Wow. With a name like Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorist Act (H.R. 720) who would be opposed right? I mean, is there an act to deny firearms and explosives to peaceful or philanthropic terrorists and the dangerous ones were just slipping through the cracks? Or maybe dangerous terrorists were only denied explosives before and now we need to close the firearms to dangerous terrorists loophole or something.
This bill has been submitted about every other year since 2007 and it’s suffered an anonymous death each time for good reason. But, CJ, how can you be against a bill denying these weapons of mass destruction to people who just want to kill us infidels?!
Here’s the problem, the bill is meant to disarm pretty much anyone the Attorney General wants to designate as a terrorist.
‘The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm…if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’ (emphasis mine)
Well, who exactly determines whether someone is “preparing for” an act of terrorism? It would seem that an extremist like Eric Holder would easily deem a patriot “stockpiling” (re: legally purchasing) thousands of rounds of ammunition. Maybe someone that purchases more weapons than the administration is comfortable with one person having may be doing something “related to terrorism.”
To fully understand how this bill could legally target any American the authoritarian Marxists in power deems not worthy of having access to weapons, one first needs to understand how the federal government defines “terrorism” legally. Chapter 44, Section 921 of the United States Code provides those broad definitions.
The term “terrorism” means “activity, directed against United States persons, which (A) is committed by an individual who is not a national or permanent resident alien of the United States; (B) involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States; and (C) is intended (1)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (3) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.” (emphasis mine)
“But, CJ, according to what you just quoted this doesn’t apply to American citizens. It says right there in (A).”
Oh, yes, that is why this act adds to the definition.
(3) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:
‘(36) The term ‘terrorism’ means ‘international terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(1), and ‘domestic terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(5).
There. Fixed that little quirk, didn’t they? As a matter of fact, H.R. 720 adds in “or if the Attorney General has determined” into just about every paragraph of Section 922, which defines “unlawful acts.”
H.R. 720 is nothing more than a centralization of power within the Executive Branch. This bill has been been introduced every opportunity by the rogues gallery of Marxist power grabbers in the Democrat Party since taking office including, but not limited to, Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Peter King (D-NY), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Jim Moran (D-VA), and James McGovern (D-MA). There’s even an identical bill in the Senate also supported by the rogues gallery of Marxist senators like Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ), Chuckie Schumer (D-NY), and of course, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). With people like that supporting these bills why should anyone doubt the true intent behind this legislation? They will stoop to any level to seize power and keep guns out of the hands of anyone they can under any auspices they can conjure up in their black magic war rooms.
Don’t fall for cleverly worded bills. READ THEM!!
Having said all this, neither bill really stands any chance of passing, but it’s important that the American people understand how our government is attempting to usurp authority from the American people and centralize it into the hands of as few people as possible. And if I don’t tell you about it, how will you ever know?
Oh, while I’m on the subject of bills in the Senate, I need to mention the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 (S. 54).
Do you like Cuomo’s semi-auto gun ban? D.C.’s microstamping requirement? Rahm Emaunuel’s licensure laws?
The Senate is about to vote to make all of these into federal crimes, turning gun-owning Americans into prohibited persons — meaning they would NOT be able to own a firearm anywhere in the country!
We have talked about some of the problems with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy’s gun “trafficking” bill. Leahy apparently thinks that, if he puts a shiny label on the bill, he can ban as many guns as he wants.
But, at its core, S. 54 would make it a federal crime to violate virtually any state gun law. Section 5 creates a new “prohibited person” classification which makes it a federal crime to transfer a gun if “prohibited by State or local law…from possessing [or] selling…THE firearm or ammunition.”
Note the use of the word “the.” We’re not talking about a person who’s banned from owning ANY firearm. We’re talking about a person who’s prohibited by ANY state law from possessing a PARTICULAR firearm, regardless of where the crime took place.
So do you like Andrew Cuomo’s massive gun ban? He bans more types of guns than would Feinstein’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. Yet under S. 54, transferring a firearm banned by Cuomo becomes a federal crime, punishable by ten years in a federal prison — at least for New York residents and possibly for others.
So you like gun licensure? A person who doesn’t have a license in New York and Illinois is also “prohibited by State … law … from possessing [or] selling … the firearm.” This becomes a federal crime.
