I heard the news teaser "How will Romney respond to
comments made on hidden camera?""Wow" I thought "must be bad.I wonder if it is something that will cost
him the election."Then I heard the
recording.What!?!?!?Is there really anyone that did not know he
thought that way? I have known it all along. I didn't realize he was trying to
hide it.
Then the reporting turned to Obama and the tapes that have
surfaced with his remarks supporting redistribution of wealth. "How will
he respond?" What!?!?!? Is there really anyone out there that did not know
he thought that way? I have known it all along. I didn't realize he was trying
to hide it.
I have a solution that should make both parties happy. We
will steal from the rich, build wider streets and throw the poor out into them.
WE ARE AT WAR FOLKS!
It is time to climb out from under your rocks. It is class
warfare. It is the rich against the poor with the middle class... well in the
middle. There is no compromise. You get one radical or the other.
Never in my life have I seen an national election with two
worse candidates in the main run for office. They are both so bad,it can't even be labeled as voting for the
lesser of two evils. I wrote a blog not long ago arguing against voting for
someone that has no chance to win. I take it all back. Neither one of these
jokers will get my vote. No sorry I don't yet know where my vote will go. I
only know I will vote and it won't be spent destroying the country. My vote may
not get anyone elected but I will have done my duty as a citizen and I will not
have voted for evil on either side.
Now here is where I put the blame for this.I put the blame on us, the voters.We have decided that either a republican or a
democrat no matter how bad they are have to be in office.It is our fault that they are out of touch
with us.They don't have to be in touch
they only have to be republican or democrat.Republicans are no longer what they once were and democrats are no
longer what they once were and it is our fault. How far will this country have
to fall before we realize what we have allowed. It is not the democrat's fault
it is not the republican's fault it is ours.
It is time to wake up.It is time to take back our country. It is time to break the mold. It is
time to forget the labels. Don't vote democrat/republican vote for the best
candidate. Maybe if enough people voted for the best candidate we would not
have a democrat or republican president. Maybe we could have a real leader in
office.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
This
Guy Robbed A Bank Just To Get Healthcare
(Gaston CountyJail)
With a undiagnosed growth on his chest
and two ruptured disks, Richard James Verone needed medical attention and to
get it he handed a note to a bank teller demanding $1.
Verone walked into an RBC bank in North Carolina, handed
the teller the note, and she gave him the money. Then, according to the Gaston Gazette, he sat down and waited for the
police to show up.
He said, “I didn’t have any fears. I
told the teller that I would sit over here and wait for police.”
Never in trouble with the law, Verone
worked fortCoca-Cola for 17 years, but was laid off
three years ago. He's had part time jobs since, but nothing steady, and nothing
with health insurance. “If you don’t have your health you don’t
have anything,” said Verone.His plan includes a three year stint in prison,
multiple surgeries, and then releasejust in time to collect social security.
Quotes from speech given by Sen.
Bernard Sanders an Independent on
·
...We
have a $16 trillion national debt and we have a $1 trillion deficit. I think
all Americans understand this is a very important issue, and it is something we
as a nation are going to have to grapple with...
...Now, what do my Republican friends and some
Democrats say? Well, they come to the Senate floor and suddenly--after going to war without paying for
it, after giving
huge tax breaks to the rich, after deregulating Wall Street--realize we have a deficit problem, and they
are very concerned about this deficit problem. They come to the Senate floor and
say: The only way we can go forward is to cut Social Security. Social Security is funded
independently. It hasn't added one nickel to the deficit, but we are going to
cut Social Security anyway. We are going to cut Medicare, we are going to cut
Medicaid, we are going to cut Pell grants, we are going to cut education, and
we are going to cut environmental protection. That is deficit reduction.
Are we
going to ask millionaires and billionaires, who are doing phenomenally well, whose effective tax rate is the lowest
in decades, to pay one nickel more in taxes? No, we can't do that, but
we can cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and every program
that the children, seniors, and working families of this country depend upon.
Now, to add insult to injury in terms of this
movement supported by big-money interests that have so much influence over what
goes on here in Congress, it is important to look at the playing field of the
American economy today to understand what is going on. Are the people on top
really hurting and suffering? Are large corporations today really struggling
under onerous corporate taxes? The answer is, obviously not.
