http://www.vachamber.com/?page=LegReportCard
Our good buddy Mark Obenshain of Harrisonburg is back in the news for having won the Virginia Chamber of Commerce's " Free Enterprise Award" for his work in the Virginia General Assembly. Obenshain made it into the news earlier this session for having made comments about Virginia's teachers being "lemons" and passed around from school to school in what he called the "lemon dance." What sort of precedence does this set for Virginia lawmakers? What does this say about Virginia and it's relations with it's schools? What does this say about Virginia's priorities? I can tell you in two words: "Not Much!"
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
First Amendment Fever
http://news.yahoo.com/ted-nugent-meet-secret-over-obama-comments-183622828.html
First and foremost I would like to apologize to Thomas Jefferson. Why? you ask...read on...
I guess the First Amendment has come back to bite..or shall I say scratched Ted Nugent. Nugent's remarks about President Obama have warranted a Secret Service investigation, and rightfully so. I find it a bit humorous that someone who calms to love the Constitution and understands it fully is in hot water for making comments that are Unconstitutional. According to the First Amendment Center, speech that can be deemed, fighting words,incitement to imminent lawless action, and true threats are not protected by the Constitution. If what Nugent said is true "I don't waste my breathe with threats" than he initial comments are not protected by the Constitution
It has been my experience that people who claim to "know the Constitution" or "Think it should be upheld" tend to not really know all there is to the document, nor the real ins and outs. The Supreme Court (whom I am sure Mr. Nugent find much to liberal..not that it really matters what he thinks) would proably uphold the Secret Service's actions in investigating and charging Nugent for making threats..and certainly for making threats about the President.
The other humorous twist that I find in this is the fact that people who claim to support the Constitution (a governing document) would make threats on the people in the seat of authority. It appears to me that Mr. Nugent likes authority, just not the authority in office. Does anyone else see that as hypocritical? I would be willing to bet a months wage that Nugent would not be making the same comments about President Bush, John McCain, and certainly not Sarah Palin. No..that's the kind of authority he likes so he wouldn't dare do that. That's just alittle too hypocritical for my blood, but it works for some people.
Being around this stuff on a regular basis, I am always struck (though I shouldn't be) that my 8th graders tend to know more about the Constitution than "experts" on Fox, MSNBC or 95% of most adults for that matter. What happens to people when they leave school? Does the essential knowledge of government just going flying out the window? Do people become indoctrinated into a certain paradigm never to emerge from it's grips again? I just wonder. People obviously do not think about the government as much as the should, otherwise we would not have the problems we have now, therefore I end this post as I started by saying "I'm sorry Mr. Jefferson."
First and foremost I would like to apologize to Thomas Jefferson. Why? you ask...read on...
I guess the First Amendment has come back to bite..or shall I say scratched Ted Nugent. Nugent's remarks about President Obama have warranted a Secret Service investigation, and rightfully so. I find it a bit humorous that someone who calms to love the Constitution and understands it fully is in hot water for making comments that are Unconstitutional. According to the First Amendment Center, speech that can be deemed, fighting words,incitement to imminent lawless action, and true threats are not protected by the Constitution. If what Nugent said is true "I don't waste my breathe with threats" than he initial comments are not protected by the Constitution
 |
| He Looks Like A Constitutional Scholar To Me |
It has been my experience that people who claim to "know the Constitution" or "Think it should be upheld" tend to not really know all there is to the document, nor the real ins and outs. The Supreme Court (whom I am sure Mr. Nugent find much to liberal..not that it really matters what he thinks) would proably uphold the Secret Service's actions in investigating and charging Nugent for making threats..and certainly for making threats about the President.
The other humorous twist that I find in this is the fact that people who claim to support the Constitution (a governing document) would make threats on the people in the seat of authority. It appears to me that Mr. Nugent likes authority, just not the authority in office. Does anyone else see that as hypocritical? I would be willing to bet a months wage that Nugent would not be making the same comments about President Bush, John McCain, and certainly not Sarah Palin. No..that's the kind of authority he likes so he wouldn't dare do that. That's just alittle too hypocritical for my blood, but it works for some people.
Being around this stuff on a regular basis, I am always struck (though I shouldn't be) that my 8th graders tend to know more about the Constitution than "experts" on Fox, MSNBC or 95% of most adults for that matter. What happens to people when they leave school? Does the essential knowledge of government just going flying out the window? Do people become indoctrinated into a certain paradigm never to emerge from it's grips again? I just wonder. People obviously do not think about the government as much as the should, otherwise we would not have the problems we have now, therefore I end this post as I started by saying "I'm sorry Mr. Jefferson."