Do you agree with D.C.’s efforts to ban firearms by imposing a microstamping requirement? Transferring a non-microstamped firearm would become a FEDERAL crime under S. 54 — at least for D.C. residents and maybe others.
By voting for S. 54, your senator will be making guns banned by Andrew Cuomo’s expansive law into federally banned guns, as well. He will be saying, “I like every word of gun control which Rahm Emanuel is pushing.”
By the way, Senator Leahy is trying to sell S. 54 as a supposed crackdown on gun traffickers. But there’s not one word in this bill that would punish (or prevent) what happened in Fast & Furious, where our government helped send thousands of illegal guns south of the border, resulting in the murders of hundreds of Mexicans and at least one federal agent. In fact, it appears that the federal government wants to be the only game in town when it comes to passing along weapons to criminals and gangs. Reminds me a bumper sticker my dad has on his truck: “Don’t steal – the government hates competition.” Only the new bumper sticker would read: “Don’t sell guns to criminals – the government hates competition.”
Moreover, it’s already illegal to traffic in firearms. It’s illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited person according to Section 922 that I quoted earlier. It’s illegal to serve as a straw man under the same section. It’s illegal to sell a bunch of guns without a license under Section 922. But that’s not what S. 54 is about. The one thing S. 54 would do is to make anti-gun bans being passed by every anti-gun state into federal crimes as well. Is that what you want?
The concept of Benevolent Terrorism is intriguing. Like the man who tells the world, Americans have a Constitutional right to be stupid, and giving 60 million in non-lethal aid to rebels in Syria, 10,000 of whom are al Qaeda operatives, in the final hours before Sequestration. Kerry and Obama manage this in one of the few countries in the ME where Muslin and Christians have lived in harmony, but has the rebels imposing Sharia Law in the areas they control.
Why should we assume these same politicians don’t have our welfare in mind as they use chicanery to control weaponry in the hands of law-biding Americans.
CJ
hi,
but, to intimidate or coherce a civilian population,
to influence a policy of a GOVERNMENT, BY INTIMIDATION OR COHERCION,
THIS IS WHAT OBAMA DID WITH HIS PUBLIC GLOOM AND DOOM THREATS TO INTIMIDATE
THIS CIVILIAN POPULATION,
I thought it was a terrorist action all along repeated by his DEMOCRATS ON PUBLIC STAGES
AND MEDIAS,
HOW COME THEY ARE GETTING AWAY WITH IT ?
IS IN THERE A FBI ANYMORE, OR A CIA? OR A MILITARY FORCE TO SHUT THE WHITE HOUSE,
AND ARREST THE TERRORIST INSIDE THIS AMERICA,
WHO CAN THE CITIZENS TURN TO SO TO GET JUSTICE, AND JUSTICE IS NEEDED,
AS IT NEVER DID BEFORE,
SOME PRESIDENT WHERE IMPEACH FOR LESS MUCH LESS.
bees,
Ann Barnhardt is correct when she refers to this nation as the FORMER United States of America.
http://barnhardt.biz
JDR-Taq
thank you for the link, I did read and like it,
it’s a subject we don’t encounter too often,
and yet it’s about the most important word for the basic conduct of one.
the word TRUTH, EVEN IF SHE IS INCREDIBLE AT TIMES, SHE WILL SUCCEED
TO ENTER THE MIND , IF THE ONE IS KNOWN AT A TRUTH SEEKER,
BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY LIES AROUND US,
IT TAKE A PROFOUND WELL ADJUSTED JUDGEMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE ONE THRUTH COMING ALONG A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF LIES,
BEST TO YOU,
and I think we will someday save AMERICA, EVEN IF IT REQUIRE DO IT THE HARD WAY,
I refer to ANN BARNARD WORDS, I did like about AMERICA. SAYING THE IGNORANT
SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE, I believe strongly on that,
bye
Did Peter King actually switch parties? The article shows him as a Democrat
@howiem: In name, King is a Republican. However, he loves to threaten to switch parties when he doesn’t get his RINO way so I dubbed him a Democrat for posterity sake and to make his transition much smoother for him.
Welcome to the United Secure States of America. The USSA.
Hope you’re prepared for a long stay.
