KUDO'S TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Cut, Cap and Balance; the past due legislation sailed through the House.

According to the Constitution, Article I, section 7 states, "All Bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills." Has it ever bothered any of you as it has me, that first, every politician looks for the President to "present" HIS budget, so the 2 houses can vote on it, and secondly, the Senate presents their own budget or other bills?

 When did the Constitution change? Yeah, you might want to say that there is so much work to do in DC that each house makes their own proposals then sends the 2 bills to committee, to "iron" out the differences. That is not the way the Constitution was designed and is supposed to work. If there isn't enough time to actually abide by the Constitution when making legislation, then maybe, just maybe the 2 Houses are doing way more than they were intended to do, again, according to the Constitution.

Cut, Cap and Balance is the proper approach to resolving the problems the massive Federal Government has created. If merely raising the debt limit would solve our country's financial problems, then why didn't it solve our problems in the past? The debt limit has been raised some 60 times or more, and we still have financial problems. Why do we continue to have these problems if they should have been resolved? Without a Balanced Budget Amendment, Politicians will always and forever request raising the debt ceiling, because the Federal Government keeps adding programs and agencies that require funding, and on and on it goes. The Federal Government is completely out of control. It oversteps its constitutional directives, and takes away from the states, the rights the states have as outlined in the Constitution.

Lately, states have been fighting back. Governors and the states' legislators, are begining to legislate rulings that strengthen the states rights and are taking the Federal Government to court, to have the Supreme Court decide which governing body has the Constitutional authority to govern in many of the day to day lives of Americans.

The Federal Government has squeezed Faith Based agencies to the extent that where they once were the place for people to go to for aid or even jobs, they are now "not allowed" to act on behalf of their own communities, instead the Fed's have centralized agencies that usurp those influences, and have passed legislation to disallow the Faith Based agencies from doing what is more logical; help their own communities.

In many cases, fines are imposed or Federal monies are withheld, when these Faith Based agencies do help. Just look at abortions; the Federal Government has passed legislation to not only allow women to murder their own offspring, but the Federal Government actually funds those procedures; that means the Fed's take money away from you when you work, and gives it to some doctor who makes a living killing infants prior to their actual birth, but has fought people who want to tell potential mothers that there is an alternative; that they do not have to kill their babies.

The Federal Government is too far reaching and too much into the daily lives of Americans. A Balanced Budget would allow future politicians to defund, to dissolve, to eliminate programs and agencies that have made America look like a third world country. This country is a beacon to every living soul on this planet, and to give the Fed's card-blanche over all that we do or want is tantamount to treason.

The Cut, Cap and Balance bill, is a good first step. When voters get conservative Senators elected in the next general election, this country will take a sharp turn away from the brutality it has imposed on us; from the centralization it has imposed on us; from the endless law-making and rule's making it has imposed, and I hope, from the endless agencies a politician can conger up to create more and more dependency on the centralized government, and return this country in the direction it once was in where Capitalism and Entreneurialism, abounded; where a person who made the extra effort, found that there were no limits to what her or she could achieve; a country where community matters; where communities cares about its people and is able to help any in need.

Kudo's to those 240 politicians who have a vision of the greatness of America, and where she needs to be in this world.

T HE ESTABLISHMENT REPUBS ARE NOT ON OUR SIDE.

I am fed up with John McCain and Mitch McConell and the rest of those establishment repubs. On the Hannity radio program McCain said "the votes aren't there in the Senate to pass "Cut, Cap and Balance". John...SO WHAT!! According to the Constitution, bills can originate in the House. If the blankety blank Senate doesn't like what the house proposes, they can vote against it. It is idiotic for Senator McCain to assert that the house can only pass bills that the Senate likes or agrees with. What then? Can we eliminate the House of Representatives?

Furthermore, why does the House even discuss these matters with the President? Again, according to the Constitution, the federal budget originates in the House. Our "Congressmen" do not have to confer with the President in order to offer a budget. Let the Senate vote against the budget proposal; let the President veto what ever he wants to, that is the way our process works. It is not the Presidents prerogative to tell the House what he wants them to propose. What would be the point if all negotiations were made prior to proposing a bill? Heck, if that is how DC works, then let's just eliminate all of those dastardly representatives in the House and maybe one half of the Senate, and let's just ask the President what he wants.