We don't talk about it enough, and too few
people even mention it, but I do, and I will continue. It is important today to
understand that theUnited States
has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income since the 1920s and the
most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth.
Why is that important? It is important to know that. Before we cut Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the ability of working-class kids
to go to college, we have to know the condition of how people are doing today. The middle class today is
shrinking and poverty is increasing. When we cut food stamps and
Medicaid, we are going to hurt a whole lot of people, and in some cases very
tragically.
Just last week a member of my staff went to
southwest Virginia, and she spent the day at a program in which thousands of
people in that area were lining up to get dental and health care because they
didn't have any health insurance. There are 45,000 Americans who will die this year because they
don't have health insurance and can't get to a doctor in time. There are
people who say: Let's cut Medicaid. There are people all over this country who
can't find a dentist. There are children who are suffering from dental decay.
Let's cut Medicaid. Well, I don't think so.
If we look at the country, the middle class is
shrinking, people are hurting, but people on top are doing phenomenally well.
Very few people talk about it. I am going to talk about it. In the last study
we have seen in terms of income distribution in this country--and that is what
happened between 2009 between and 2010--93 percent of all new income created
over that year went to the top 1 percent. I will say it again. Ninety-three percent of all
new income in that year went to the top 1 percent. The bottom 99 percent had
the privilege of sharing the remaining 7 percent. Yet, when we ask the
people on top to maybe pay a little bit more in taxes, oh my goodness, there
are lobbyists all over Capitol Hill saying: We can't afford to. We are down to
our last $50 billion. We just can't afford another nickel in taxes. We need
that money now. Thanks to Citizens United, we can pump that money into political campaigns.
One family who is worth $50 billion is going
to put $400 million into
the campaign. Another guy who is worth $20 billion can't pay more in taxes,
but he does have hundreds of millions to pour into political campaigns.
In terms of distribution of wealth, which is a
different category of costs than distribution of income, we have an incredible
situation. I hope people understand what is going on in this country, where one
family--one family, the Walton family, of Wal-Mart--now owns more wealth at $89
billion than the bottom 40 percent of the American people. One family owns more wealth than
the bottom 40 percent. Do we know what some folks want to do here? They
want to repeal the entire estate tax and give that family a very substantial
tax break, because owning
$89 billion is obviously not enough. They are struggling. We have to give them
a tax break while we cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If
that makes any sense to the American people, I would be very surprised, and it
does not make sense to the American people.
...My guess is if we go to New Hampshire,
Maine, or any other State in America and we say to people, we have a deficit
problem and the choice is between cutting Social Security or asking
millionaires and billionaires to pay more in taxes, there is, in my view, no
State in America--no State in this country, no matter how red it may be--where
people will say: Cut
Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, but don't raise taxes on
millionaires and billionaires. I don't believe that is true anyplace in America...
...There was a study that recently came out
that talks about the ability of billionaires and corporations to use tax
havens. What we know--and I am a member of the Budget Committee--is that
millionaires and billionaires and corporations in this country are avoiding
paying about $100 billion every single year by using tax havens in the Cayman
Islands, in Bermuda, Panama, and other countries. Maybe, just maybe, before we cut Social Security and
Medicare, we might want to pass legislation to make those people start paying
their fair share in taxes and do away with those tax havens...
...I hope the American people pay rapt
attention to this debate, and I hope the American people get involved in this debate, because
if they do not, mark my words, within 4 months, a handful of people, supported by corporate America
and the big money interests, are going to bring down to this floor a deficit
reduction proposal which will cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and give
more tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. It will have
virtually all Republican support. It will have some Democratic support. If we
don't aggressively oppose this approach, that is exactly what will happen.
Sorry I have not written a blog for a while. I am currently working on a project that is taking a lot of time. When it is finished I hope you will all watch and recommend it. I have had so many things I have thought about blogging about while working on this project but decided I would finish it and when finished get back to more frequent blogging. I was not going to get side tracked for anything.
