AIG raised my premiuim and I don't even use their insurance
Mood:
irritated
Topic: government issues
Yet another Failout! AIG is charging me 30 billion dollars because they lost over 61 billion last quarter. Rather than letting these schmucks go under the government is bailing them out yet again. Did it ever occur to these morons that maybe they lost 61 billion because no one wants to do business with them anymore?
Change We Can Believe In
Topic: government issues
Barack Obama's idea of change: bring in recycled Clinton staffers, keep Bush's Sec. of Defense, and "fix" the economy with more "experts" (AKA the guys who advised us into this mess in the first place). In keeping with Obama's other buzzword, I "hope" you all survive the next 4-8 years!
Campaign for Liberty Meetup
Topic: government issues
Wednesday night the family trucked up to Tukwilla for a meeting of like-minded individuals. We are all Ron Paul supporters and we were there to discuss the new Campaign for Liberty website. Every month there is a new goal for folks who sign up as precinct leaders, as I plan to do. I also met 3 candidates for Congress in Washington state, although I can't vote for any of them since I live in the 8th district and they are running in the 3rd, 6th, and 9th. All in all it was a great night and got me even more excited about my goals for the next few years.
No Child Left Inside
Topic: government issues
Once again, it's time to contact your congressperson. This time it's HR 3036, the No Child Left Inside Act. Seemingly innocent, it calls for getting kids to participate in outdoor activities. Since when is it the government's job to tell my kid to go out and play? I'm sure there will be some federal funding for city parks. Sounds good, until you realize federal funding brings with it federal oversight. All we need is Washington running our city parks, and managing our rec leagues. Go to www.house.gov, find you representative, and tell them to vote NO!!!! on HR 3036!
Pay My Mortgage Please!
Topic: government issues
Think by defaulting on your mortgage or going into bankruptcy will get you out of repaying your loan? Think again! Now you're paying your (and someone else's) with your tax dollar. That's right, the government is taking over mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the latest move in a trend of letting irresponsible lenders off the hook for careless business practices. In response, here's the email I sent to my Congressman Dave Reichert (R-WA 8):
In the tradition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I am requesting that Congress offer my family a taxpayer funded bailout. Sure, we've made some mistakes over the years and we certainly can recover on our own. However, without a taxpayer funded bailout our finances are such that we can only make a minimal impact on the local economy. A taxpayer funded bailout will strengthen the economy. An appropriation of just $100,000 will get us back into solvency. That's a bargain compared to some corporations! For the price of only one Pentagon toilet seat Congress can jumpstart the economy in Graham, Washington.
Feel free to copy this and send it to your Congressman at www.house.gov.
My Case For Secretery of State
Topic: government issues
Here's why I should be Secretery of State, since I'm not old enough to be President or VP: I'll get us out of our sticky situations with Iran and Russia. Imagine you are Iran, with a country that you know hates you on BOTH sides- in Afghanistand and in Iraq. You feel trapped. Here's what I would do. I'd meet with Iran and Israel together. Here's what we'd all do. Iran agrees not to build nukes, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and leaves Iraq alone. Israel gives back the occupied territory to Palestine and works out a sharing agreement regarding Jerusalem. The US agrees to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, stop financially supporting Israel, and our scientists will work with Iran's to develope new energy technologies so they won't need peaceful nuclear stuff. But it won't pass the Senate so no deal.
Now for Russia, a little trickier. Get together with Russian and Georgia. Georgia and the US agree to recognize independence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which then merges with Russia's North Ossetia and becomes independent Ossetia. Russia agrees to get out of Georgia and Ossetia. The US dismantles NATO since we don't need it anymore. Again, a nice idea but the Senate won't pass that treay either because in order to get something we have to give something. IN our imperial world we just take. No wonder everyone hates us!
Iran
Topic: government issues
Maybe you've been hearing Iran in the news lately. Apparently the Bush policy is to take all the old reasons for invading Iraq and change the Q to N. Let's have a look at the situation there for a minute.
Way back in the 1950's we removed Iran's popularly elected leader and replaced him with a puppet ruler, the Shah. After about 20 years folks in Iran got tired of the Shah so they threw him out and replaced him with the Ayatolah. In the middle of this regime change (as Bush likes to call these overthrows) the Iranians took some hostages. They were very angry at the US for 2 decades of abuse. Since then things have been tense between us and them. Most people just assume the Iranians are nuts who want to kill us all just because they're nuts. Not many people know that we drew first blood.
Next item: nuclear capabilities. We have 'em. Pakistan has 'em. Lots of folks have these things. Is anyone crazy enough to actually use one? Yes! The United States is! Yet we refuse to allow Iran to have any. "They are building the bomb right now!!!!!!" is the word from the White House. They have no proof, and in fact evidence shows the opposite is true. But how hypocritical is it for our government to say someone else can't hyave something that we have, because they're a threat, but we're the only country to ever actually drop the bomb on someone. Not once but twice.
