By Oscar Y. Harward
For the third time, President Obama submitted John J. McConnell, Jr. to be United States District Judge for the District of Rhode Island. Twice before, the US Senate has rejected this nominee on “Closure”.
John J. McConnell, Jr. served four years as Director of Rhode Island Planned Parenthood, is a member of Amnesty International since 1989, and worked with ACORN in convincing municipalities to bring lead-paint lawsuits. McConnell pioneered the practice of “soliciting public officials to bring lawsuits in which the private lawyers are paid a percentage of any judgment or settlement.” http://commonamericanjournal.com/?p=27973.
From 1991 until present, he has been a partner and director of the Environmental practice group at Motley Rice LLC, working with state and local governments, groups, and individuals in cases of personal injury, property damage and economic loss as a result of negligent environmental practices.
For the first “ever” in its 100-year history, the US Chamber of Commerce opposed John J. McConnell, Jr., to be United States District Judge.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said that there are also serious ethical issues with Mr. McConnell’s nomination. “He has given statements to the Judiciary Committee that are misleading at best, and untrue at worse, about his familiarity with a case involving stolen litigation documents.”
Many members of the radical left-wing environment radicals are attacking our economy by demanding less oil and gasoline drilling, more requirements on industry making businesses less-competitive in the marketplace, and more government bureaucracy. (Y)our GOP Platform supports common-sense protection of our environment as defined in “Addressing Climate Change Responsibly” http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm.
The Washington Examiner wrote an editorial critical of McConnell for making almost $700,000 in campaign contributions to Democrats by him and his wife since 1993. The editorial in the Washington Examiner claimed he is trying to buy a federal judgeship through targeted contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._McConnell,_Jr.
With this evidence, it appears that McConnell will be a Federal Judge who creates the law, rather than rule on the laws as written. McConnell is quoted as saying, `There are wrongs that need to be righted, and that’s how I see the law.” In Mr. McConnell’s eyes, the wrongdoers in America are invariably its job creators http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/forum/topics/dist-judge-nomination-cloture?commentId=2600775%3AComment%3A3773077&xg_source=activity.
With this pro-abortionist evidence and other radical left-wing history, why could or would Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Johnny Isakson (GA), Mark Kirk (IL), John McCain AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK) Olympia Snowe (ME), and John Thune (SD) of South Dakota elect “YES” on a Closure Vote http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00065? In the Senate, 60 “YES” votes are required to move forward on an issue. Why did these same GOP Senators turn around on the next Roll Call Vote only to vote “NO” on Confirmation http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00066 of this same Obama lifetime Federal Judgeship nominee? “All Democrats” who cast their votes chose “YES” on both “Closure” and “Confirmation”.
While this is the third time Sen. “Flimsy” Graham has shown support for pro-abortionists in less than two years (SCOTUS nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan), most Republicans, along with (y)our GOP Platform as defined, support “Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Lifesupport” http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm#5.
Do these 11 GOP Senators believe they may be able to “fool” and/or convince their constituents that they support “pro-life”? How can these 11 Republican Senators say they support a free and open economy after supporting “Closure” on John J. McConnell, Jr., to be United States District Judge? What did these 11 GOP Senators get in return for their vote, or is this their true political belief and practice? President Obama’s approved US District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. is a way-out radical left-winger. Again, “all Democrats” who cast their votes chose “YES” on both “Closure” and “Confirmation”. How corrupt are the 11 Republicans and almost all Democrats in the US Senate?
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
Why homosexuality is wrong
By Clenard Childress
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/childress/110505
The 21st century has offered new challenges to the faith community and society. We are faced with social issues which have become increasingly more complex due to ever shifting perceptions of behavior and relationships.
In 1954, Dr. Martin Luther King, in his sermon, "Rediscovering Lost Values," warned the country of a disturbing trend he perceived among its citizens — Moral Relativism. In the 60s it came under this guise: "If it feels good, do it! If it doesn't, do it anyway..." In the 70s it was, "I'm Okay. You're Okay." And these days our children are inculcated with, "I Am Loveable and Kind!" Moreover, they are told it matters if more you feel good about yourself and your choices than what is right. Right and wrong is being educated out of our children leaving them in a disconnected region of clearly undefined blurry grays.
With great prophetical insight Dr. King believed that if Moral Relativism was not dealt with, we might lose the nation he had come to love. That was 57 years ago.