That's when it happened! I tried to ignore it and did very well for 4 days but I can't any longer. It really has my tail feathers in an uproar. The war between the Muppets and Chick-Fil-A. I just want to get up close to everyone involved and scream in their/your ears "SHUT UP!!!" I have had it.
This battle is just an example as to what really is beginning to get on my nerves. I have spoken of it before. It is the hate mongering going on by those claiming to be fighting hate mongering. I am really sorry but I can not stand hypocrisy. It sickens me!
I raised my children to be tolerant of others. They had their disagreements among themselves. Of course they did. But, I never allowed them to use the word hate when referring to each other. They knew where I stood on issues. They also knew they were free to develop their own ideas, free from me hating them. They were taught to keep an open mind. Listen to others, both sides of an issue and make up their own mind. Now keeping my own mind open (cause I am not a hypocrite) my mind has been changed about some issues by listening to my adult children (I hate to admit this but even a bit by an x-wife). I don't always agree, but I will never stop loving and excepting that they are humans too.
It is okay not to agree with someone even as far as hating an opinion. It is sad when that is taken to a level of hating a human being because you disagree with him/her.
Now we have the supporters of gay/lesbian marriage crying "Oh CEO of Chick-Fil-A does not agree with us so we won't eat there anymore." On the other side of things we have the anti gay/lesbian marriage crowd crying "Fine! I won't buy any Muppet movies anymore."
Where is the tolerance on either side?
I read what was said I always do before I write a blog. In this case there is intolerance on both sides. But I must say as usual most of the hate mongering is again coming from the very ones claiming to be fighting hate mongering. Look at the comments around the net with an open mind, you will see what I mean.
I have been referring to the Big Bird/Chicken war only because it is the top topic right now. I really am referring to it all. "I don't like what she said. BOYCOTT HER!" Come on get real people. How many times has this really worked?
I have my favorite actors. I really love to watch them, because they are great at what they do. Some of them in off screen real life, I strongly disagree with the way they act/talk. But guess what I will watch the next movie they make because I enjoy it. If I thought the acting on screen was terrible but agreed with them 100% of the time off screen, I would still not watch the next movie.
If you like the chicken EAT IT! If you like the Muppets WATCH THEM! Dog gone it! If you like liberals BE ONE! If you like conservatives BE ONE! If you don't like either DON'T JOIN THEM! If you don't like Bill Maher' DON'T WATCH HIM! If you don't like Rush Limbaugh, DON'T LISTEN TO HIM! Just stop the hate mongering.
I don't mean to compare you to little kids.... YES I DO! That is what you sound like! "I don't like what you said so I am going to take my ball and find another ballgame."
Now you kids just settle down! I am going to sit here eating my Chick-Fil-A while watching Fraggle Rock. After that I will get back to the project from which I have been so rudely interrupted by people that don't seem to be able to GET ALONG despite disagreements.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
A speech given by senator Charles Grassley a Republican from Iowa
July 17, 2012
Words are his highlights are mine.
Mr. President, last September, President Obama responded to amnesty proponents, denying that he had authority to
unilaterally grant special status to individuals who may be eligible under the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act has been around the Senate for discussion for about a decade, and in different forms. It has been voted down several times by this body--mostly because the leader won't allow for an amendment process to improve the bill; otherwise, it probably could have been worked upon. A few months ago when asked by amnesty advocates to push the bill through Executive order,President Obama said this:
This notion that somehow I can just change the laws
unilaterally is just not true. The fact of the matter is
there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of
getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true. We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.