That is one of the problems with the politics of today, in America. If the elected politicians just did what they are required to do and what we voted for them to do, then DC would look a little different. Right now, all we hear about is a lot of news media telling us what the President doesn't like or what he will veto. SO WHAT! Let him veto; let the Senate reject what the House sends them. Everyone should  have to explain why they voted for, or against what they did vote on. It shouldn't be the medias' job to tell us.

There is just too much talking going on in DC. Pass some bills and let the chips fall where they may. There are too many "Buds" in DC. The American people deserve to have the people they voted for to propose and pass legislation the voters expect them to. There is a reason why there are two parties; one party wants this country to look differently than the other party wants it to; so there should be some disagreements.

The "Tea Party" folk; the grass roots folks want this country restored to its greatness by way of constitutional legislation. We want a fight with the other side. We are not happy with what the other side has been doing, so why should our elected representatives have to discuss anything with the other side? We don't want them to find common ground, we want our side to take back the ground lost to those Liberals over the last 70 or so years. We are not happy with what the other side has been doing, so negotiations are out of the question. We have different values and we want those values presented in and through legislation.

Go Ryan! Go Ron Paul! Go Rand Paul! Go Demint! Go Cantor and the rest of you. It is better to lose the fight than to give in before you even start. Capitulating only gives them what they want, and you lose anyway.

AND THE WINNER IS .......... OBAMA

To understand how this whole debt ceiling / budget talks will end, you only have to look at the last two and one half years of the Obama presidency.

The Democratic Senate has not produced the required constitutional budget for over 800 days, and Obama has been on a spending spree, because of the lack of constraints that come with a budget.

Now, he "realizes" that our country is in debt and needs to borrow more money. But I just don't think that is a fair analysis. I do not think the President is concerned about the debt or the ceiling. In fact it is my contention things are going along just the way he and the Democrats would like them to go. Their objections to the resistance from the Conservative House of Representatives is political gobble-de-gook.

Just think: at your house you have spent more money than you can repay, even with all the good credit you have. There just isn't any more money to pay for all your expenses, so what do you do? Like every good Democratic politician, you borrow more money, AND you tell your employer he has to pay you more. Borrowing more puts you deeper in debt and the "raise" you demanded will not even pay for the debt you incurred before you borrowed the additional money. Would this make sense? Could you manage your household this way? Of course not, but that is what the President and the Democratic Senate want to do. And if the Conservatives don't go along with them, the President will be forced to withhold social security payments to all of us old folks, who have no other means of income. WHAT?! I thought we all paid into this here social security fund, so why isn't there any money to repay us? Why doesn't UNFUNDED liabilities go without money? How about ethanol subsidies, farmer subsidies, oh yeah how about all those foreign countries that bad mouth the good ole USA, are they going to keep getting money while us old folks do not?

Look, this is what progressives are all about. Capitalism MUST be destroyed and the government MUST get bigger; Fascism is the order of the day. Raising your taxes, giving money to the auto industry, banks and foreign countries establishes this country as just another socialist country.

It isn't a fact that the debt ceiling must be raised so we can borrow more money; NO, all the "government" has to do is CUT where it has to, just like you and I would in our household budget, to make ends meet. The debt ceiling has been raised 10 times out of 10, when too much money had been spent. How come none of those previous ceiling raises didn't solve the problem?

As for taxes: the Progressives feel that any money you or I make is not our own. They arbitrarily determine an amount they think we should need to live on, and the rest belongs to the taxman. Progressives act like they are doing you a favor to earn the money they need to run the government; but of course being the elites they are, this rule doesn't apply to them. Just try to imagine this; they sit up in some high towered building, laboring over decisions on how they can help provide you with the things they believe you need, all the while, making millions, and maintaining a standard of living they will not let you obtain. Er-go, not only do they want to spend more, they want more of the money we earn because they believe we are just too stupid to spend it the way they think we should, and by taking it away from us, they keep us from becoming independent. It is they who need us, not the other way around.

To add insult to injury, the talking heads on Fox, call on establishment republicans like Karl Rove, who is known as the "architect" for the Bush administration that gave us a little more of the big government all those politicians want, and ask him for his opinion as to what the Conservatives should do. What a joke! Karl is no conservative, what could he possibly know about conservatism?

