So,
once the Government shuts down, how do any of the R members of Congress
vote to re-open it, without fear of primaries to the right? How, given
the long-term goal of the right to 'drown government in a bathtub'--how
do we get ANY of these Nativist Randian Calvinist IDIOTS to agree to
REOPEN the Government?
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
Some Thoughts on Voting, Why We Should, etc.--from Assignment
What
are the records? Abysmal, considering the importance of a well-informed
populace in maintaining our system, which transfers power peaceably. To
do so requires constant legitiamacy amongst a majority; much of the
inertia and obstruction we see from THAT faction in Congress is due to
NOT Enough people voting in midterms.
So many people I know were saying that ‘Obama is President not, nothing to worry about,’ not heeding my warnings that R’s would surely rally around the ‘cross and the flag’ to defeat HIS agenda. And they did, by motivating their base with lies and distortions—which is why we see dummies like Ted Cruz pretend to filibuster…when he really just wants to run for President on the ‘Died Alone King of the Mountain Trying To Defund ObamaCare’ ticket.
If more people who supported the President had turned out for those midterms, America would not be in the mess we are in, where the richest four hundred or so families, jointly owning the majority of the most profitable corporations and in their sixth or seventh generation of landed gentry, are depending on a Third Wave of Reformation in Christianity (Joshua Generation and the like) and a voting bloc determined to end what they see as ‘Democracy's Evil Hold On God's Sphere of Authority (Rj Rushdoony, etc.).’
Having disguised themselves as American (meaning these companies are mostly off-shored financially and place almost no priority on maintaining civil society), their ultimate goal is to separate us from our primary rights.
We have seen this with Voter ID measures and in attempts to re-segregate (!) in North Carolina, for example. Through the manipulation of media (interlocking directorates—11 of 15 ‘richest’ companies have at least two Board Members on the Board of another of the 11…Conley, “You May Ask Yourself”), they seek to influence the government through inciting voters to hysteria such that we find they have replace civil law with biblical law- regardless of the fact that it violates the First Amendment- by imposing the theory of theonomy.
We do already see this in the attempts, recently even at the county level, to make abortion inaccessible, even though until 20 weeks it is perfectly legal.
Those one-tenth of one percent that own the 40 percent or so of America’s printed money and access to all the keys of the Kingdom are the problem for those of us who believe in Good Government, small-d democracy. But for these groups I’ve outlined-- the Revolting Randian Calvinist Class—government is where evil is either restrained or endorsed, not a secular mechanism for transferring power peaceably.
In their eyes, you are the legal authority over yourself (a perverted version of sovereignty in modern civil society), you have the right to be your own state and must only give to the government by your free will alone.
For this group of families and the MNC’s, NGO’s and TAN’s they operate, their entire belief system (Dominionist) can be read like this: Man Has NO Authority to govern Man, Only God Has That Authority.
They truly believe the Constitution to be Biblically based (Deuteronomy and Leviticus) and push for all laws, starting with the most local law, to become “theonomic.”
My ideas?
Tax the Church.
Get the Private Money out of elections.
End Corporate Personhood.
Make Voting a celebration of Democracy AND Capitalism. Have elections on a weekend, and encourage local businesses to give discounts for people who show they’ve voted.
Get more literature out to voters prior to election…
Say, use the Amber Alert system or another email alert system to inform voters of what EXACTLY their representatives locally and federally DID that day. Just a thought.
Also, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-drew/the-stranglehold-on-our-p_b_3964525.html is a great piece...here's an excerpt:
"
In the past ten elections, voter turnout for presidential contests--which requires a tremendous and expensive effort by the campaigns--has ranged from 51.7 to 61.6 percent, while for the midterms it's been in the high thirties. Turnout was highest for the two midterms in which the Republicans made their greatest gains: in 1994, when Clinton was president, it was 41.1 percent and in 2010 it was 41.6 percent. In 2006, when Bush was president, the Democrats took over the House and Senate and won most of the governorships, turnout was the next highest, 40.4 percent. The quality of the candidates, the economy, and many unexpected issues of course determine the atmosphere of an election; but in the end turnout is almost always decisive.