Monday, April 16, 2012
From My Cold Dead Hands
http://havegunwillvote.blogtownhall.com/2010/06/30/guns_the_key_to_understanding_the_role_of_the_supreme_court.thtml
First, the attack on liberal. I would suggest that we get rid of all the liberals, every single pointyheaded, tie-dye wearing, social security supporting, college educated, civil rights endorsing, pot smoking, free loving, baby killing one of them in America. Let's create a country where all the people think the same. I don't mean have similarly on the big stuff, I mean exactly like everyone else. I suggest we get a group of people, or religion, or a set of ideas to hate, and we can either run all the people out of the country that think that way or better yet herd them into a central place and keep them their. Since it's liberals that this blogger does not like, I think they are a good start. We can work out a list, then start checking off people....wait did we not fight a war about that? I've read a few history books, and I have seen a name that sounds alittle like that....what's it called?? Fascism!!! Ahh yeah that's it..I wonder that was the big deal about all that?
Second, guns. I have no problems with guns, people who own guns, or people who own guns for the sake of a militia. I do have a problem with people who think as this blogger does, that guns are a God given right. The type of gun does not matter to those who subscribe to this mindset. Those who would argue guns are necessary and God given, would have no problem owning a .50 caliber rifle with a sniper scope, or .357 with a howitzer shell is needed to protect their person and their home. What kind of neighborhood do they live in? I know people who live in much rougher parts of much rougher towns, who get the job done with a snub nose .38 and a set of balls.
Finally, liberal judges cannot read? I would imagine reading is something a judge on the United State Supreme Court does pretty well. And besides, how much of the Constitution has the blogger read? Yes the Constitution says "pursuit of happiness," but if taken literally (as I suspect the blogger would have us read the Constitution) that does not mean arming as a part of a "God given right." Besides, I thought the Constitution does not include any "God given" rights, but maybe I'm just a liberal.
I leave you with this question. Which of these men were armed?
Too bad the Constitution does not include a "God given right" to Skittle
First, the attack on liberal. I would suggest that we get rid of all the liberals, every single pointyheaded, tie-dye wearing, social security supporting, college educated, civil rights endorsing, pot smoking, free loving, baby killing one of them in America. Let's create a country where all the people think the same. I don't mean have similarly on the big stuff, I mean exactly like everyone else. I suggest we get a group of people, or religion, or a set of ideas to hate, and we can either run all the people out of the country that think that way or better yet herd them into a central place and keep them their. Since it's liberals that this blogger does not like, I think they are a good start. We can work out a list, then start checking off people....wait did we not fight a war about that? I've read a few history books, and I have seen a name that sounds alittle like that....what's it called?? Fascism!!! Ahh yeah that's it..I wonder that was the big deal about all that?
Second, guns. I have no problems with guns, people who own guns, or people who own guns for the sake of a militia. I do have a problem with people who think as this blogger does, that guns are a God given right. The type of gun does not matter to those who subscribe to this mindset. Those who would argue guns are necessary and God given, would have no problem owning a .50 caliber rifle with a sniper scope, or .357 with a howitzer shell is needed to protect their person and their home. What kind of neighborhood do they live in? I know people who live in much rougher parts of much rougher towns, who get the job done with a snub nose .38 and a set of balls.
Finally, liberal judges cannot read? I would imagine reading is something a judge on the United State Supreme Court does pretty well. And besides, how much of the Constitution has the blogger read? Yes the Constitution says "pursuit of happiness," but if taken literally (as I suspect the blogger would have us read the Constitution) that does not mean arming as a part of a "God given right." Besides, I thought the Constitution does not include any "God given" rights, but maybe I'm just a liberal.
I leave you with this question. Which of these men were armed?
Too bad the Constitution does not include a "God given right" to Skittle
Friday, April 13, 2012
Are We Going To Have To Play This Game Again?
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/11/news/la-pn-republican-congressman-claims-7881-democrats-are-communists-20120411
Reading this headline, I was thrust back to the 1950's..had I been alive then. Without much hyperbole we may well be watching the newest Joe McCarthy honing his star for the rise. What always baffles me in case where people have dirt on other people is how they obtained that dirt? A similar occasion would be a child complaining that someone had their eyes open during a prayer.