The grass roots movement gave us politicians who are trying to fix this damaged government and its spending habits, and they are making a difference. They are causing Boehner to act like a man with a spine. Those conservatives are making enough of a difference that this debt ceiling debate is not going as well as it used to. They are not so willing to just rubber stamp the spending and wastefulness of this administration. The Obama administration will try to lay the blame on them, when (as planned) Obama "has" to deny social security payments to us, and cut a bloated government by laying off un-needed employees.

Make no mistake, Obama will not back down; he doesn't want to. If he can't get the extra taxation and borrowed money he wants, he will make cuts that will be hurtful to Americans. Afterall, "it won't be his fault". He'll claim he tried to warn us that this would happen if those rascally conservatives won't give in to him. It won't last long, but he'll take advantage of this situation to establish his next presidential re-election bid. After-all, America will just crumble without his expertise and the expertise of all progressives, and the proof will be in the debt ceiling debate outcome. If he gets what he wants, he wins, if he doesn't get what he wants, he will win because of the "disastrous outcome that the conservatives forced the county into".

Hold your head up; contact your representatives and tell them you have their back. They need to know you will not abandon them. The next general election inlcludes a sufficient number of Senators so that conservatives could become the majority in both houses, neuturing this spending, taxing, fascist president, if he wins re-election.

CASEY WHO?!

It is amazing how much the public school system has "dumbed-down" the American citizenry.

Casey Anthony had her day in court and the prosecutors were not able to make the case that this woman killed her child. It is as simple as that. Don't blame Casey for being such a liar or bad parent; while all of that may be true, it still remains that she was found not guilty because the prosecutors were inept.

I remember the "OJ" trial, and how so many people were soooo pleased that HE was found innocent, dispite all the evidence to the contrary. The news media wasn't weeping over that verdict, like they are over this one. And Americans were content to let him walk free, while they seem a little less inclined in the Anthony case.

People!! It doesn't matter what you think; it doesn't matter what you feel; the facts are what the jurors had when they determined her innocence or guilt. None of the jurors were concerned about how you felt, and it is a good thing that at least these 12 people were able to come to a determination, without being affected by their emotions.

I salute all of them! But the rest of you are the ones I'm concerned about. Even Miss Kimberly Guilfoyle showed her prejudices on the television programs that followed the verdict. She could hardly contain herself and her prejudices when debating the guilt of Casey Anthony, whom Guilfoyle was absolutely certain, was the murderer of Caylee Anthony.....regardless of the lack of evidence.

It is true; there is a dead body of a 2 year old child, but there is no evidence to prove how her death occurred or who may have abetted her death. Has our country and its legal beagles gone that far off the constitution that they are more concerned with how they feel and what they think rather than what the constitution and the rule of law dictates as to how a person can be convicted in a case concerning the death of a person?

I'll tell you this, if I were one of the jurors, I too would have been hard pressed to find a verdict of guilt. We used to have to have 2 witnesses to prove someones guilt; today we use forensics to act as witnesses, but for me, that merely means additional proof needs to be presented since no one can corroborate the testimony of science. I want actual proof, not circumstantial evidence presented by blood tests or horse whisperers. I am  not so inclined to put someone to death or to find someone guilty and imprison them for life, unless there is irrefutable evidence.....not merely "new" or "old" science.

The emotional people who demanded Casey's verdict of guilt need to find a therapist. Obviously, they are ruled by their emotions and not facts. Obviously, they want an outcome based on how they feel, not the facts. I wonder how they would react if THEY are ever charged with anything as meaningless as a traffic ticket, which was made possible via a camera at an intersection? I mean, is a photograph of their automobile going through a red light evidence that they were the ones driving the car at the time? I'm just saying.

UNION THINKING HAS AFFECTED AMERICANS IN MANY WAYS

When I was much younger, unions offered me job protection and 'security'. As I aged, as a union representative, I began to realize the communistic or socialistic implications of unions and the people represented by the unions as well as the people affected by unions, who are not even associated with the union in question.

I worked for the "Steelworkers Union" in the Bethlehem Steel Company, in Lackawanna New York. I was a very good representative, winning 75% of my grievances. But maturity, made me wiser. Although I could help keep a job for an employee that actually should have been discharged for their repeated absences, or misconduct, I learned that these people held back the employees who were eager to work and were otherwise exemplary employees. But it was those very employees who lost the most, because unions protected the people that it should have let go, and by that protection, made good employees mediocre.