The midterms, with their lower turnout, reward intensity. In 2010, the Republicans were sufficiently worked up about the new health care law and an old standby, "government spending," particularly the stimulus bill, to drive them to the polls in far larger numbers than the Democrats. A slight upward tick in turnout numbers can have a disproportionate impact in Congress and many of the states, and therefore the country as a whole. The difference in turnout caused such a change in 2010; in fact, the Republicans gained sixty-three House seats and took control of both the governorships and the legislatures in twelve states; the Democrats ended up with control of the fewest state legislative bodies since 1946. The midterms go a long way toward explaining the dismaying spectacle in Washington today. State elections bear much of the responsibility for the near paralysis in Congress thus far this year and the extremism that has gripped the House Republicans and is oozing over into the Senate."
So many people I know were saying that ‘Obama is President not, nothing to worry about,’ not heeding my warnings that R’s would surely rally around the ‘cross and the flag’ to defeat HIS agenda. And they did, by motivating their base with lies and distortions—which is why we see dummies like Ted Cruz pretend to filibuster…when he really just wants to run for President on the ‘Died Alone King of the Mountain Trying To Defund ObamaCare’ ticket.
If more people who supported the President had turned out for those midterms, America would not be in the mess we are in, where the richest four hundred or so families, jointly owning the majority of the most profitable corporations and in their sixth or seventh generation of landed gentry, are depending on a Third Wave of Reformation in Christianity (Joshua Generation and the like) and a voting bloc determined to end what they see as ‘Democracy's Evil Hold On God's Sphere of Authority (Rj Rushdoony, etc.).’
Having disguised themselves as American (meaning these companies are mostly off-shored financially and place almost no priority on maintaining civil society), their ultimate goal is to separate us from our primary rights.
We have seen this with Voter ID measures and in attempts to re-segregate (!) in North Carolina, for example. Through the manipulation of media (interlocking directorates—11 of 15 ‘richest’ companies have at least two Board Members on the Board of another of the 11…Conley, “You May Ask Yourself”), they seek to influence the government through inciting voters to hysteria such that we find they have replace civil law with biblical law- regardless of the fact that it violates the First Amendment- by imposing the theory of theonomy.
We do already see this in the attempts, recently even at the county level, to make abortion inaccessible, even though until 20 weeks it is perfectly legal.
Those one-tenth of one percent that own the 40 percent or so of America’s printed money and access to all the keys of the Kingdom are the problem for those of us who believe in Good Government, small-d democracy. But for these groups I’ve outlined-- the Revolting Randian Calvinist Class—government is where evil is either restrained or endorsed, not a secular mechanism for transferring power peaceably.
In their eyes, you are the legal authority over yourself (a perverted version of sovereignty in modern civil society), you have the right to be your own state and must only give to the government by your free will alone.
For this group of families and the MNC’s, NGO’s and TAN’s they operate, their entire belief system (Dominionist) can be read like this: Man Has NO Authority to govern Man, Only God Has That Authority.
They truly believe the Constitution to be Biblically based (Deuteronomy and Leviticus) and push for all laws, starting with the most local law, to become “theonomic.”
My ideas?
Tax the Church.
Get the Private Money out of elections.
End Corporate Personhood.
Make Voting a celebration of Democracy AND Capitalism. Have elections on a weekend, and encourage local businesses to give discounts for people who show they’ve voted.
Get more literature out to voters prior to election…
Say, use the Amber Alert system or another email alert system to inform voters of what EXACTLY their representatives locally and federally DID that day. Just a thought.
Also, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-drew/the-stranglehold-on-our-p_b_3964525.html is a great piece...here's an excerpt:
"
In the past ten elections, voter turnout for presidential contests--which requires a tremendous and expensive effort by the campaigns--has ranged from 51.7 to 61.6 percent, while for the midterms it's been in the high thirties. Turnout was highest for the two midterms in which the Republicans made their greatest gains: in 1994, when Clinton was president, it was 41.1 percent and in 2010 it was 41.6 percent. In 2006, when Bush was president, the Democrats took over the House and Senate and won most of the governorships, turnout was the next highest, 40.4 percent. The quality of the candidates, the economy, and many unexpected issues of course determine the atmosphere of an election; but in the end turnout is almost always decisive.