But 1 month ago, President Obama continued his ``we can't wait''
campaign and circumvented Congress, again, to significantly change the
law all by himself. On June 15, he announced that the Department of
Homeland Security would lay out a process by which immigrants who have
come here illegally could apply for relief and remain in the United
States without the fear of deportation. So what has changed in the last
9 months, when the President of the United States said last September
that he could not unilaterally grant amnesty? Before I dive into the details of how poorly planned and implemented
the directive of June 15 will be, I have to question the legal
authority of the President to institute a plan of this magnitude. I, along with 19 other Senators, sent the President a letter and
asked if he consulted with attorneys prior to the June 15 announcement
about his legal authority to grant deferred action and work
authorizations to a specific class of immigrants who have come here
illegally. It is important that we get that question answered, because
last September the President said he didn't have the legal authority to
do it. We asked the President if he obtained a legal opinion from the
Office of Legal Counsel or anyone else within his administration. To
date, we have not received any documentation that discusses any
authority whatsoever that he has to undertake this massive immigration
directive. I know the Secretary of Homeland Security has discretion to determine
who is put in removal proceedings. Prosecutorial discretion has been
around for a long time, but it hasn't been abused to this extent. The
President is claiming the Secretary will implement this directive using
prosecutorial discretion. However, millions of immigrants coming here
illegally will be instructed to report to the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Service and proactively apply. This is not being done on a
case-by-case basis as they want to make it appear. The President's directive is an affront to our system of
representative government and the legislative process, and it is an
inappropriate use of executive power based upon what he said last
September, that he didn't have the authority to do this. The President
bypassed Congress because he couldn't lead on immigration reform, and
he couldn't work in a bipartisan manner on an issue that involves
undocumented young people. The President's directive runs contrary to the principle that
American workers must come before foreign nationals. His policies only
increase competition for American students and workers who struggle to
find employment in today's economy. And that unemployment is 8.2
percent official, 11 or 12 percent unofficial. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate
among the age group 16 to 24 has been nearly 17 percent for the last
year. According to a Gallup poll conducted in April of this year, 32
percent of the 18-to-29-year-olds in the U.S. workforce, if not
unemployed, are underemployed.
The President's plan to get people back to work is to grant
immigrants who come here illegally a work authorization. He must be
seriously out of touch if he doesn't think there is competition already
for American workers. Now I wish to talk about how poorly this directive has been thought
out. This is the implementation of a directive the President said he
didn't have the authority to do in the first place. But if you are
going to have an illegal directive, you ought to at least know it will
work. It is my understanding the White House informed Homeland Security
officials of this plan just days before it was announced on June 15.
They were unprepared, and have since been scrambling to figure out how
it will be carried out. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service--the agency in charge of all
immigration benefits, including work authorizations, visa applications,
asylum petitions, and employment verifications for employers--will be
the agency tasked with handling millions of new applications for
deferred status and work permits. Agents in the field are confused as
to how to do their jobs and fear retaliation if they don't do the right
thing. So in essence, this White House is telling agents in the field
to begin a practice called catch and release. Last Friday, Homeland Security officials briefed the Judiciary
Committee on the directive. Staff of the Judiciary Committee were told
that agents of the agency would be required to release immigrants who
come here illegally if they fell into the criteria laid out. But what
are the ramifications if an agent does not release them but instead
uses his discretion to say the person was not eligible and puts them in
removal proceedings? You will be astounded by the answer we got, because the Department of
Homeland Security explained that such an agent would be subject to
disciplinary action--disciplinary action if you are doing what your job
is required to do. The agent's actions would be considered during their
annual personnel review. So there will be no discretion for agents, and they will be forced to
give deferred action to anyone who comes close to the criteria laid
out, even despite their hesitation to do so, or face retaliation from
bureaucratic higher-ups. It is as though Homeland Security forgot their mission which is:
To ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards where American interests, aspirations, and way of life can thrive.
Once we overcome the question of legal authority and the reality that
there was little thinking put into this plan before it was announced on
June 15, we are left to oversee the details of the implementation plan.
Homeland Security officials say they will have a process laid out by
August 15. We have very little details, but Homeland Security officials
did give some insight on Friday in this briefing to members of the
Judiciary Committee staff. Here is what we learned. We know people under the age of 30, who entered before their 16th
birthday, have been here for at least 5 years, and are currently in
school may qualify for deferred action. We know there are caveats to
the criteria. Some criminal offenses will be OK, and young people can
finish their education after they are granted deferred action. We know individuals with final orders of removal will be eligible for
deferred action. We know these people will not have to appear for an
in-person interview to benefit from this directive of the President of
June 15. We know they will be granted this special status for 2 years,
and those who are denied will not be put into removal proceedings. We
know this is not aimed at helping just youth since the age limit is 30. So who are we going to help over age 30, because we thought from the President's announcement, if people are over 30 years of age nobody is going to benefit. We know people under the age of 30 are not the only people going to be considered for relief. Secretary Napolitano said so herself. She told CNN's Wolf Blitzer the following:
We have internally set it up so that the parents are not referred for immigration enforcement if the young person
comes in for deferred action
I was not born yesterday. This administration is not going to give a
benefit to immigrants here illegally and then force his or her parents
to leave the country, which begs the question, What will they do if the
young people are eligible and receive deferred action, but the parent
is a criminal, a gang member, or a sex offender?
