Posted by shamelesslyred on May 13, 2009
I have heard stories of the poor being penalized in the United States. Stories such as the one here ,outrage the social justice freak in me. However, I read a story today that has taken the cake. While our government hands failing banks trillions of tax payer dollars, while this economy is creating homeless families in numbers not seen since the Great Depression, while jobs are being lost at an explosive rate, and the Fed can’t account for 9.7 trillion dollars of OUR money–while the government is evicting Americans from tent cities forcing them to shelters, New York has decided that charging the homeless rent is a good thing. That’s right. Taking advantage of homeless people and families who are working and trying to save to get out of shelters are now being charged up to half of their income as rent. This only applies to the poor who are actually trying to make a better situation for themselves by finding and keeping jobs. The people who do not work, of course are not being forced to pay anything. (story link here)
The policy of rent for shelter was enacted in 1997, but never enforced until this month. I guess in a failing economy, when a city does not have the privilege of printing money out of thin air like Washington does, the appropriate course of action to get more money is to squeeze it out of every citizen who can cough it up. Usually this money grabbing scheme is carried out in tax hikes, or police ticketing for speeding at 3 whole miles over the speed limit. Somehow though, the sudden enforcement of this law is particularly disgusting and smacks of tyranny.
Lets get something straight. There are those who are a “soak” on tax payer dollars. Drug addicts who are homeless, those who will not support their children, drunks who can’t hold a buck in their pocket longer than it takes to buy a bottle from the corner liquor store are people who line up for shelter and food every night of the blessed year, and they are not ever turned away or forced to spend a single cent for it. Charging those who are working to get a leg up in an economy that keeps knocking them down, is only forcing them to stay in homeless shelters longer. Then again, this is what the Mafia would consider a “deal”. Protection for dollars. It’s a deal that never ends. It’s the same logic – pay, and you stay. Except the paying families will no longer be able to save for an apartment to get out. The more money they make, the more money government takes. Maybe they should all quit and collect welfare for life, because it seems as if that’s what the government would prefer.
WTF
has our country come to when we shovel billion upon billions upon more billions of dollars on big banks
then force the working homeless to shell out half of their wages to sleep in a cot in a room shared with 20 other people??
Posted in Money, State Issues, Sustainable Living, extremists, families, governemt, uncatagorized | Tagged: Bad Behavior, barack obama, Class Warfare, Ethics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by shamelesslyred on May 7, 2009
Disclaimer:
I’m not a Bush supporter. I’m not a Republican.
I am a Libertarian, a strict Constitutionalist, and a Blogger for Liberty.
Remember the days when us wing nuts told you that the Obama administration would be worse than the Bush era? I’m an equal opportunity basher when it comes to the NO common sense policies that interrupt the common good of all my American fellow citizens. I have no issue beating a dead horse, especially if I think it still contains a wisp of life, a last breath, or postmortem flatulence, I don’t care. (PETA, don’t mail me). All you people who voted for Obama, did so without any record to point to that said he was the man for the job. Not only has he gaffed in ways that would’ve made Bush blush, and would’ve had blood shooting out of the eyes of liberals back in the Bush days of old–his worst gaff yet was appointing a Homeland Security Secretary who thinks that labeling all Americans, including veterans as extremists and potential terrorists is appropriate.
Meet Janet Napolitano.
She is so PC that the government is no longer “allowed” to call Islamic Terrorists, “terrorists”. The correct term under the Obama administration to describe actual terrorists are “man made disasters”. That is of course, unless you’re an American, then you may be labeled a terrorist, and that is my friends, politically correct under the Obama list of common sense protocol. According to the “”Domestic Extremism Lexicon” you are an extremist. YES YOU. I will exclude you of course if you are comatose, a droid, a mannequin, or if you’re effectively brain dead. Otherwise, you will fall into one of the categories below
In my best Red Neck twang, I submit to you by a preponderance of proof provided by PC Janet Napolitano
You Might be an extremist if :
- You listen to or read alternative media sources that portray significant events differently than that of the mass media outlets.
- you are anti-illegal immigration
- you are a Cuban and /or anti Castro ( of cuba? ya know, a communist government?)
- you and your friends are individuals who pursue shared ideological goals (to be fair the rest says—->through tactics of leaderless resistance independent of any larger terrorist organization (can anyone say Bill Ayers? Tony Rezko?)
- you believe in civil disobedience to change laws ( can anyone say Martin Luther King?) or you protest (dang tea bagging protesting rednecks! Gahh!)