Think McCain and Obama are different? They both want Iran dead, just like Bush, who they both claim to not be like. Our irresponsible leaders even issued a Joint Resolution that expresses the sense (or senselessness) of Congress. It has very harsh words and suggests a naval blockade (act of war).
Iran also speaks aggressively to the US. However, they have yet to act aggressively since the hostages in 1979. President Ahmedahmajad (spelling?) talks tough because that's what a president should do. How would the people of Iran feel if their leader cowered in the face of belligerent behavior from another country? I'm sure every night his last thought is "Will tonight be the night the bombs start falling?"
The moral of the story: Every time the government tells you someone else is bad, ask yourself why and do a little research.
Cheers or Jeers for your Senator
Topic: government issues
Bad news! Today the Senate passed FISA, which says the government CAN spy on you without a warrant and if the phone company was doing it for them BEFORE it was "legal" then you can't come after them.
First, it's a blatant violation of your 4th Amendment rights. Second, retroactive immunity violates the "ex post facto" clause of the Constitution. Here's what you need to do. Go to www.senate.gov and you can see how your particualr Senators voted, then thank them for voting NAY or threaten their jobs in the next election if they voted YEA.
The Supremes get it right!
Topic: government issues
Today the Supreme Court ruled that yes, you do have the right to bear arms. Finally, some good news from the same court that ruled that the government can take your home and let developers have it. The Washington, DC ban on handguns has been struck down. The Bill of Rights was written in 1790 and the Second Amendment has been the most debated in the 20th century. Until recently no one gave gun ownership a second thought. But now with murders going on all over the place and a police state looming, are guns all they're cracked up to be? First let's look at the Second Ammendment itself. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Some take this to mean that only militia members (law enforcement and national guard) should have guns. Others only look at the second half- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Go back to 1790 with me for a second. What is the 1790 definition of "militia"? Every able-bodied male 16-64. Why do these folks need to be armed? The ever-looming threat of Indian attack, maybe pirates, or a slave uprising. Who knows, maybe the British will change their minds on that whole Treaty of Paris thing. Back to the future. Are any of these concerns still valid? No, I hope not. But does that mean we should all give up our guns? No. The police-staters would like that. But then all the guns would be in the hands of either the police, or the criminals. I'm not taking my chances on the police protecting me. They don't usually show up until after a crime. Instead of "protecting" everyone by getting rid of guns (if you're a criminal, why would stop shy of breaking the "you can't have a gun" law if it doesn't bother you to steal or kill?) I say get more guns out there! Sure there will be a bunch of idiots shooting everything that moves but I think crime will go down. Who wants to rob someone who might have an even bigger gun? The Virginia Tech shooting is a prime example of why everyone should carry a gun. If the whole campus was armed do you think he would've killed over 30 people? Writing for the minority, (in)Justice Stephen Breyer said, "In my view, there is simply no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." Why not? Don't we have a right to self-defense? Maybe he'd like to live a block away from the Capitol WITHOUT a gun and see how long until he changes his mind. Your thoughts?
How hot do you like your coffee?
Topic: government issues
A few weeks ago I came across a news item. Here in the Puget Sound area the big thing is coffee. Served by scantily clad women. Well, this news item went on to state that there is a particular scantily clad women as coffee servers place nearby that was getting some complaints. There was a protest going on there that weekend, and the folks wanted the city of Bonney Lake to do something about these scantily clad women. From what I heard, it sounded like the issue was girls in bikinis. The solution was to have City Council come up with an ordinance that would require a dress code of some sort. Back the truck up, I said. The city can't enforce a dress code on private property. Next you won't bele to wear your bikini to the pool. Or purple shirts on Wednesday. So I went to the top for some answers. I emailed the mayor of Bonney Lake, Neil Johnson for his take. What I found out was shocking. According to Mayor Johnson the issue wasn't bikinis at all. It wasn't even this particular espresso stand. Rather, on the other side of town another espresso stand's baristas were outside wearing pasties. Espresso stand #1 just opened right as the controversy was brewing and folks from out of town were the ones taking issue there. What it all boils down to, according to Mayor Johnson, is "The concern of the City is not with bikinis but with the wearing of pasties over the nipple/areola area. We are not looking to legislate clothing of the baristas, but to determine if pasties are worn by a barista, should that be in an adult entertainment zone, is that considered nudity or is it allowed? When the bottom half of the breasts are exposed, what is that to be considered?" I'm all for less government interference on all levels, but if it becomes necessary to enter an adult entertainment zone to get coffee in Bonney Lake, I find no fault with the city this time.
