Nov

18

All Your Websites Belong To Us

Category: Our Nation, Society | Comments Off | 160 words | Print

Are you thinking of writing something about, say copyright infringement?

Are you thinking of quoting a certain article to bring attention to your readers about copyright infringment prevention?

Did you dot your i’s and cross your t’s to make sure you weren’t in violation of the COICA so the Attorney General doesn’t turn off your site?

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed “central to the activity” of the site — regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the “nuclear option,” which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites “off.”

You better watch out, because the government doesn’t just want control of your food, they want your website too!

Nov

17

The End Of The Home Garden?

Category: Our Nation, Politics, Society | Comments Off | 383 words | Print

Unfortunately, Senate Bill 510, The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, passed cloture with a vote of 74-25 with Lisa Murkowski being the only Senator not voting.

74 to 25. Wow. Three-quarters of our U.S. Senators believe that squashing the efforts of the small, local, farmer are more important than not, and I find that very appalling.

This bill is one of the most dangerous bills in the history of our country because it places new government authority over your rights to grow vegetables and trade (or sell) them to your neighbors.

In essence, all food production (even that food grown in your own garden at home) will fall under the authority of the federal government. For instance, if you grow some veggies in your own garden and then offer them to your neighbors at your local farmers market you can be charged with smuggling, yes smuggling.

Corporate monopolies (like Monsanto) will be allowed unfettered reign over our nation’s produce because it will be nearly impossible for everyday citizens like you and I to harvest, sort, or store seeds of any kind because of the required “standards” by which it must be done. Don’t believe me? Read it for yourself.

(c) Regulations – Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall–

(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally,and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;

(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;

(3) include with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting,and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment… and water;

If you’re still not convinced that SB510 is bad, take a look at this video and decide for yourself.

This text will be replaced by the player

 

Georgia’s own Senators, Chambliss and Isakson, not only voted for cloture but they both co-sponsored the bill. When they voted for TARP I thought I would never be more disgusted with them. Boy was I wrong.

Nov

2

We Almost Made It

Category: Politics, Society | Comments Off | 210 words | Print

Today was election day. It looks like we’ve succeeded in removing Nanny State Nancy Pelosi from the Speaker’s chair in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Republicans have gained control of the House, with a 60+ seat gain. While that sounds like good news to some people, I am still wary. The Republicans have been in control before, and they’ve screwed up before. One thing for sure, is that we had to get Pelosi out of the position of Speaker of the House, and we succeeded.

The people of Nevada have seriously let the rest of the country down. It was pretty obvious that the Republicans would not take control of the Senate, but the people of Nevada could have replaced Scary Harry Reid to help true change come to our country.

I heard many arguments that people didn’t trust Sharron Angle. But they trust Harry Reid? Seriously? Harry Reid is as corrupt as they come, and anyone, and I mean anyone, would have been better to represent the people of Nevada than Harry Reid.

Now, we can only pray that those who have been newly elected will discern the correct course for our country and move us in the right direction once again.

Oct

30

Vote Responsibly

Category: Politics, Society | Comments Off | 178 words | Print

During the next few days, leading up to Tuesday, you are going to hear a lot of things from a lot of people about a lot of candidates. No matter what they say, or what you hear, make sure you do one thing on election day.

Vote your conscience.

Too many times people think they have no choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils when they could, in fact, vote for the best candidate, if they just take the time to review each candidates record and then make an informed decision.

To function properly, conscience requires formation and information. Conscience is not just a “gut feeling.” Formation of conscience involves the following for all people:

  1. understanding basic norms that distinguish right from wrong
  2. having sufficient factual knowledge of the issues at hand
  3. prudently and deliberately considering our actions
  4. recognizing that a good end never justifies morally unacceptable means

Take a few moments this weekend to research the candidates on your ballot and don’t just show up to vote because you have to, show up to vote so you can make a difference.

Oct

27

Out Of Control

Category: Society | Comments Off | 175 words | Print

Here I thought that basing your decision to hire employees on their credit scores was a bad idea, it seems the city of New York wants to place restrictions on their residents’ constitutional rights.

New York City residents who want to own a gun may soon be denied permits if they are litterbugs, if they are bad drivers, or if they have fallen behind on a few bills.

Under proposed revisions to the police department’s handgun, rifle and shotgun permit procedures, the NYPD can reject gun license applicants for a number of reasons, including:

If they have been arrested or convicted of almost any “violation,” in any state; having a “poor driving history”; having been fired for “circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment”; having “failed to pay legally required debts”; being deemed to lack “good moral character”; or if any other information demonstrates “other good cause for the denial of the permit.”