The book in the Bible most reflecting this trend of Moral Relativism would be the Book of Judges, for it succinctly relates a season in the history of Israel where "Everyone did what was right in their own eyes." To say something is wrong implies there is a standard or a moral code of ethics or absolutes superseding an individual's desires. What we have forgotten as a nation, and particularly as African Americans, is what the champion of the Civil Rights Movement related in the above mentioned sermon. His tenants were that the Ten Commandments and the principles of the Scriptures, are right, and to deviate from them will cause havoc if not attended to. If you sow to the wind, you reap the whirlwind... In light of this, any cursory search of the Bible regarding homosexuality reveal it is wrong, not only Biblically, but physiologically, sociologically, and even violates secular Natural Law (biologically).
The Biblical warning refers to the obvious natural indicators to deter mankind from indulging in such behavior. Leviticus 18:22 clearly warns against men indulging in sexual relationships with other men, and what God thinks about it. It reads,
22 You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
The Apostle Paul writing in his letter to the Romans is even clearer, for he not only warns men and women about the practice of homosexuality and lesbianism, but he points out it is against nature, and that there would be terrible consequences for those ardently committed to this lifestyle. Romans 1:26-27 says,
26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another — men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
Amazingly enough, and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, there are clerics today — false prophets, as it were — who say the Bible does not repudiate homosexuality. When Jesus was threatening a group of religious hypocrites, and said to them it was going to be worse for them than Sodom and Gomorrah, all those of the Jewish culture understood and knew of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah which was destroyed by "fire and brimstone" and why it was destroyed. As Christians, should we suppose and can we believe that all of a sudden, God has changed his perspective on homosexuality as these false prophets would have us believe? Are we that stupid? Remember, Jesus said in the last days it would be as the days of Lot.
So, what was it like it the days of Lot? Homosexuality was demanding and imposing itself upon the righteous to capitulate, to yield, to give way to its predominance where Lot lived. Genesis 19:1-5 says,
1 It was evening when the two angels came to Sodom. Lot was sitting at Sodom's [city] gate. Seeing them, Lot rose up to meet them and bowed to the ground.
2 And he said, My lords, turn aside, I beg of you, into your servant's house and spend the night and bathe your feet. Then you can arise early and go on your way. But they said, No, we will spend the night in the square.
3 [Lot] entreated and urged them greatly until they yielded and [with him] entered his house. And he made them a dinner [with drinking] and had unleavened bread which he baked, and they ate.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city of Sodom, both young and old, all the men from every quarter, surrounded the house.
5 And they called to Lot and said, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know (be intimate with) them.
'Bring the men outside that we may know (be intimate with) them...'
Jesus said prophetically that in the last days the homosexual community will demand their lifestyle be accepted as a right in society. And now we are even seeing homosexuality bandied about as a "Civil Right" that should be guaranteed under the Constitution similar to some of the rights being sought through the modern "Civil Rights Movement." They are not the same, but be that as it may be, the same Jesus condemned Sodom and Gomorrah for their lifestyle.
Physiologically speaking the male body is not designed to be penetrated. Anal sex is the overwhelmingly practice for gay men. Quoting from Dr. John Diggs an African American doctor who has done extensive studies homosexuality:
"Yet human physiologically makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity (anal sex) the rectum is significantly different from the vagina and with the regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently anal sex leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.
"The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue that is blood. Therefore any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.
"The vagina is the only part of mankind that is designed to receive the components of an ejaculation safely. The anus is not and is subject to an extraordinarily high infection rate.
"The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections."
"The only epidemiological studies to date on the life spans of gay men have concluded that homosexual and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.( The Health Risk of Gay Sex by Dr. John Diggs Esecutive summary (i) Sociologically speaking, the demand in our present day for homosexual marriage is a threat to the stability of our society, and without question, a detriment to children. Laws enacted by congress during a century of struggle for equal rights for African Americans, were intended to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, not on the basis of an individual's sexual preference, proclivity, or personal behavior. As Richard Thompson Ford, a Stanford Law Professor has aptly stated, "After all, traditional marriage isn't just analogous to sex discrimination — it is sex discrimination: Only men may marry women, and only women may marry men. Same-sex marriage would transform an institution that currently defines two distinctive sex roles — husband and wife — by replacing those different halves with one sex-neutral role — spouse. Sure, we could call two married men "husbands" and two married women "wives," but the specificic role for each sex that now defines marriage would be lost."( Slate- Jurisprudence, The Law, The Lawyers, and the court, Anology lesson, by Richard Thompson Ford)
Marriage between a man and a woman, the fundamental building block of all of societies, not just ours, has stood the test of time for millennia.