Because this program has not been well thought out and because it is
being rushed to benefit people by the end of the year, there is no
doubt that fraud will be a problem. How will Federal officials who
process the applications ensure that information provided by the
individual is accurate? How will they verify that one truly entered the
country before the age of 16 or is currently under the age of 30?
Homeland Security officials act as though they are prepared to handle
the influx of counterfeit documents that will be presented. The
department officials are going to rely on their small fraud detection
unit--who already happen to be very busy working every day on other
types of immigration benefits--to determine if people are truly
eligible. What will be the consequences for individuals who
intentionally defraud the government? They need a fraud and abuse
prevention plan. Without one they will likely legalize every single
immigrant who came here illegally, who is already on U.S. soil.
The administration will announce more details about this plan in the
next few weeks. I am anxious to see if they plan to only provide
deferred action to this population. Department officials refuse to
elaborate on whether some of these individuals will be able to get
advanced parole. That is a special status that allows an immigrant
coming here illegally to adjust to permanent residence and then gain
citizenship. This administration wants people to believe this is not
amnesty and that these people will not have lawful status, but I am
watching to see if they try to pull the wool over our eyes and provide
a status that allows these people to adjust and remain here
permanently.
Finally, a major flaw in the President's plan is how this is going to
be paid for. A massive amnesty program is going to cost a lot of money.
So what are the taxpayers going to have to cough up out of their hard-
earned dollars to pay for it? Department officials said on Friday that
illegal immigrants may not be charged for their special status. The
individual would be charged $380 if they choose to apply for a work
authorization. They could not assure us that funding would not be
redirected from other programs to this initiative.
To reprogram funds within the Department, the Secretary must notify
and gain consent of the majority and minority leaders on the
Appropriations Committee. However, when pressed, Department officials
could not assure us that they would not bypass the longstanding process
and reprogram dollars on their own. The U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Service will be forced to concentrate on this program,
leaving employers, foreign workers, and legal immigrants without the
service they need to work, visit, or remain in the United States.
If the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service adjudication staff
will be diverted from their normal duties to handle the millions of
potential deferred action applications, this can only have a
devastating impact on other programs within the Department. I fear this
plan will bankrupt the agency that oversees immigration benefits and
affect all legal immigration for years to come.
I fear the President has overstepped his authority again. The
President, time and again, has shown no leadership or refused to work
with Congress on issues that directly impact the American people. And
when it comes to the immigration issue he promised the people in the
2008 election, that in his first year in office he would have an
immigration bill before Congress, he has not even presented an
immigration bill yet. He insisted he was coming here to change
Washington, but he changed it for the worse. He insisted he was going
to make this the most transparent administration ever, but Congress and
the American people are left in the dark.
No matter where one stands on immigration, we should all be appalled
at how this plan has been carried out. Whether it is legal or illegal
is one thing. But when it is not thoroughly thought out, how it is
going to be implemented, that is not how the chief executive of a major
operation such as the U.S. Government ought to be acting.
We should all be concerned that our votes are rendered meaningless as
a result of the assumption of power on June 15 that the President said
last September he did not have. Until we can end this plan, I encourage
my colleagues to watch over its implementation for the future of our
country. The integrity of our whole immigration system is hanging in
the balance.
This immigration system is very important because the United States
has opened doors for more people than any other country in the world to
come here legally. About 1 million people come here legally. So we are
a welcoming nation. We are a nation built upon immigrants bringing new
ideas to this country, making this a very not only colorful country but
a dynamic society. We ought to leave it that way. But this change to
our immigration system for people to come here legally jeopardizes a
lot of people who want to abide by our laws and come here and make our
country even richer. I yield the floor.