- you oppose most federal and state laws, regulations, and authority, particularly firearms laws and regulations.
- you are a Christian patriot, or are affiliated with patriot groups, or Constitutionalists
- you’re a Christian who believes that following God is above all and refuse to follow all other government laws that may compromise your faith
- you believe the tax code is the equivalent to theft
Notice two things when you investigate the link to this latest proud display of our tax dollars at work. 1) Your government does not want you to know that they are profiling you. The warning states : It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized DHS official. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS. (so much for the Obama promise of transparency)
and notice how I didn’t say “I told you so!!”
Domestic Extremism Lexicon : http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf
Posted in Education, Faith, Federal Issues, Firearms, State Issues, extremists, families, governemt, uncatagorized | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Wendi T. on May 7, 2009
Abortion is often defended in terms of the woman’s right to choose. I agree fully.
A woman has a right to make many choices regarding her own body. She can choose not to have unprotected sex. She can choose to use contraceptive medications. She can choose to abstain from sex completely. But she cannot choose to deny the rights of another for her own convenience.
Rights come with responsibilities. The free exercise of my rights stops at the point where it would interfere with your rights, and vice versa. Abortion doesn’t affect only the woman. It involves two people, the woman and her child, as any simple DNA test will show. The rights of both must be considered.
As an individual, a woman has the right to make choices about her own body. The pro-abortion argument that “a woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body,” is not an accurate description of the debate. As a parent, the woman even has the right to make choices about her child. She does not, however, have the right to end the life of her child.
Abortion advocates understand this. They intentionally pull on your emotional heartstrings with pleas of “women’s rights.” In doing so, they completely ignore the rights of the innocent child who’s life they seek to end.
Are women’s rights more important than children’s rights?
Posted in Federal Issues, State Issues, families, medical | Tagged: abortion | 2 Comments »
Posted by Wendi T. on May 7, 2009
A phrase often heard in controversial discussions as an attempt to find some type of middle ground is “it depends on your beliefs.” But what does that really mean?
If I believe the sky is purple, and you believe it is orange, does agreeing to disagree by saying “it depends on your belief” change the fact that the sky is actually blue? Of course not. We are both free to believe whatever we want, but society as a whole will still call the sky blue and if we choose to engage in activities requiring factual knowledge we better be prepared to call it blue as well.
Most often, the phrase is heard in political debates. But do those uttering it, really mean it? I would venture to guess that most of the time the answer is no.
Would anyone seriously argue that laws regarding murder, rape, assault, or theft should “depend on your beliefs?” Of course not. Regardless of ones’ personal beliefs, there is one common principle that the law applies in these situations. Individuals are free to hold their own beliefs, but they are not free to act on them in a way that would infringe upon the rights of another.
Suppose someone says, “I don’t believe that brunettes are people,” or “I don’t believe that children under the age of five are people.” Does that make it true? Of course not. People, are people, and the law is there to protect the rights of all. Certainly no one would argue that Hitler had a right to kill Jews because he believed they were not people, or that the Klu Klux Klan has a right to kill African Americans because they believe they are not people.
Why, then, do some of us stubbornly cling to the idea that it is okay for a woman to murder her unborn baby if she doesn’t believe that it is a person yet?
Posted in Federal Issues, State Issues, families, medical | Tagged: abortion | Leave a Comment »
Posted by shamelesslyred on May 1, 2009
However, while this may seem like good news on the surface, there is a bit of recent stained credibility that follows Baxter’s reputation and has effectively colored the company as worthless for the public who are in the know. While the United States corporate controlled media sat on this story, it was reported elsewhere in the world from Canada, Austria, the UK and Japan.
Apparently, in March 2009 Baxter sent flu vaccine that was “accidentally” contaminated with Avian Bird Flu to 18 different countries . The contaminated product, a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses and unlabeled H5N1 viruses, was supplied to an Austrian research company. The Austrian firm, Avir Green Hills Biotechnology, then sent portions of it to sub-contractors in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany.
Baxter hasn’t shed much light — at least not publicly — on how the accident happened. Earlier this week Bona called the mistake the result of a combination of “just the process itself, (and) technical and human error in this procedure.”
He said he couldn’t reveal more information because it would give away proprietary information about Baxter’s production process. 8561066.html
More info on this topic can be found at : 8216accidental8217-contamination-of-vaccine
Posted in Federal Issues, Health, Local Issues, State Issues, families, media, medical | 4 Comments »
Wendi T.
crunchymountainmomma
swearnoallegiance
trunthepaige
shamelesslyred
Guest Author