Petercat
hi,
good that we have us to cheer ourselves, we will not give up,
we are too strong, and you all are too smart for getting down
on the sequester, sequestring the sequestration,
we will sequester him ourselves using the sequestronomic tool,
just arrive on the market,
how dare he cut the MILITARY ASSET THEY USED DURING THE WAR, PLANES AND OTHER
VERY NEEDED WEAPONS, THERE IS SOME VERY HIGH RANK KNOWLEDGEBLE MILITARY WHO HAVE ENOUGH OF HIM,
bye
If people are preparing for the overthrow of the USA, and for the crowning of obama as their king, and there are still patriots who want to keep America free, and they are preparing to defend their freedoms, is that considered “act of terrorism?”
@CJ:
Cj, thanks. I suspected something like that. On the other hand, given that he is a politician, he probably lied to get something.
@Smorgasbord:
Since the DC bimbo crowd calls terrorists “freedom fighters”, it is only to be expected that they would call real freedom fighters “terrorists” – and that means YOU. me, veterans, retirees from military service and anyone else who does not agree with them. regardless of label. See http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2009/04/19/Official–Dissent-Now-Unpatriotic
And see this disgusting document from a prof at West Point http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/challengersfromthesidelines.pdf which accuses free Americans American of being a terrorist threat.
he problem has long been labels. When the Totalitarians use ‘right wing’, they are implying that those who want to be free are equated with Fascists, but Fascism is just another form of totalitarianism, like socialism. communism, progressivism, Marxism, Statism, etc.
We have been using the wrong labels for so long that we have forgotten who we are.
The left-right concept should be shown as:
Totalitarianism——-Freedom——-Anarchy, which still puts evil on the left.and right, but it dispells any notions that Freedom is extremist.
howiem
THANK YOU,
NOTHING TO ADD, YOU SAID IT ALL,
MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THOSE
WHO WANT TO DESTROY HER,
OUT OF HATE AND REVENGE FOR THEIR OWN MISERABLE LIFE THEY SET THEMSELVES IN,
BY BLAMING AMERICA, TOO BEAUTIFUL FOR THEM TO BARE IN THEIR DARKNESS,
@howiem: #11
I’m not very good at history, but if you look at what is going on in our government now with an open mind, you see a lot of the stuff going on that led up to different countries turning into dictatorships of some kind. I have mentioned different times to imagine that congress and the white house have been infiltrated, with the objective of turning the USA into a non-free country. What would the president and members of congress do to try to bring it down? Compare that to what is going on now. If a person has an open mind about it, how can they not see that that is what is going on now? There are still a lot of frogs sitting in the pan.
@Smorgasbord:
I have lived though a lot of that history you are referring to, and am well aware of what is happening in our government, and how it is trying to destroy individual freedom, responsibility and accountability by painting those who want to be free individuals as right wing extremists, which is why I made my point. Perhaps my analogy would have been more clear if I had amplified on the left-right spectrum. I used this:
Totalitarianism………………..Freedom…………..Anarchy
but perhaps I should have used this:
Total Government Control…….Freedom (limited) ……..No control.
Total Government Control: If you are on the left side, it means that you are in favor of a country in which people are encouraged to be irresponsible, lazy and totally dependent on government and accountable only to their government masters. In other words they want to be (or don’t understand that they will be) slaves of the state.
Freedom (limited): This means that a country has a government that is limited in its power over the people, like the USA when it was founded. You cannot have a country in which everyone is totally free (anarchy), because for one thing there would be no countries without any laws or rules at all. Total freedom includes the freedom to murder, steal and otherwise inflict harm on other people without penalty. The Rule of Law is a limitation of total freedom, because laws take away freedom to some degree.
No control: This is Anarchy. Picture huge masses of people living on various pieces of land with no rules at all. They could murder each other as they pleased and would only have to fear retaliation, not the law, because there would be no law. You could freely steal food from your neighbors and if they didn’t kill you immediately, you might survive to see another day of fear. There are no laws, rules or regulations, and no controls. People are totally free to inflict harm on others. With no self control it becomes chaos. It is only the willingness to live under the Rule of Law that prevents anarchy.
The media has long been guilty of putting false labels on people. Conservatives claim to understand freedom, but the conservative media continues to call totalitarians “liberals”. There is absolutely nothing “liberal” about government control. What is “liberal” about being a totalitarian? To be truly liberal one must believe in freedom of the individual, but under the Rule of Law. So those we label “liberals” are really totalitarians. In many respects the conservative media is worse than the totalitarian media (aka MSM) because is writers deliberately continue to mis-use the “liberal” label (could this be because they think that readers are too dumb to understand anything else?).