Wages were arbitrated across the board, instead of meritoriously. So, the bad employees got as much as the good employees......it wasn't a fair way to reward those who did their job and were in attendance as their job required. Benefits were arbitrated across the board, instead of meritoriously. Everyone was treated as part of the whole instead of individually, and many of those malevolents were sometimes substance abusers or alcohol abusers. And I know it's true because we had a program that made the Bethlehem Steel Company keep employees who were abusers, IF they entered a drug and rehab program; a program used by the union to keep employees, employed. Most abusers didn't receive the treatment they needed to 'cure' themselves; they just needed to enter the program to keep their jobs.

Americanism is all about exceptionalism; unions ruined this concept and made all employees equal to the worse or less caring employee; subsequently, anyone affected by the products made by union people, got a mediocre product. Cars for instance; it was common thought that a car built on a Monday or a Friday, had more flaws or problems than those built during the week. So, the public was affected by unions, even though the public didn't work for the union. Automobile recalls, could probably be linked to those two days' production,  when union employees were less interested in their job than they were in the weekend coming or going.

I can't be certain of the statistics, but of the injuries and deaths within the steel industry I don't doubt that the majority were on Monday or Friday, just like the automobile employee statistic that showed a negative trend on certain days, and primarily, because of unions, steel plants no longer are profitable in the United States. I worked at a plant that employed over 21,000 people; today the facility is a water treatment plant with about 3,000 people employed; doesn't the union care that 18,000 people lost their jobs? And guess what; the unfunded pensions of those people are being administered by a governmental agency because Bethlehem Steel had to file bankruptcy and couldn't afford to pay the pensions it obligated itself to, through union negotiations. Today, I get about 1/10th of what I was told I would get when I retired.

Unions are not concerned about its membership; unions are concerned about power and political connections.  Unions use membership dues to further their position with politicians, but members do not get a direct benefit from those dues and connections.

Democrats, and Socialists, like Unions because unions 'control' the masses and all that companies or governments have to do is negotiate with a few, rather than individually with those who feel they have more to offer than what they are being paid for. If companies relished and enjoyed individualism, they would seek employees that could help them grow; Microsoft is responsible for producing hundreds of millionaires, not because of unions but because of the efforts and work of individuals; both the employee and the company has benefited from those individuals.

Today, unions are raging literal destruction throughout the world; why? because "they" do not want to be dissolved. Why are they being dissolved, because they cater to the least and demand the most. The rioters and destroyers are no doubt, the weak link within the union. A good employee wouldn't even think of destroying private or public property. A good employee wants to work, get his benefits, make some money, plan for the future, buy what his heart desires, and get onto the next day. Those who want to spend their days destroying others' property, have no respect for anyone. They just feel they are 'entitled', and want their 'entitlement'. Do you see the difference?

States are legislating Unions into oblivion; that is a good thing. Meritorious benefits and wages will make better employees, and those who are dragging an organization down, will be terminated, as they should be. The hard working Americans will prosper, especially without unions. Individuals will be able to 'sell' themselves to the highest bidder. YOU, will be able to plan on your future dependent on what you are able to do, not what the union 'can do for you'.

Exceptionalism is not new and needs to be the mindset of the 21st century. This country is not finished. We have living within our boundaries, some of the worlds' brightest and best. We need to return our Universities back to the people of America; we need to encourage industry and business to locate and relocate in the USA. This is the greatest country in the world, and communism or socialism has no place here. Cuba is trying to encourage capitalism; soon, Venzuela will. Why should we hide from that? This country is a leader in the world. We don't want to force ourselves upon anyone, like unions do. This country wants to be a beacon for the world; an example for them to follow, if they want to.

The Democratic party is not the party it used to be; it is not the party of JFK. The Democratic party is in lock step with unions, with socialism with the destruction of individualism. The Republican party is being forced to reconsider Conservatism; individualism. The grass roots movement referred to as the TEA Party is just Americans fed up with being led around for the benefit of a few. The TEA Party will decide elections in the future, because the TEA Party is made up of Americans who want to be governed by the Constitution; by the rule of law; by freedom. Americans want the right to pursue the happiness each individual wants, not a happiness dictated to us by political and union arbitrators.