This my friends is the reason we have so many problems in our country. Federal, state, county, and local governments are out of control.

Oct

25

Bad Credit Leads To Dishonest Employees

Category: Society | Comments Off | 363 words | Print

In my personal opinion, as someone who was laid off in January of 2009 and has had 101 crappy financial things happen to him since then, this is a stupid, stupid idea.

Checking the credit histories of job applicants—a common practice among employers—is coming under fire.

Four states have passed laws in the past three years that limit the practice, and similar bills have been introduced in 20 other states and Congress. The issue has surfaced in the wake of the recession, which has left many unemployed workers with tattered credit.

How many people, today, have spotless credit? Seriously? With “reportable” unemployment numbers floating around 10% and the real unemployment numbers being as high as 20%, that means one in five people have had “a rough spot” in this economic crisis.

How many of those people are like me? How many of those people had spotless credit until they lost their job? How many of those people focused on their house, utility, car, and food bills to stay afloat and let everything else go until they got back on their feet? How many of those people are still trying to get back on their feet?

The underlying concern is that poor credit could become a barrier to landing a job. Employers contend credit checks help them evaluate candidates and protect against fraud.

Credit checks do not reveal the real danger for employers. To use credit scores as a tool to “protect against fraud” is pointless because those committing fraud and bilking the companies out of their precious bottom line are doing while no one is looking. When making a loan, a lender may inquire about information on the credit standing, credit worthiness, credit capacity, or general standing of consumers. More information on LexisNexis Credit risk management, check out solutions.

The argument is that people who have bad credit are more likely to steal from your company. To say those with bad credit are dishonest is just asinine. In some cases, that might be true, but for the majority, those with bad credit would probably be thankful for the opportunity to keep putting food on the table for their kids.

Just sayin’.

Oct

22

Looking Ahead With A Positive Outlook

Category: Opinions, Politics, Society | Comments Off | 232 words | Print

Good evening. Before you ask, yes, I voted today.

Chuck Donovan, John Monds, Kira Willis, and many more Libertarians received my vote today. I will be honest though, as I did vote for a couple Republican candidates as well because I felt they were qualified to hold (or keep) the office they are running for.

I won’t run through each office line by line, but but I will say that it was quite refreshing to vote this year. This is the first time, in a very long time, that I was able to vote for the best candidate in each race, rather than the lesser of two evils in each race.

That’s how it should always be. We should always vote for the best person for the job, rather than following some party line and selecting all the D’s or R’s on the ticket. I’m thinking of getting a bumper sticker made that says “Don’t blame me, I voted for the best candidate this time around!” I bet those would sell.

Whenever I take political polls on the internet, I always end up right-of-center, in the Libertarian end of the arena. This is the first time my vote will actually represent that same result.

I call that progress! I can hardly wait to see what else the Libertarian Party in Georgia has planned for the future.

– Posted with Stuffr! –

Oct

21

One Stagnant Senator & Time For Real Change

Category: Opinions, Politics, Society | Comments Off | 501 words | Print

It was a sad day in Georgia when Zell Miller decided not to run for re-election in 2004. When it comes to that Senate seat, I’ve been sad ever since.

Johnny Isakson has been involved in Georgia politics since I moved here. First he was the Congressman from Georgia’s 6th district, then he ran for, and won, Miller’s Senate seat.

You’d think that I, a right-of-center independent conservative, might be happy that a Republican was holding that seat rather than a Democrat, and to an extent I suppose that was the lesser of two evils. The problem is, when it comes to doing the right thing for our country, we need the best, not the better of two evils.

One of the biggest problems in Washington today is that fact that it is very difficult to distinguish which candidates are Democrat and which ones are Republican. Once you exam voting records it’s a bit easier to tell them apart, but their similarities are so striking that it really doesn’t even matter anymore which one you select. So why select them at all?

Chuck Donovan, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate (yes, Isakson’s Senate seat), knows that America is sitting on a ticking time bomb of debt and unlike Isakson he is willing to stand up and help stop the spending, reduce the deficit, fight for our liberty, and make sure that government doesn’t stand in the way of prosperity.

You may think this post sounds a bit like a political ad, but then again, most political ads don’t tell you why you should vote for a candidate, do they?

I’ve lived in Georgia for 13 years and I’ve yet to see any benefit of having Johnny Isakson serving the state of Georgia in Washington, D.C.. Whether it’s an issue of personal liberty, illegal immigration, or the federal deficit, I’ve yet to be impressed with his voting record.