Educators, parents and voters: Over time educators have failed in their responsibilities to educate their children n the meaning and means of preserving their freedom.
This is why the voters make such bad choices….over and over and over again. Far too many do not vote rationally. They vote based on appearance, sounds and promises. But elections show that the voters are often clueless about what the elections are really about. What they are really about is the preservation of economic freedom, a rarely used term these days.
I live in a country (not the USA) where a very wise king once said (paraphrased for brevity), “In the rivers there are fish, in the fields there is rice….whoever wishes to trade may trade….” That once described the United States,….once upon a time.
@howiem: #14
I think you watched the same segment of Beck as I did. One problem I have is that I don’t remember the definitions of words very well. That’s probably why I don’t remember people’s names very well either. As long as I remember the basics, I figure I’ll be OK.
@Smorgasbord:
No, I have not watched Beck in a few years, and no longer get Fox News where I live, although I used to and liked it. But I have studied the great books on freedom, like Thomas Sowell’s Basic economics, Bastiat’s “The Law”, Hayek, Mises, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, and many more. If I were to put a label on myself, I would call myself a conservative classic liberal, meaning that I believe in individual economic freedom, free (or more apt, less encumbered markets – there are no more truly free markets of any significance because of government policies), the Rule of Law, being responsible for my own actions, etc.
What I am seeing is that we seem to have no ability to think things through. For example when we listen to a politician we have trouble thinking through what they said. It is sort of like a recent Pelosi rant in which she says that giving money to the unemployed will help the economy. Far too many people would accept what she says at face value. Why not? After all, it is partially true. If you give people money to spend it will give the economy a boost. But thinking it through, if if we can help the economy by giving money to the unemployed, then why not close up all businesses, make everyone unemployed and print money to give them so they can go shopping? Sounds good, right? What Pelosi would not tell you is that if everyone is unemployed (someone’s idea of utopia), there will be a small problem. If there is no one to produce, there will be no goods to buy with that money. So before production stops the government will have to learn how to print edible money.
Henry Hazlitt probably said it best in his book “Economics in one lesson”,
“Economics really means to look at both the short term and long term impacts of an act or policy AND being able to trace the impacts of the act or policy on all groups, not just one or two. ”
Who are the impacted groups that Pelosi did not talk about? What are some likely long term impacts? And never forget that there are always unintended consequences, sometimes beneficial and harmful.
@howiem: #16
I mentioned that you must have watched the same segment on Beck that I did, because he gave the same example. Left or right of the line we are not free.
I call myself a neutralist because I have to have a lot of information when I learn something new. I try not to decide one way or the other until I have all the facts I think I need. I have enough facts about the republican party that they have realized that letting the illegals in is working for the democrats, so they are for illegals too. They also are anti gay, and it took me many years to figure out that if a person has to CHOOSE to be gay, then they have to CHOOSE to be straight. You can’t have one way a choice, and the other way natural.
This is also a major reason I am not a church goer. Why is a person a sinner just because they were BORN gay. I have asked religious people to tell me if the babies who are born both male and female are sinners. They didn’t CHOOSE to have all the male and female parts, but they are sinners because they do. I am told this is where the cross dressers come from. I accept them as they are, and we all should.
I have heard of too many schools that graduate kids from high school who can’t fill out a job application because they don’t understand the questions. This is what a lot of the politicians want the schools to graduate so the student will be dependent on the government for support. I’m not very good at very many things, but have gotten very good at figuring out what a politician is saying. If I can’t understand what a politician is saying, I know it ain’t any good for me, or they would say it in a way that is easy to understand.
@Smorgasbord:
I don’t remember specifically where I got the ideas for my left-right concept, probably from Hayek, but I do know it was long before I ever heard of Beck, whom I admire for his wok in trying to educate people on the meaning of freedom.
As far as I am concerned, the main purpose of sex and marriage is to propagate the species. Anything else is irrelevant, regardless of whether it is fun or satisfying or both. Gays cannot propagate the species, therefore they should not get special unearned benefits on the taxpayer’s dime (neither should anyone else). Otherwise they can do as they please as long as they don’t interfere in the lives of others who are not interested in their way of life. Looking at it another way, if we abort the species out of existence, that will solve all of mankind’s prob lame.
