Commentary: Obama’s “Buffet Rule”

Basically Obama is trying to stir up class warfare once more out of fear that he may lose the 2012 Presidential election by attempting to pit the “poor and middle class” against the “rich”. Somehow he thinks dividing Americans will save him a damaging Presidential campaign and that he’ll not have to explain the many failures and lack of leadership over his first term. The days of “Blame Bush” died with the 2010 midterm elections. It’s time for the President to take responsibility for actions and stop wasting time deflecting his poor decisions and policies on to others. If he can’t do so, then he doesn’t deserve to be President of the United States.

Obama Calls On Congress To Pass ‘Buffett Rule’ Tax

“We don’t envy success in this country. We aspire to it,” Obama said in his Saturday radio and Internet address. “But we also believe that anyone who does well for themselves should do their fair share in return, so that more people have the opportunity to get ahead – not just a few.”

‘And how exactly does the government taking successful peoples money and blowing it on failed government projects and stimulus either “fair” or give people “the opportunity to get ahead”? This just show’s Obama’s neo-socialist views that government can create jobs and prosperity through taxation.

While the plan would force millionaires and billionaires to part with more of their money, Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that if enacted, legislation reflecting Obama’s proposal would collect $47 billion through 2022 – a trickle compared with the $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period.

More evidence that this is simply Obama trying to stir up a rabble and ignite the extremist left-wing base of socialists and communists into getting out to support him while trying to imply anyone who is “rich” is somehow evil and bad for America. How about the government truly cut unnecessary spending, something Obama has no interest in since he obviously thinks someone else should have to pay for everything. This is extremely hypocritical considering how Obama uses none of his own wealth to assist his poorer family members, both in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Obama also renewed his call for ending tax cuts for taxpayers earning more than $250,000.

Read that as small business owners, you know the people who pretty much drive local business across this nation. So we clearly see Obama lies when he says he supports small business and then turns around and labels them “rich” in order to tax them. From my perspective someone who make $250,000 from their business is not “rich” whatsoever. I also don’t see how punishing them for being successful through taxation will help others have an opportunity to get ahead unless Obama thinks putting business out of work somehow opens up opportunity. That sort of thinking is simply asinine.

They should call the “Buffet Rule” the “buffet rule” because it isn’t about “fairness” it’s about fat government pigs wanting more taxes to waste on their pet projects while American’s suffer declining quality of life by these same pigs efforts to undermine commerce, opportunity, liberty, and freedom in the United States. Fortunately the so called “Buffet Rule” has about zero chance of passing in Congress, at least for now.

Arizona Lottery Looks Into Identical Tickets

Arizona lottery looks into identical tickets

Two lottery tickets bought at the same time have the same exact numbers.

Interesting and sort of funny.

I would be somewhat suspicious myself, especially since it took an individual going to the media to get any response from Arizona Lottery officials. I doubt it was anything more than a malfunction with the machine or program running the random number generator but a little more transparency by official would have been better received by the public.

As an aside, congratulations to the winners of last night’s Mega Millions jackpot.

Mega Millions Mega Madness

Although admittedly the Mega Million madness doesn’t seem too bad around here since I haven’t seen long lines, or well, lines at all for that matter. Like millions of others I decided to give it shot and bought some tickets back on Wednesday. Why not? Sure the likelihood of winning is slim to none, but it’s also a rarely large sum up for grabs, so a couple bucks spent seems okay to me.

Whoever wins (whether now or a later drawing) will definitely be set for life, so long as they don’t fall into the trap of spending it wildly. I just hope whoever wins is someone (or several someones) who really need the money. I have nothing against the well to do and rich, but I admit it rubs me the wrong way when I see such people win large prizes. It seems greedy to me.

Whoever wins, it’ll be historic. Even more so if no one wins the prize given projections for next drawing in that circumstance.

So good luck to all partaking in the madness.

AZ Waging War on Contraception (Again)

I may be somewhat harsh in the following post towards those supporting the anti-contraception bill but that is simply because I am no longer willing to remain polite towards those who feel they have the right to interfere in the lives and affairs of others simply to push their own beliefs and opinions on others through legal means and trickery. This is especially so for politicians who somehow have come to think being elected to political office means they have been ordained by God or whatever higher being they believe in to become dictators and oppressors of the people who elected them.

Senate agrees to vote again on birth control bill

The Senate narrowly rejected the bill Wednesday but Republican Sen. Nancy Barto of Scottsdale on Thursday won voice approval of her motion to have a reconsideration vote.

In other words, the little Christian fascists couldn’t get through their backdoor attempts to ban contraception and make women subservient chattel (their real goal) so they try again. It amazes me that over a hundred years of women fighting over something as simple as birth control is being undermined be uneducated Luddites and backwards ideologues under the guise of “religious or moral objections”, especially from other women like State Senator Barto. Of course, these are the same would be dictators in the Arizona legislature that want to deny women medical knowledge about their pregnancy in order to “prevent abortions” so I’m not that surprised. Infuriated by the pigs kowtowing to the extremist Christian fascists, yes, but unsurprised by these weak-willed fools and hypocrites.