Some people will scoff that I said that, but you are not making a stand “against” legislation if you help draft that legislation but then vote against it because of pressure at the last minute. It just doesn’t work that way. You can’t help but dribble a bit when you’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

During this election cycle, and most of them before this one, my Republican friends tell me that we need to vote for the Republicans to “get the Democrats out of power”, and that’s all nice and dandy, but what happens to our country in the meantime?

Shouldn’t we vote for people who will actually change our country for the better? Shouldn’t we be sending good people to Washington who can actually do the difficult job ahead of them? Shouldn’t we, as citizens of this great nation, be doing our part to make sure the bad guys go home?

I’m voting tomorrow, and yes, my second vote (after Monds for Governor) will be Donovan for Senate.

– Posted with Stuffr! –

Oct

20

Two Good Ol’ Boys & One Reason To Vote

Category: Opinions, Politics, Society | Comments Off | 352 words | Print

As I sit here working each day, I receive e-mail after e-mail from Nathan Deal, Roy Barnes, and every Democrat and Republican under the sun telling me why I should not vote for the other guy. Not one of these e-mails give me any reason under the sun to actually vote for them.

Barnes is busy telling me why he thinks Nathan Deal is corrupt and Deal is busy trying to convince me that Barnes does not deserve another chance.

Well, they are both correct, and I won’t vote for either of them.

I personally think Nathan Deal plays “good ol’ boy” politics and the only reason he stepped down from Congress was to avoid the ethics investigation, rather than to focus on his run for Governor.

Roy Barnes does not deserve another chance. The people of Georgia took a stupid pill and elected him once, I hope they don’t take another dose of stupid and give him the keys to the mansion again.

There is one candidate who stands above these two clowns, and that man is John Monds. If you watch any of the debates you quickly see who the effective candidate is. Monds does not spend his time spewing vitriol about his fellow candidates. Monds actually stands up and tells you what he will do to help the state. Why would you vote for two idiots who have already been placed into positions of trust only to disappoint the people of our state, when you could vote for someone who actually stands for smaller government, lower taxes, and more opportunity?

No matter where you live, you should educate yourself before you head to the polls, and if you live in Georgia, do your research on Deal, Barnes, and Monds. You will, however, need a shovel, and some air freshener. Once you get past the muck and the other crap surrounding the first two, you’ll be pleasantly surprised by Monds and his stand on the issues.

I’ll be casting my vote on Friday, and my first choice will be John Monds for Governor.

– Posted with Stuffr! –

Oct

19

I’ll Take Knowledge Over Ignorance, Thank You

Category: Opinions, Politics, Society | Comments Off | 548 words | Print

There was a huge stink in the media today.

Apparently, during a U.S. Senate candidates debate in Delaware, GOP candidate Christine O’Donnell asked her Democrat opponent Chris Coons, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

The crowd, full of law students, erupted into laughter and the media has lambasted her all day today. The funny thing is, the United States Constitution does not mention the separation of church and state, the U.S. Constitution does not define the separation of church and state, and the U.S. Constitution does not in any way imply the separation of church and state.

Coons replied that the First Amendment establishes the separation of church and state, but that was an incorrect answer. As I said in the previous paragraph, the separation of church and state is not defined, mentioned, or implied, within the United States Constitution.

The First Amendment states,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment clearly prohibits Congress from making any laws respecting the establishment of religion, but it does not in any way construe what many believe to be the separation of church and state.

In fact, the term “separation of church and state” is merely an offshoot of the original phrase written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists Association which was concerned about the U.S. Constitution not reaching all the way down to the state level.

The original statement reads, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

He was clearly re-assuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedoms would be protected by the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment places a restriction on the state to prevent its interference in religious practice, it does not remove all religion from government.

If the founding fathers truly meant to imply a true separation, Jefferson’s comment (which was made in 1802) would not have been completely ignored by the courts in the United States for nearly 150 years, when in 1947 then Justice Hugo Black ruled in the Everson v. Board Of Education case.

Many legal armchair analysts cite the Everson case when they argue in support of the separation of church and state, but the decision in the Everson case actually upheld the use of taxpayer money to transport children to Catholic and other parochial schools, therefore negating the entire “separation of church and state” argument as it is used in today’s society and portrayed in today’s media.

Many people believe, and maybe rightly so, that Christine O’Donnell is not qualified to serve as Senator from the state of Delaware, but the fact is, she was right.

At this point I think it would be more beneficial to everyone to have one Senator who was knowledgeable about the U.S. Constitution with little experience, than any “soon-to-be” lawyer who was sitting in that room and laughed when she asked that simple question.

– Posted with Stuffr! –

← Previous Page — Next Page →