You are right that the American education system is a disaster, but isn’t that because instead of teaching people how to think the schools are teaching them what to think? When is the last time a 10 year old saved the planet? There are very few schools that teach that you cannot have political freedom without economic freedom. But those are two extremely critical areas in which we need to be knowledgeable or we will not see what is happening to us.
Also please don’t generalize. All republicans do not want to give amnesty. A few Republicans are politicians, but only a very few politicians are Republicans.
How can anyone explain that despite congress having about a 14% approval rating at best (some reports say as low as 6%), the American voter keeps reelecting for the most part the same people. When parents don’t, won’t or can’t give their children the right guidance and teach them to open their mind; when the parents cannot give any oversight to the education their children are getting because the government has co opted the entire education system, what in the world would lead us to believe that the children can fill out a simple form correctly?
The reason politicians seem to say things in a complicated way is because far toio many of them are lawyers, and the duty of lawyers, I have been told, is to win. And when the lawyer-politicians win, we the people lose.
@Smorgasbord: @howiem:
Sorry, but I think Beck’s analysis is wrong, therefore I gotta disagree with howiem as well. In my opinion, it is more like this;
Total Anarchy—–Freedom and liberty as————————————————-Statism
the founders envisioned
Total anarchy is easily defined, as in no governmental control, nor governmental presence of any kind, with everyone doing whatever they wish, no matter if they violate other’s rights or not. This is not the “small government” that conservatives and classical liberals, as well as libertarians, wish. Even our founders knew that some government amongst the people must be necessary, in order to be an arbiter amongst the people, and provide for that which the individual and States could not, such as defense.
On the line between total anarchy and statism, or dictatorship, are several points. The point that the founders envisioned was closer to the total anarchy point, as it allows the most freedom and liberty for individuals, which is the entire purpose the Revolutionary war was fought. The road from that point, to statism, is the progressive road. However, it is not a completely straight line. It could arc above that point, using Fascism, for example, or below that line, using socialism, but both of those end up with a complete control by the government over the people.
The only real dispute that I see between the left of today, that is full of progressives, and the Establishment GOP, full of progressives as well, is who will be in charge when it gets to that far right point, and whose method of control will take us there. Either way, they both are bad, at least for freedom and liberty loving people.
howiem, to answer this question of yours;
It is because those surveys are asked of a people that routinely believe that their own congressperson is doing ok. Hence, when they deride Congress, as a whole, they still believe that their congressperson isn’t the one to blame, and sometimes they feel that Congress would be much worse off without their congressperson present and able to “moderate” what happens. Even those on the “right” are afflicted with this disease, hence they continue to vote in people like Boehner, overhwhelmingly, even though Boehner, as a Republican, is worthless when it comes to doing anything to stop the march towards statism.
@johngalt:
The only difference I can see is that you put Anarchy on the left and I put it on the right (see No Control in my earlier post) . This is the problem with the left-right thinking. I used Totalitarianism and you used Statism. Totalitarianism covers all ideologies that advocate total government control. So does Statism. Included in that group are socialism, fascism, etc. They are all the absence of individual economic freedom. Try reading “The Road to Serfdom” which analyzes politics in terms of economic freedom. The gist of the book is that in the end all forms of government control iof allowed to increase will result in slavery, so one term can fit all.
As for why people keep re-electing the same people that are destroying freedom, you are probably right that they think their congressmen are OK but that only proves how really dumb the electorate is.
As for Boehner, one man in a congress can only make a difference if he is the deciding vote. The GOP does not control the WH or the Senate. I have heard people yelling for spending cuts and when they happen those people are among the first group to scream. Boehner is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is the voters. the parents, the educators, and the conservatives who have allowed the Statists to get away with it….but I repeat myself…they are all voters.
@howiem:
I agree completely. I am trying to discuss political issues less and less using the left/right monikers to describe the players. It is difficult, but much more accurate, in explaining why something is wrong, or why something is good.
I believe that too many people have been fed misinformation on politics and it’s makeup of ideologies and ideas, to the point that they believe that fascism is somehow the opposite of socialism, when in fact, they are simply two separate paths to the same destination, what I described as statism, and you labeled totalitarianism. As such, some people are under the belief that something the GOP does, that resembles fascism, must be opposed by the opposite number of socialist idea, and vice versa. We, as a people, are politically stupid.