It’s people like these that simply harden my pro-choice stand on all women’s reproductive issues. The extremists Christians like Barto and her ilk will not stop until the bad old day’s of white male, Anglo-Saxon protestant Christian fundamentalism has women and minorities “put back in their place”. I suppose I should be happy the Christian Talib [1] haven’t tried to re-institute the old U.S. Federal morality laws (the Comstock Laws [2]) that banned even discussing contraception back in the early 1900’s but I imagine the right wing crazies will try that next to continue their war on Americans who disagree with their religious social agenda.

Enough is enough already. People need to mind their own business and get out over everyone else’s business. If the extremist Christians don’t like contraception and abortion that’s they’re right, but they don’t have the right to force their views on others or invade their privacy to enforce their “morality”. If they think they do have the right to force their views on others then they have absolutely no right to complain if or when others demand that religious institutions be required to teach Evolution, accept gay marriage, provide contraceptive services, or be forced to accept those not of similar inclination of belief into of leadership in their organizations. Turn about is fair play after all, right? Not so fun for the Christian extremists when they are being told what to do and how to live is it?

So there’s a simple solution: Everyone needs to stop forcing their opinion and interfering in other people’s private lives and matters. Obviously too many Americans have forgotten the core principles of our country’s foundation when we have so many who believe they have the right to rule over others without regard for individual rights, freedoms, and liberties. It saddens me to see Arizona and the United States destroying itself within because so many are willing to stand by and let it happen because they think they will somehow benefit and never become one of the oppressed.

[1]Talib literally means student or seeker in Arabic and refers to a student of Islam. Talib gave birth to the name of the radical Pakistan created Islamist group, the Taliban. In this case, Christian Talib is appropriate given extremist fundamental Christian’s similar attitude, beliefs, and behavior to the backwards minded Taliban regarding women, other religions, and minorities. I probably should use the more proper plural term of talib which is tullab but the distinction would probably be lost on most religious extremists anyway.

[2]The Comstock Act of 1873 made it illegal at a Federal level to send obscene, lewd, or lascivious materials through the mail and targeted not only pornography but specifically the distribution of contraceptive and reproductive health information and devices through the mail. A number of states had similar laws and collectively said laws were used to suppress individuals advocating women’s health issues. The act was found unconstitutional in 1936 but did not end the suppression of women’s contraceptive rights until key SCOTUS rulings in 1965 (allowing contraceptives for married couples) and 1972 (allowing contraceptives for single people).

Senators Ask President to Explain Open Mic Comments

Joe Lieberman, John McCain Ask President Obama To Explain Medvedev Open Mic Comments

“I thought that President Obama’s statement to President Medvedev was disconcerting,” said Lieberman of Connecticut at a news conference with Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.).

It is rather disconcerting to have a U.S. President making such comments. It’s brings up a number of questions while bringing about annoyance about the President’s arrogance and suspicions over his motives. Primarily the question is this: What exactly is Obama going to be flexible on with Russians? Given his past distaste for missile defense in the past being flexible could mean he would attempt to persuade Congress to kill the program since the President can’t do so directly. Doing so would likely be unsuccessful, even if the Congress returned to being Democrat controlled, given strong support in Congress for the missile defense program across the political spectrum.

So while I think some anti-Obama groups are just making political hay over this, there is a legitimate demand for the President to explain exactly what he meant by his remarks. Not only to the American people but to our allies in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe which has been feeling abandoned in some respect by the Obama administration in the face of Russia’s re-emerging hostility and belligerence towards former Soviet and Warsaw Pact members.

Commentary: SCOTUS Starts Review of ObamaCare

Today begins the first day of the Supreme Court’s review of the challenges to ObamaCare, specifically related to the individual mandate. Once, I would have implicitly trusted that Justices of the SCOTUS to make the correct decision with regard to Constitutional matters. Recent decisions by the court such as granting corporate personhood and stripping away property rights using eminent domain for business development to name but two issues make that impossible for me now. For me the challenge to ObamaCare is not just about the personal freedom of American citizens to choose to partake (or not) in commerce but whether the Court itself is still legitimate.

Anyone who’s read this blog knows I oppose ObamaCare on a number of grounds, namely those that infringe upon personal choices, taxes, and discriminatory policies, fees, and taxes in the law that have a detrimental impact toward the poor, those with long term medical conditions, the disabled, small businesses, the self employed and contractors, the elderly, and existing government entitlement programs. However, my greatest opposition comes from the so-called mandate that requires an individual to buy health insurance or face a penalty or prison time. This brings to mind some terrifying notions and a frightening image of the law’s creator’s mindset. One, the law if it were to stand, implies that the government in the future could require any American citizen to make a purchase of a product (whether needed/wanted or not) or face legal harassment and/or punishment. Given the United State’s poor history when the government has too much power we are led to a disturbing possibility: the law effectively re-establishes the horrific and reprehensible notion that people are in fact the property of the state and said state (the Federal Government) can dictate any aspect of the “property” as it sees fit.

