8 out of 10 (OK so it is 76%) citizens think the 10 commandments should be allowed to be displayed in public places such as court houses and other governments buildings. Yet that is a major political debate. You can't get 8 out of 10 people to agree on what they want for dinner! But somehow the Supreme Court must decide this for us. Something is wrong. The first amendment does not forbid religious expression in public, it simply does not allow the government to pass laws establishing an official state religion or forbidding the free expression of that religion. Yet that is exactly what this does. So much for a nation being founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

It reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Next Subject:

The Supremes ruled yesterday that it is unconstitutional to execute criminals who committed their crimes while under 18. The majority opinion cited that it is not in line with international law, specifically the United Nations to carry out these executions. I think the punishment should be available for the crimes it fits. Let the criminal court and the jury decide. Isn't that why they exist. This is going down the same "politically correct" road as zero tolerance for drugs in the public schools. Now we have students getting expelled for having asperin in their car or locker. What a joke!

Maybe it's just me, but I DO NOT want the United Nations dictating our federal policy to us. What ever happened to the Supreme Court interpreting the US Constitution and other "founding documents" of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA! Not the U.N.

And He's Off

Fossett launches flight attempt

Today could be an historic day

There is plenty of gloomy stuff to think about today. I don't want to. I am going to look at a more optimistic event that is unfolding.

In 1933, Wiley Post became the first person to fly solo around the world. It took him many stops for fuel in a journey that took him 7 days.

This afternoon, Steve Fossett hopes to take off from Salina Kansas to become the first person to fly non-stop around the world. This will be just one of the seven world records he is attempting. One of the others will be the longest flight by a jet aircraft. The current record was set in 1963 by a B-52 that flew 12,000 miles.

How do I tie this to politics and current events that affect you and me? First of all, it is my blog, I'll do it just to humor myself. Second, The research that goes into these flights almost always go towards new discoveries or developments in human physiology that help us to better understand our own bodies, or increase the efficiency of jet engines. It may be a few years, but the men involved in this journey are pushing the envelope of technology that will make jet engines and airframes (airliners and military aircraft) cheaper to operate, not to mention other types of engines and electronics.

Now to tie in the politics. They do this without government funding! This is a privatized venture. Private industry is doing this without government interference. I'll drop the thought there for now. I just want you to think about what is possible when the government stays out of research and developement of this industry because it applies to other industries as well.

Have a wonderful day, and say a prayer for Mr Fossett's safety.

Legal Brief: Man Can Sue Over Surprise Pregnancy

Another example of how our court system is being clogged up by people who think they deserve something despite their own irresponsible actions.

 

An appeals court said a man can press a claim for emotional distress after learning a former lover had used his sperm to have a baby. But he can't claim theft, the ruling said, because the sperm were hers to keep.

The ruling Wednesday by the Illinois Appellate Court sends Dr. Richard O. Phillips' distress case back to trial court.

Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a "calculated, profound personal betrayal" after their affair six years ago, saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant.

He said he didn't find out about the child for nearly two years, when Irons filed a paternity lawsuit. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the father, the court papers state.

Phillips was ordered to pay about $800 a month in child support, said Irons' attorney, Enrico Mirabelli.

Phillips sued Irons, claiming he has had trouble sleeping and eating and has been haunted by "feelings of being trapped in a nightmare," court papers state.

Irons responded that her alleged actions weren't "truly extreme and outrageous" and that Phillips' pain wasn't bad enough to merit a lawsuit. The circuit court agreed and dismissed Phillips' lawsuit in 2003.

But the higher court ruled that, if Phillips' story is true, Irons "deceitfully engaged in sexual acts, which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy, to use plaintiff's sperm in an unorthodox, unanticipated manner yielding extreme consequences."

The judges backed the lower court decision to dismiss the fraud and theft claims, agreeing with Irons that she didn't steal the sperm.

"She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift — an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee," the decision said. "There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."

 

Freaky Friday cont.

I guess the PETA people won this one.  It’s a shame that there is so much political correctness out there.  Oh Well, I guess they convinced someone they had a point.  Read the story here

Freaky Friday

On the lighter side of life, PETA is upset again. Read this for a good laugh:

Kraft draws ire for road kill candy
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) ― Animal rights activists are disgusted by a new candy from Kraft Foods Inc. that's shaped like critters run over by cars ― complete with tire treads.

The fruity-flavored Trolli Road Kill Gummi Candy ― in shapes of partly flattened snakes, chickens and squirrels ― fosters cruelty toward animals, according to the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

"It sends the wrong message to children, that it's OK to harm animals. And that's the wrong message, especially from a so-called wholesome corporation like Kraft," said society spokesman Matthew Stanton.