As for Hayek, I have read some of his book, not all. I really need to pick up a copy of it soon.
Boehner is nothing more than a progressive who resides in the GOP. The establishment GOP are just as dangerous to freedom and liberty as those progressives on the left. My opinion, of course, but the facts are out there to see, if you see clearly enough. There just aren’t that many true conservatives or classical liberals to make a real difference right now. And I blame the willing destruction of the TEA party by the establishment GOP imploding it from within, and the overt destruction of it by the progressives in the Democratic party and their sycophant MSM. The TEA party, after all, initially supported candidates from both major parties who shared the idea of smaller, less expensive government.
@johngalt:
It sounds to me that you already have a solid grasp of Hayek, but he is always worth another read, not just the “Road to Serfdom”, but also “The Constitution of Liberty”. Books that explain freeedom should be mandatory in every school starting with simplified versions in the lowest possible grade. There is nothing wrong with indoctrination on how to think (not what to think) and on understanding political and economic freedom. freedom. But reading the books is not enough, as there must be discussions of in which students demonstrate their understanding.
Two books I strongly recommend are “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt, and
“Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell. Neither book has more than one graph if that many. Both give excellent and clear explanations of the economic fallacies that we accept without thinking them through.
The great feature of both books is that they tell us how to look beyond the mere words of a law to the foreseen impacts that the law does not mention. Foe example, the politicians cannot resist laws that are to “help the poor”. Yet those laws never look at the impacts on everyone else, and those impacts usually end up hurting the poor more than anyone else. It rips to pieces the foolish thinking that “if it save just one life it is worth it”, and other economic myths.
Probably few people realize that in Congress hundreds of pieces of legislation are introduced almost every single week. Fortunately only a tiny number of those bills ever get signed into law, but those that do are far more costly than it would appear on the surface. To see that Congress is really trying to do to use go to govtrack.us and sign up for the weekly reports of new legislation. Don’t eat any greasy pork chops before you read them.
As for Boehner, we can beat that one to death. If the voters knew what they were voting for either he would not be there or he would get the support for doing what really needs to get done, which most of the time would be nothing.
howiem
hi,
join us at the post: SAD CONCLUSION,
COME ON , NOW, IT’S DIFFERENT
@howiem: #18
You reminded me of a comedian who wondered, “For a group of people who can’t reproduce, where do they come from?”
Agreed.
Money! There are basically two ways the politicians get reelected who shouldn’t: (1) Promise the ones on welfare more money, or that at least they will still be getting their money if they vote for that politician. The more people on welfare, the more votes. (2) Earmarks and amendments to bills introduced. You probably already know that earmarks are just a way for the politicians to get more Federal money for their state or district. Very few of the projects the money is approved for are ever done, but an earmark means the state can then use the money however they want.
The politicians also add amendments to bills they think will pass. What the average voter hasn’t figured out is that when your politician brings in $1,000,000 for your state or district, they probably are also voting $1,000,000 for every other politician in congress. That means YOUR politician is voting $1,000,000 out of the Federal treasury, and INTO your state, but also voting for about $534,000,000 more OUT of the Federal treasury and into the OTHER politician’s states and districts.
A good example of this is how a man explained ENRICHED flour. He said the nourishment of the wheat comes from the wheat germ. The germ is taken out of the wheat and fed to cattle and for other uses. Man made chemicals are then added for vitamins and minerals. He then said, “If you give me $100, and I give you back $50, can you say you have been ENRICHED?” This is how the states are being ENRICHED by the Federal government. The earmarks and the adding on of amendments to bills needs to stop, but the ones in congress now aren’t going to do it.
@johngalt: #19
I think that everyone with an open mind will say that OUR founding fathers came up with a system that is far closer to perfect for WE THE PEOPLE then any other country has come up with.
This is why I say that we don’t have a two-party system any more, just one party with two branches, and both branches are feeding off of the same roots.