And so what if there are Communist in congress? Are we afraid that the ghost of Stalin is going to come back from the grave and take over?
Yet another question that needs asking,and this goes for anything that has been said,or is going to be said over the course of the next year: Is that something you really believe or is that something you think is going to get you elected? We as concerned American need to ask this question repeatedly as we folllow the goings on of politics in an election year. So many people got caught up in the "Change We Can Believe In" frenzy created by then candidate Obama that we failed too listen to what he was saying. This fact is supported by the volume of dissatisfied and disenfranchised young people who expected the world and have not seen it delivered. Maybe in the future we can pay more attention or be less critical when the moon and stars are not handed to us on a silver platter. We are after all talking about American politics.
Reading this headline, I was thrust back to the 1950's..had I been alive then. Without much hyperbole we may well be watching the newest Joe McCarthy honing his star for the rise. What always baffles me in case where people have dirt on other people is how they obtained that dirt? A similar occasion would be a child complaining that someone had their eyes open during a prayer.
And so what if there are Communist in congress? Are we afraid that the ghost of Stalin is going to come back from the grave and take over?
Yet another question that needs asking,and this goes for anything that has been said,or is going to be said over the course of the next year: Is that something you really believe or is that something you think is going to get you elected? We as concerned American need to ask this question repeatedly as we folllow the goings on of politics in an election year. So many people got caught up in the "Change We Can Believe In" frenzy created by then candidate Obama that we failed too listen to what he was saying. This fact is supported by the volume of dissatisfied and disenfranchised young people who expected the world and have not seen it delivered. Maybe in the future we can pay more attention or be less critical when the moon and stars are not handed to us on a silver platter. We are after all talking about American politics.
How We Will Not Win The Fight For A Fair Wage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/13/pete-hoekstra-lilly-ledbetter-nuisance_n_1423986.html?ref=politics
This goes at the very heart of what so many people have been fighting for for many years. It also make the case that Republicans are not fight awar against women a harder sale.
Repsentative Hoekstra has decided to stick his foot in his mouth and oppose a bill that seeks equal and fair pay for women, and in doing so has set progress in the women's movement backwards at least a decade. What goes does the representative think he is doing be opposing a law that merely seeks the American dream? Does he feels as though his opposition will strengthen his stand as a conservative? From what I have seen of the few true conservative women out there, they are a force to reckon with. Alienating them in an election year is not the best of ideas
The article has further reaching implications in addition to the present in the title. The idea of fair wages for women and men can extend to the of fair wages between the educated and less educated. It flies to the very root of the sustainable v. unsusatinable growth debate that has seem to have taken over this blog for the past few posts. The idea of fair pay across the board leads to sustainable growth for those in the work force and will lead to more economic growth than the quick fix, politically fashionable solutions being proposed by those who would argue against fair pair or a living wage. If we as an economy do not seek fair pay for women and men,then we will never reach the level of prospairity of European countries that do. On top of offering fair pay scales,we must offer living wages in order to grow an economy that weathers the ups and downs of our capitalistic economy better and with out the drastic booms and busts.
This goes at the very heart of what so many people have been fighting for for many years. It also make the case that Republicans are not fight awar against women a harder sale.
Repsentative Hoekstra has decided to stick his foot in his mouth and oppose a bill that seeks equal and fair pay for women, and in doing so has set progress in the women's movement backwards at least a decade. What goes does the representative think he is doing be opposing a law that merely seeks the American dream? Does he feels as though his opposition will strengthen his stand as a conservative? From what I have seen of the few true conservative women out there, they are a force to reckon with. Alienating them in an election year is not the best of ideas
The article has further reaching implications in addition to the present in the title. The idea of fair wages for women and men can extend to the of fair wages between the educated and less educated. It flies to the very root of the sustainable v. unsusatinable growth debate that has seem to have taken over this blog for the past few posts. The idea of fair pay across the board leads to sustainable growth for those in the work force and will lead to more economic growth than the quick fix, politically fashionable solutions being proposed by those who would argue against fair pair or a living wage. If we as an economy do not seek fair pay for women and men,then we will never reach the level of prospairity of European countries that do. On top of offering fair pay scales,we must offer living wages in order to grow an economy that weathers the ups and downs of our capitalistic economy better and with out the drastic booms and busts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)