Overstatement? Hysterical hyperbole? Hardly. Simply look back over the past one hundred years of history alone to see how dangerous it is to allow an overarching government too much say in people’s lives, let alone healthcare. Does anyone really want to see a return to the bad old days of discrimination and marginalization of whoever the government deems unworthy? Especially with a government that has a history of favoring certain classes above all others. Perhaps I’m too independent minded and my personal experiences have made me eternally skeptical and cynical towards the Federal Government’s motives especially when they start making claims about benefiting society.

My hope is the SCOTUS will partially redeem itself (at least to me) by striking down the mandate, but we’ll simply have to wait and see. While there is much laudable about ObamaCare, there is much that is harmful. If the mandate stands, individual freedom and liberty in America will have its death knell.

Santorum To Puerto Rico: Speak English

Rick Santorum To Puerto Rico: Speak English If You Want Statehood

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum told Puerto Ricans on Wednesday they would have to make English their primary language if they want to pursue U.S. statehood, a statement at odds with the U.S. Constitution.

Just more evidence as to why Santorum should not be the GOP candidate for President. Nothing in the Constitution demands English be the language of a State. In fact, the Constitution originally protected the unique culture of each state though that protection has been eroding for a very long time. Such ignorance of the Constitution can not be condoned in a potential President. If I recall correctly, both Spanish and English are the official languages of Puerto Rico. Spanish just happens to be the most spoken given the islands history.

Do I think English should be the official language of the United States? Yes. It is already the de facto language. Why not admit this as such? Other nations have done so and disaster didn’t befall them. Does that mean each State can’t have other languages like Spanish, Navajo, or French and so on? No, of course not.

Do I think Puerto Rico should become part of the Union? Absolutely. Ultimately it is the Puerto Ricans decision to make. I do think it’s time to end the status of territories and commonwealths of U.S. holdings and make them choose whether to become a permanent part of the United States, with all rights, privileges and responsibilities that entails, or become independent nations in their own right.

Atheist Billboard Problem (Again)

Just some thoughts on:

Atheists ‘Slaves Obey Your Masters’ Billboard Raises Tempers In Pennsylvania

A billboard erected in one of the city’s most racially diverse neighborhoods featured an African slave with the biblical quote, “Slaves, obey your masters.” It lasted less than a day before someone tore it down.

And Atheists wonder why main stream Americans dislike them so much. There’s no way the Atheists responsible for this billboard could claim they don’t deserve the anger and outrage aimed at them. Why?

1. The scripture quote is incomplete and therefor ignores the context in which it was intended. (Yes, the Bible said slavery was okay, a concept we consider abhorrent and no one endorses in the modern day United States.)
2. Using black slavery imagery was a blatant racist poke. This no other way around it. No one educated in the United States could claim to be unaware of how offensive that imagery is to all Americans, but especially blacks. I dare say most foreigners understand and find the imagery offensive as well.

So they rightly deserve the anger directed at them , though certainly not the death threats. You can not engage others in religious discussions by demeaning and insulting your target audience. Being upset over the legislature calling 2012 the year of the Bible or whatever is silly. Be more concerned about religiously affiliated politicians trying to pass regulations and laws based on religious dogma (like recent efforts by Christians against contraception, women’s health, and Sharia). Atheists who proselytize atheism are no better than those religious groups they target.

Besides, a real Atheist wouldn’t care about another person’s religion anyway. As an Agnostic, I don’t. When approached by those proselytizing I make it clear I’m not interested in converting (though I will discuss their beliefs with them if they remain civil) and walk away from those that can’t accept my refusal to convert.

An Atheist proselytizing Atheism is about as effective as a Creationist teaching Evolution.

Commentary: Pope Denounces Gay Marriage In US

Pope Benedict Denounces Gay Marriage Efforts In U.S.

He added that the traditional family and marriage had to be “defended from every possible misrepresentation of their true nature” because, he said, whatever injured families injured society.

The Pope is too late on “defending” traditional family and marriage when you look at it from a historical perspective. A modern “traditional” family is not the traditional family of a century ago, let alone five hundred years ago and certainly not the same as the traditional family of the time of Jesus. For example, during my grandmother’s time it was not unusual for multi-generational homes to exist in which the grandparents, parents, and children to live together (sometimes including aunts and uncles and their families as well). My mother’s generation saw the creation of the so-called nuclear family (parents and children) which also started a trend of divorces by those who realized they didn’t have to remain in horrible marriages. By my generation we’ve reached the modern family which includes the gamut of multi-generational homes to single parent households to gay couples. In other words, traditional is a meaningless term with respect to family.