Monogamy is what we look for in the marriage institution. Conversely 66% of homosexual couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year and 90% after the first five years. Unlike their heterosexual counterparts, 43% of all gay men have had sex with over 500 different male partners during their lifetime, 28% reported having over 1,000.(The Heath Risk of Gay sex by Dr. John Diggs, Timothy Daily, A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinburg, "The Study of male and female homosexuality') Children need both parents and both roles to be lived out before them for their own healthy sexual orientation; to deviate from these norms will dramatically increase flawed orientations, and ultimately unnatural sexual preferences.
It is the male component in a heterosexual couple which brings balance and determines much of the sexual identity of the child. I believe it is also the male spiritually that is crucial in the orientation process. I believe it is the father that speaks into the psyche of his child and ensures their successful orientation. A young man is edified by the affirmation and care of his father and the daughter is reminded of her beauty and how special she is to her father. Both receive loving hugs of admiration, not groping lustful touching by an imposing male gratifying his sexual urges upon the innocent. Unfortunately in our times, with the destruction of the African American nuclear family unit, 70% of households in the African American community are headed by a single parent,4 while historical data shows, Black children were more likely to be raised by both parents during slavery than they are now. (Single-Parent families-Demographic http://family.jrank.org/pages/1574/Single-Parent-Families-Demographic-Trends.html (Cherlin, A. J. (2006), On Single Mothers "Doing" Family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68: 800–803. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00294)
Biologically speaking, homosexuality violates secular natural law "derived from the physical, biological, and behavioral laws of nature as perceived by the human intellect and elaborated through reason" and observation which, simply says: Whether it be a homosexual male couple, or female, neither couple can procreate on their own. Some other process must be used be it artificial insemination, surrogates, or adoption.
Homosexuality is wrong but we must love the homosexual unconditionally. Loving them does not mean condoning their actions and relinquishing our principles so "we all can get along" leaving them in delusion and further deteriorating our society. Dr. King said it best in his address in front of the Lincoln Memorial after the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom in 1957 when he stated, "What we are witnessing today in so many northern communities is a sort of quasi liberalism which is based on the principle of looking sympathetically at all sides. It is a liberalism so bent on seeing all sides that it fails to be committed to either side. It is a liberalism that is so objectively analytical that it is not subjectively committed. It is a liberalism which is neither hot nor cold."
Martin's reference to the lukewarm, 'neither hot nor cold,' is extrapolated from the Book of Revelation's account of the Laodicean Church. Jesus said that they were neither hot nor cold and this approach to the moral issues of their day made him disgustingly sick. Some things are right and some things are wrong. Let us not lose our nation over trying to make what is clearly wrong, sociably right...
"Right is right even if everyone is against it and wrong is wrong even when everyone is for it."
© Clenard Childress
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/childress/110505
The 21st century has offered new challenges to the faith community and society. We are faced with social issues which have become increasingly more complex due to ever shifting perceptions of behavior and relationships.
In 1954, Dr. Martin Luther King, in his sermon, "Rediscovering Lost Values," warned the country of a disturbing trend he perceived among its citizens — Moral Relativism. In the 60s it came under this guise: "If it feels good, do it! If it doesn't, do it anyway..." In the 70s it was, "I'm Okay. You're Okay." And these days our children are inculcated with, "I Am Loveable and Kind!" Moreover, they are told it matters if more you feel good about yourself and your choices than what is right. Right and wrong is being educated out of our children leaving them in a disconnected region of clearly undefined blurry grays.
With great prophetical insight Dr. King believed that if Moral Relativism was not dealt with, we might lose the nation he had come to love. That was 57 years ago.
The book in the Bible most reflecting this trend of Moral Relativism would be the Book of Judges, for it succinctly relates a season in the history of Israel where "Everyone did what was right in their own eyes." To say something is wrong implies there is a standard or a moral code of ethics or absolutes superseding an individual's desires. What we have forgotten as a nation, and particularly as African Americans, is what the champion of the Civil Rights Movement related in the above mentioned sermon. His tenants were that the Ten Commandments and the principles of the Scriptures, are right, and to deviate from them will cause havoc if not attended to. If you sow to the wind, you reap the whirlwind... In light of this, any cursory search of the Bible regarding homosexuality reveal it is wrong, not only Biblically, but physiologically, sociologically, and even violates secular Natural Law (biologically).