The midterms, with their lower turnout, reward intensity. In 2010, the Republicans were sufficiently worked up about the new health care law and an old standby, "government spending," particularly the stimulus bill, to drive them to the polls in far larger numbers than the Democrats. A slight upward tick in turnout numbers can have a disproportionate impact in Congress and many of the states, and therefore the country as a whole. The difference in turnout caused such a change in 2010; in fact, the Republicans gained sixty-three House seats and took control of both the governorships and the legislatures in twelve states; the Democrats ended up with control of the fewest state legislative bodies since 1946. The midterms go a long way toward explaining the dismaying spectacle in Washington today. State elections bear much of the responsibility for the near paralysis in Congress thus far this year and the extremism that has gripped the House Republicans and is oozing over into the Senate."
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
No, Bagger, Obamacare Does Not Take Anyone's Guns
Gun Owners of America · 271,358 like this
10 minutes ago · 
- 294 people like this.
- Soup McGee -- bagger, please. I call BS because YOU have no source. Show me the page in the ACA...http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/ http://www.google.com/url... have FUN!
- Soup McGee --"‘‘SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF HIGHLY
COMPENSATED INDIVIDUALS.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan (other than a selfinsured
plan) shall satisfy the requirements of section 105(h)(2)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to prohibition on
discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals).
‘‘(b) RULES AND DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) CERTAIN RULES TO APPLY.—Rules similar to the rules
contained in paragraphs (3), (4), and (8) of section 105(h) of
such Code shall apply.
‘‘(2) HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘highly
compensated individual’ has the meaning given such term by
section 105(h)(5) of such Code.’’.
(e) Section 2717 of the Public Health Service Act, as added
by section 1001(5) of this Act, is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following:
‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—
‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness
and health promotion activity implemented under subsection
(a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any
information relating to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed
firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property
of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the
authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that
Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the
collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition;
‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of
the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made
by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used
to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of
a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR
ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.—A premium rate may not
be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied,
and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in
a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under
any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance
with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an
amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance
upon—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR
INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any
information under any data collection activity authorized under
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment
made by that Act relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition.’’.
(f) Section 2718 of the Public Health Service Act, as added
by section 1001(5), is amended to read as follows:
‘‘SEC. 2718. BRINGING DOWN THE COST OF HEALTH - Pieprzyć Twoją Matkę I'm not name calling or trying to make a point, that put's the burden of proof in your court.
#AdHominem - Soup McGee (e) Section 2717 of the Public Health Service Act, as added
by section 1001(5) of this Act, is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following:
‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—
‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness
and health promotion activity implemented under subsection
(a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any
information relating to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed
firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property
of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the
authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that
Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the
collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition;
‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of
the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made
by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used
to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of
a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR
ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.—A premium rate may not
be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied,
and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in
a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under
any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance
with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an
amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance
upon—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR
INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any
information under any data collection activity authorized under
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment
made by that Act relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition.’’. 
Kim Silvernail This is a man to keep our eyes on, a patriot not afraid to smack a little sense into his own party a well as the other idiots. Good job .
Talitha Allee We know we are. Too bad there are some that prefer to bury their heads in the sand and think that the Islamist Muslim in the White House has their backs. Wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them in their face. Are you people really that stupid to think your rights aren't at stake?
Therese Bacciarini-Miller I for one will be voting RED next election
I was a democrat until this travesty of Obamacare crap caused my husband to lose fulltime and insurance. #MakeDCListen
Soup McGee (e) Section 2717 of the Public Health Service Act, as added
by section 1001(5) of this Act, is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following:
‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—
‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness
and health promotion activity implemented under subsection
(a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any
information relating to—
‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed
firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property
of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the
authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that
Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the
collection of any information relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition;
‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of
the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made
by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used
to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of
a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR
ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.—A premium rate may not
be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied,
and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in
a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under
any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance
with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an
amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance
upon—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR
INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any
information under any data collection activity authorized under
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment
made by that Act relating to—
‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition.’’.
Tom Sawyer Same here Therese Bacciarini-Miller. Never voted for Obama but will never vote dem again from this day forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)