@howiem:
This is a vitally important aspect that “gay rights” don’t quite get. Homosexuals are incapable of also keeping a nation going with taxpayers and contributors to society. Sure they can adopt from other people or undergo other unnatural processes for getting children (IVF), but they can’t reproduce as a couple the way man was designed. There is the argument that it’s natural because there are many species with homosexual tendencies. Well, many of those species also eat their young so will they also support that? Those species also defecate anywhere they want and urinate to mark their territory. It’s a silly argument. The fact is that homosexual tendencies are unnatural and considered an abnormality. Is it a choice? No. It just means that there is something wrong with them.
This one I never pay any attention to, regardless of the party in control. With 535 members of Congress from different parties, it would nearly impossible to get above 30% because they would always be pissing off at least 50% of Americans. Personally, when there are different parties in charge of the legislative and executive branch, I’m happy nothing gets done. Congress should only convene about six months out of the year, except in emergency situations – like having to declare war. We don’t need more laws in this country; we need less government.
@CJ: #26
The Texas congress meets every two years for a few months. I forget how many.
@Smorgasbord: That’s exactly right. Not only that, but no one is the Texas Congress is paid except for the actual days they work and transportation. In other words, no one joins the Texas legislature for the pay.
CJ
that is a great thing and I bet the other don’t know it, and it’s not publicize,
all who serve should be like TEXAS, ELECTED FOR THEIR LOVE OF AMERICA
AND SERVE SELFISHLY FOR THE BEST OF THE PEOPLE,
this now I KNOW, give me another good reason for having chosen RICK PERRY
WHEN HE CAME AS CANDIDATE, AND THEY FOCUS ON HIS ERROR TO BASH HIM,
THOSE IDIOTS IGNORANTS DID NOT KNOW THAT HE JUST HAD AN OPERATION AND HAD LOTS OF PAIN ON HIS BACK,
THE IDIOT DEMOCRATS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, AND SHOULD HAVE EXPOSED THE ATTACKERS,
HE COULD HAVE BEEN THE WARRIOR TO TAKE ON THE VICIOUS ATTACK TO TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE
BECAUSE HE WAS BRAVE ENOUGH TO FACE THE MALICIOUS DEVIL OPPONANT.
I love TEXAS even more and texas should give a future PRESIDENT TO AMERICA,
YOU WOULD SEE SOME ACTIONS FLYING TO HELP THE PEOPLE
@CJ: #28
If today’s politicians were paid what they are worth, they would owe us a lot of money, wouldn’t they? I still like the idea some brilliant person came up with of paying them a percentage of the GDP.
CJ
I thought you would understand this tragic event,
from CANADA ,
a warrant officer was found guilty of 4 charges including breach of duty
causing death, of a 24 year old captain,and 4 other soldiers injured,
it was in AFGHANISTAN,
THE WARRANT OFFICER WAS LEADING A TEST of c-19 anti personal mines on
a weapon range near KANDAHAR CITY in FEBRUARY 2010, WHEN ONE MINE MISFIRED
and sent hundreds of steel balls bearings IN THE WRONG DIRECTION,
INSTEAD OF FANNING OUT FORWARD, the bearings shot backward toward SOLDIER WATCHING,
SOME OF THE PROJECTILE HIT THE ABOVE MENTION SOLDIERS, THIS LEADER WAS CONVICTED OF NEGLECTING THE CANADIAN FORCES TRAINING SAFETY WHICH REQUIRE SOLDIERS TO BE
AT LEAST 100 METERS BEHIND THE MINES OR SHIELDED FROM THEM.
THE VIDEO SHOW THE SOLDIERS WHERE MUCH CLOSER AND UNPROTECTED,
HE HAD SERIOUS CHARGES BECAUSE HE GAVE THE ORDER TO FIRE AND WAS THE SAFETY OFFICER,
on the weapon range that day,
he told a military investigater, he had no idea why the mine misfire, he said the blast was much louder
than it should have been, and all hell broke loose. he answer to accusations
that he was folowing a training plan that had been approved by his superiors,
and he could not forseen the accident,
two of his superiors have been demoted two ranks and reprimanded.
the other is facing life in prison,
I THOUGHT OF WHAT DO YOU THINK OF HOW THE MINES COULD HAVE MISFIRED LIKE IT.
IS THAT HAPPENING OFTEN OR WHY DID IT HAPPEN?
JUST YOUR OPINION IF YOU WANT,
IT WAS ON MY NEWSPAPER TODAY, IT HAPPEN IN 2010,
WOW THAT’S LONG TIME FOR HAVING THE END OF IT
BYE