The Biblical warning refers to the obvious natural indicators to deter mankind from indulging in such behavior. Leviticus 18:22 clearly warns against men indulging in sexual relationships with other men, and what God thinks about it. It reads,
22 You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
The Apostle Paul writing in his letter to the Romans is even clearer, for he not only warns men and women about the practice of homosexuality and lesbianism, but he points out it is against nature, and that there would be terrible consequences for those ardently committed to this lifestyle. Romans 1:26-27 says,
26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another — men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
Amazingly enough, and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, there are clerics today — false prophets, as it were — who say the Bible does not repudiate homosexuality. When Jesus was threatening a group of religious hypocrites, and said to them it was going to be worse for them than Sodom and Gomorrah, all those of the Jewish culture understood and knew of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah which was destroyed by "fire and brimstone" and why it was destroyed. As Christians, should we suppose and can we believe that all of a sudden, God has changed his perspective on homosexuality as these false prophets would have us believe? Are we that stupid? Remember, Jesus said in the last days it would be as the days of Lot.
So, what was it like it the days of Lot? Homosexuality was demanding and imposing itself upon the righteous to capitulate, to yield, to give way to its predominance where Lot lived. Genesis 19:1-5 says,
1 It was evening when the two angels came to Sodom. Lot was sitting at Sodom's [city] gate. Seeing them, Lot rose up to meet them and bowed to the ground.
2 And he said, My lords, turn aside, I beg of you, into your servant's house and spend the night and bathe your feet. Then you can arise early and go on your way. But they said, No, we will spend the night in the square.
3 [Lot] entreated and urged them greatly until they yielded and [with him] entered his house. And he made them a dinner [with drinking] and had unleavened bread which he baked, and they ate.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city of Sodom, both young and old, all the men from every quarter, surrounded the house.
5 And they called to Lot and said, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know (be intimate with) them.
'Bring the men outside that we may know (be intimate with) them...'
Jesus said prophetically that in the last days the homosexual community will demand their lifestyle be accepted as a right in society. And now we are even seeing homosexuality bandied about as a "Civil Right" that should be guaranteed under the Constitution similar to some of the rights being sought through the modern "Civil Rights Movement." They are not the same, but be that as it may be, the same Jesus condemned Sodom and Gomorrah for their lifestyle.
Physiologically speaking the male body is not designed to be penetrated. Anal sex is the overwhelmingly practice for gay men. Quoting from Dr. John Diggs an African American doctor who has done extensive studies homosexuality:
"Yet human physiologically makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity (anal sex) the rectum is significantly different from the vagina and with the regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently anal sex leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.
"The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue that is blood. Therefore any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.
"The vagina is the only part of mankind that is designed to receive the components of an ejaculation safely. The anus is not and is subject to an extraordinarily high infection rate.
"The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections."
"The only epidemiological studies to date on the life spans of gay men have concluded that homosexual and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.( The Health Risk of Gay Sex by Dr. John Diggs Esecutive summary (i) Sociologically speaking, the demand in our present day for homosexual marriage is a threat to the stability of our society, and without question, a detriment to children. Laws enacted by congress during a century of struggle for equal rights for African Americans, were intended to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, not on the basis of an individual's sexual preference, proclivity, or personal behavior. As Richard Thompson Ford, a Stanford Law Professor has aptly stated, "After all, traditional marriage isn't just analogous to sex discrimination — it is sex discrimination: Only men may marry women, and only women may marry men. Same-sex marriage would transform an institution that currently defines two distinctive sex roles — husband and wife — by replacing those different halves with one sex-neutral role — spouse. Sure, we could call two married men "husbands" and two married women "wives," but the specificic role for each sex that now defines marriage would be lost."( Slate- Jurisprudence, The Law, The Lawyers, and the court, Anology lesson, by Richard Thompson Ford)
Marriage between a man and a woman, the fundamental building block of all of societies, not just ours, has stood the test of time for millennia.
Monogamy is what we look for in the marriage institution. Conversely 66% of homosexual couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year and 90% after the first five years. Unlike their heterosexual counterparts, 43% of all gay men have had sex with over 500 different male partners during their lifetime, 28% reported having over 1,000.(The Heath Risk of Gay sex by Dr. John Diggs, Timothy Daily, A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinburg, "The Study of male and female homosexuality') Children need both parents and both roles to be lived out before them for their own healthy sexual orientation; to deviate from these norms will dramatically increase flawed orientations, and ultimately unnatural sexual preferences.