The society is considering petition drives, boycotts and letter-writing campaigns to get the candy pulled from the market, Stanton said.

After receiving a complaint from the NJSPCA Wednesday, Kraft officials pulled an animated advertisement from Trolli's Web site that featured car headlights and animals. No other decisions on changes have been made, said Kraft spokesman Larry Baumann.

"If you look across the Gummi category we certainly have many products that are offbeat, and that's what we were doing in this case," Baumann said. "We didn't mean to offend anyone."

Quotes of the Day, a continuing study

The point to remember is that what government gives it must first take away. John Strider Coleman, 1897-1958

A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective. Sun-tzu, forth century B.C.

No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition. Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, 1804-1881

The world of politics is always twenty years behind the world of thought. John Jay Chapman, 1862-1933

A liberal is a man who will give away everything he doesn't own. Frank Dane

Remembering World Travels

One of the many memories I have from my world travels as a Marine center on a Serbian soldier I shared a beer with in an open air bar in Thailand in 1994 during Operation Cobra Gold. We talked a while about our individual duties, where we had been, and the camaraderie that members of all the worlds armed forces seem to share when they aren't scuffling with one another.

He then struck me with a question I could not answer. I have given it much thought since then, and am struggling with the answer more today. He asked me..."You are from America, which is a Christian country, My people are also Christians, so why are your people bombing my people? Aren't we all Christians? They are just Muslims!"

Granted Milosevic is guilty of ethnic cleansing and other atrocities, but given the world events over the last 3 1/2 years, wouldn't most Americans now agree with my Serbian friend (not Milosevic). Were we on the wrong side in Bosnia? I used to think that we were indeed on the right side because it was unjust for one group of people to try to wipe out another just because they are different. I am now thinking that maybe it was the Muslims who "started it" and it was the Christians who had finally gotten the upper hand and were trying to just win their own war, which in a round about way has become the "Global War on Terrorism". Maybe Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Congress and about half of the American Public won't admit it, but we are in a holy war. No one will admit it because it is not politically correct, but everyone knows it deep down inside.

Let the Felons Vote?

Hillery Clinton wants felons to vote read the story here.
I don't know why this catches me off guard. It only makes sense for someone like Hillery to propose this idea.

Felons committed a serious crime. Once that line is crossed, they lose certain rights for the rest of their lives. These rights include possessing a firearm and voting. Most states (if not all) also forbid a felon from owning real estate.

This is just more evidence that the Democrats are losing their grip on reality. I guess they no longer feel they can win a national election using only honest people and empty lots in Chicago.

Local Newspaper threatens Blogger....A must read for all political and current issue bloggers

February 15, 2005

Whirled threatens BatesLine

NOTE to those of you who normally skip the Tulsa stuff here: Please read this entry. This is not just about the sordid little world of Tulsa politics. This is the old media trying to intimidate their critics in the new media into silence. It has repercussions for any blogger engaged in media criticism. It strikes at the heart of what blogs do. I'd appreciate your help in putting the blogosphere's spotlight of shame on this legal threat.

Full Story here..http://www.batesline.com/archives/001274.html
also see...http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001521.htm

Quote of the Day

"It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government." --Joseph Story

"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States." --George Washington

What Social Security Crisis

In 1935, wealthy liberal do-gooder Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the most notorious violator of Constitutional federalism in the 20th Century, found a clause in that venerable document authorizing the central government to provide retirement benefits for all Americans. Apparently, 100 years earlier, that clause did not exist. So claimed another Democrat, Tennessee's Davy Crockett, who rose on the floor of Congress and chastised his colleagues for their proposal to appropriate benefits for the widow of a distinguished naval officer.

Crockett protested: "I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we...have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity."

Crockett was echoing the words of our Constitution's author, James Madison, who said, most eloquently, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." Madison further noted, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

However, those words were long lost on FDR, who eviscerated federalism in his relentless endeavor to make the central government the agent of salvation for all ills. In June of 1934, he announced to Congress one lasting example of that endeavor -- his intent to create a nationalized Social Security program, ushering the United States into the ranks of Europe's welfare democracies. The nation was in the midst of the Great Depression, and FDR was funding his political dynasty by redistributing wealth. After all, as noted by George Bernard Shaw, "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul." FDR's plan, like all unbridled populist-entitlement programs, was popular with the democratic majority -- and helped ensure his re-election to office three times.

Social Security's first beneficiary was Ernest Ackerman of Cleveland, Ohio, who retired one day after the Social Security Act was signed into law 14 August 1935. A nickel was withheld from Ackerman's final paycheck, but he received his one-time lump-sum Social Security payment ... 17 cents.