As for the “true nature” of traditional marriage that’s simple: marriage was created as a means of enslaving women to men, of treating women as property by trading daughters off. Worse, being punished for not being “wifely” or forced into a marriage with their rapist as the Bible dictates. Do you honestly think independently minded women today would willingly walk back into being forced into arranged marriages and denied their equal rights? It’s only been a relatively new concept that marriage is a partnership between a man and woman, and really only the last one hundred years that women have started to achieve of semblance of equality to men in Western European, Christian based cultures. Even that appearance of equality is still lacking in many areas such as career opportunities, wages, politics, education, and so forth.

So the Pope’s argument against gay marriage is a weak position and one that likely would have never arisen if not for the bigotry of the religious community against their fellow human beings. I remember in my teens and you adult life homosexuals simply asked for civil unions so that homosexual couples could receive the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. When they were vehemently denied such equality under the law, that is when I first heard them start using the term marriage which has now inevitably led to this notion that gays somehow “threaten” heterosexual marriages and families.

One would think the Pope has better things to worry about than homosexuals, such as the pedophile priests and allegations of the rape of nuns, justifying the vast wealth of the Vatican when compared to the poor and impoverished of the Catholic masses, and championing Christians facing persecution around the world for their faith.

Az Legislature Fail Day: Minimum Wage and “Wrongful Birth”

Unfortunately I can’t blame some of the stupidity and ignorance coming out of the Arizona Legislature on the recent coronal mass ejections (aka solar flares).

Minimum Wage

Arizona minimum wage may lower to federal level

Arizona’s minimum-wage law is more generous than the federal standard. But a measure advancing in the state Legislature would remove that distinction and effectively end the rate voters approved six years ago.

On Monday, the House gave preliminary approval to House Concurrent Resolution 2056, which would ask voters in November to tie Arizona’s minimum wage to the federal level. Currently, Arizona requires a minimum of $7.65 an hour; the federal rate is $7.25.

Why am I not surprised that the insipid monkeys that make up the Arizona Legislature is once again not focusing on the issues Arizona citizens want addressed. I think they’ll be hard pressed to find any citizens that support the lowering of minimum wage (i.e. targeting and attacking the wages) of the poor and increasing numbers of underemployed individuals in this state. Fortunately it doubt this will pass if it gets put on the November ballot (which would be required in this case) as the average Arizonan isn’t going to buy the idea that the State’s higher than Federal minimum wage is somehow hurting businesses. And if a business can’t make it on a forty cent per hour difference in wages then those businesses are clearly failing anyway.

“Wrongful Birth” Bill

The very term “wrongful birth”  tells me that the woman behind this bill (Nancy Barto), as well as her supporters, are complete and utter morons. I say if they pass this bill than we should make retroactive abortions legal to eliminate the idiots who create bills like this one.

Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Doctors To Not Inform Women Of Prenatal Issues To Prevent Abortions | Addicting Info

It’s called a “wrongful birth” bill and it’s all about preventing women from having an abortion, even if it kills them. The Arizona Senate passed a bill this week that gives doctors a free pass to not inform pregnant women of prenatal problems because such information could lead to an abortion.

I don’t care if you are for or again abortions, no one has the right to deny any woman medical information regarding their pregnancy or the status of their fetus. For that matter no patient should be denied medical information regarding their state of their body and health, especially for such an obviously political move as the one this bill is pushing for.

The bill may protect doctors from lawsuits for not informing women of their medical issues, but they can still be charged with an assortment of murder related charges (negligent homicide or manslaughter would be appropriate I think) if the denied information could have saved the mother or a child’s life.

The author of the article put it best:

This is an egregious bill that will lead to higher mortality rates for infants and mothers. Doctors should be held accountable for not disclosing information learned from prenatal examinations. Pregnant women have the right to know if their future child is going to have a disability or if the pregnancy may require an induced abortion to save their lives. Any decision that is made as a result of the information is the mothers own. Doctors should not be allowed to make decisions for pregnant women as a way to prevent abortions. Women have the right to make their own health decisions and hiding critical information is irresponsible, unconscionable, and risks lives. In the end, Republicans are only putting more lives in jeopardy. They might as well call this the ‘let women die’ bill.

This bill is why I am pro-choice even though I would never personally have an abortion. The hatred towards women clearly demonstrated by this bill disgusts me to no end. These radical anti-abortionists would rather see people (mothers and children alike) suffer and/or die than allow abortions to remain legal.

Get the fuck over it already! I’m tired of extremist assholes from the right and left wing trying to push their views on everyone else. Stay the fuck out of my life and I’ll stay the fuck out of yours. Deal?