That 12-cent return was the beginning of unforeseen things to come. Soon, congressional amendments added benefits for spouses, minor children and survivors, and by 1950 the program assured virtually universal coverage. 1972 saw the addition of the Supplemental Security Income

(SSI) program (AKA "welfare"), and by 1975 the addition of annual Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) assured the SS juggernaut's exponential growth. In 1977, Medicare became an independent entitlement, spun off from the Social Security system. Today, despite its humble beginnings, the Social Security system confronts our young people with the grim prospect of paying for unfunded promises made to past generations.

Notwithstanding the "welfare reform" acts of the 1990s, when Social Security turned 65, SSI benefits covered 6,688,489 Americans at a cost of $32,165,856,000, while Social Security itself disbursed some $431,949,000,000 to 45,877,506 beneficiaries. However, those staggering numbers are mere chump change compared to what lies ahead.

President George W. Bush's modest proposal to reform Social Security appears to be a good start at diverting this behemoth from its collision course with insolvency. Predictably, though, the latest retort from the Left is, "What insolvency? What crisis?" Indeed, these do-nothing Demos claim the Fed's IOUs in Social Security's so-called "trust fund,"

combined with minor tweaks to the system, will keep it solvent for generations.

Well, not exactly. Unless Democrats plan to "tweak" the system by increasing both the retirement age and the current 12.4% SS tax, adding more government debt and reducing benefits, Social Security will not have the revenues to refund current IOUs and meet the SS revenue shortfall. IOUs? For generations, every dime forcibly taken from worker paychecks -- ostensibly to finance the non-existent SS "trust fund" -- has been taken from that fund and applied to other massive entitlement programs.

Social Security outlays now consume 4.28 percent of GDP but will exceed 6 percent in 20 years. There are two reasons for this growth:

demographics and benefits increases.

There are 48 million Social Security beneficiaries today, but in 2030 there will be 84 million. In 1950, there were 16 SS taxpayers for every recipient. Now there are only 3.3 taxpayers for every recipient, and that will be reduced 30 percent by 2030. Additionally, when SSI was formed, life-expectancy was 61 years, which is to say, most Americans did not make it to 65. Now, however, average life expectancy is 77.

The second reason for the SSI balloon is that benefits have not been indexed to inflation. Future retirees are being guaranteed retirement increases that grow substantially faster than inflation.

Social Security, as currently managed, will incur an estimated unfunded liability of 27 trillion 2003 dollars over the next 75 years. To offset this jaw-slackening shortfall, President Bush has proposed the incremental privatization of some SSI taxes by allowing individuals under age 55 to invest in personal retirement accounts (PRAs). Additionally, Congress must resolve to index benefits to inflation.

The President's three-year PRA opt-in for SSI taxpayers born after 1950 would allow them to put up to four percent of their wages in their PRAs. At retirement, those invested in PRAs would be guaranteed to receive at least what their payout would be if they only had SSI income. But those beneficiaries whose PRAs have a higher return can share in that return, which reduces the burden on the SSI fund, and the principal balance is fully inheritable.

from The Federalist

More Quotes of the Day

·Bumper sticker of the year: "If you can read this, thank a teacher -and, since it's in English, thank a Marine !!"

"[I]n 1848, Karl Marx said, a progressive income tax is needed to transfer wealth and power to the state. Thus, Marx's Communist Manifesto had as its major economic tenet a progressive income tax. ... I say it is time to replace the progressive income tax with a national retail sales tax, and it is time to abolish the IRS." --Rep. James Traficant, Jr.

"President Bush...release[d] his 2006 budget, requesting slightly more than $2.5 trillion in spending. That's $2,500,000,000,000. If a Democrat proposed a budget this big, Republican fiscal hawks would squawk to the top of the Capitol dome." --Stephen Moore ++

"A Republican president sits in the White House. The GOP enjoys clear majorities in both houses of Congress. If now isn't the time to control federal spending, when will it be?" --John Fund

"Social Security should be phased out and ended altogether. ... Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating, not how to save Social Security, but how to end it -- how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own futures." --Alex Epstein

"[I]f the party of gloom is ever to regain its footing, it will have to start by understanding that those who defeated them are not a bunch of ignorant yahoos looking forward to Armageddon." --Mona Charen

"Iraq's real Minutemen in the vanguard of popular revolt are the Iraqi voters whose actions said 'give me liberty,' despite the threats of reactionary thugs who promised to give them death." --Austin Bay

"This President well understands the war for Iraq, and for the Middle East, is fought not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but here, on the home front. This is a war not just for Iraqi freedom but for American opinion." --Paul Greenberg

From "The Federalist"

Quotes of the day

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." --Nikita Khrushchev

 

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."--Norman Thomas

 

"Of all the properties which belong to honorable men, not one is so highly prized as that of character." --Henry Clay

 

"The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think." --Aristotle