It is the male component in a heterosexual couple which brings balance and determines much of the sexual identity of the child. I believe it is also the male spiritually that is crucial in the orientation process. I believe it is the father that speaks into the psyche of his child and ensures their successful orientation. A young man is edified by the affirmation and care of his father and the daughter is reminded of her beauty and how special she is to her father. Both receive loving hugs of admiration, not groping lustful touching by an imposing male gratifying his sexual urges upon the innocent. Unfortunately in our times, with the destruction of the African American nuclear family unit, 70% of households in the African American community are headed by a single parent,4 while historical data shows, Black children were more likely to be raised by both parents during slavery than they are now. (Single-Parent families-Demographic http://family.jrank.org/pages/1574/Single-Parent-Families-Demographic-Trends.html (Cherlin, A. J. (2006), On Single Mothers "Doing" Family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68: 800–803. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00294)
Biologically speaking, homosexuality violates secular natural law "derived from the physical, biological, and behavioral laws of nature as perceived by the human intellect and elaborated through reason" and observation which, simply says: Whether it be a homosexual male couple, or female, neither couple can procreate on their own. Some other process must be used be it artificial insemination, surrogates, or adoption.
Homosexuality is wrong but we must love the homosexual unconditionally. Loving them does not mean condoning their actions and relinquishing our principles so "we all can get along" leaving them in delusion and further deteriorating our society. Dr. King said it best in his address in front of the Lincoln Memorial after the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom in 1957 when he stated, "What we are witnessing today in so many northern communities is a sort of quasi liberalism which is based on the principle of looking sympathetically at all sides. It is a liberalism so bent on seeing all sides that it fails to be committed to either side. It is a liberalism that is so objectively analytical that it is not subjectively committed. It is a liberalism which is neither hot nor cold."
Martin's reference to the lukewarm, 'neither hot nor cold,' is extrapolated from the Book of Revelation's account of the Laodicean Church. Jesus said that they were neither hot nor cold and this approach to the moral issues of their day made him disgustingly sick. Some things are right and some things are wrong. Let us not lose our nation over trying to make what is clearly wrong, sociably right...
"Right is right even if everyone is against it and wrong is wrong even when everyone is for it."
© Clenard Childress
Dear President Obama
Dennis Axtell posted in BARACK HUSSEIN NOBAMA NOBAMA AKA BARRY SOETORO 2011 2012 YES WE CAN.
By Dennis Axtell
I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me. We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over?
Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bilingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. Flag from my house top, put U S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help.
You're the man!!!
By Dennis Axtell
I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me. We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over?
Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bilingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. Flag from my house top, put U S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help.
You're the man!!!
Sunday, May 1, 2011
SHOULD UNION COUNTY, NC COMMISSIONERS BE LIMITED TO TWO TERMS?
An open letter from Byron J. Ward, Ph.D. with a personal response from myself, Oscar Y. Harward
SHOULD UNION COUNTY, NC COMMISSIONERS BE LIMITED TO TWO TERMS?
Should the number of terms a politician serves be limited? In the 1940‘s the United States Constitution was amended to limit the President to two, four year terms. That followed President Franklin Roosevelt’s election to a 4th term as President. President Roosevelt died in office while serving his 4th term. I discussed term limits with a friend of mine a few years ago. He felt they were unnecessary because we can just vote the politician out of office if we no longer want his services. Have you noticed how well that works? Consider Senators Kennedy and Byrd as examples as well as our own Senator Helms.
Politicians are usually indebted to two groups. One group are the folks who financed their election, who bought them their job. The other group are the people who voted for them. It is apparently a tough balancing act to take care of both the people who elected them and those who paid for their election. If they want to be reelected, they must vote for the things that the people who paid for their election want, like keeping the four billion dollar government subsidies for big oil. They must also get all the goodies they can for the people back home who voted for them. The longer the politician is in office, the more powerful they become and the more goodies they can deliver back home.
The United States was founded on citizen representation, not professional politicians. That is why some people think we need term limits for those who represent us in government. This is why I recently wrote a letter to Mr. Jerry Simpson, Chairman, Union County Board of Commissioners stating that I had been informed that some of the Commissioners were in favor of limiting each Commissioner to two terms. Limiting the service of each Commissioner to two terms would provide opportunities for the County to benefit from the services of an expanded group of people. I am sure there are many people in Union County with a wealth of great ideas on how to utilize the Counties resources for the benefit of all its residents. Here is an opportunity for the Commissioners to provide positive leadership for the benefit of the residents of Union County by establishing limits of two terms.
Submitted by:
Byron J. Ward, Ph.D.
April 29, 2011
Open Response By Oscar Y. Harward To Byron J. Ward, Ph.D.
Clean open local communities practice (un)limited terms by elections.
By Oscar Y. Harward
One once said, “Government closest to people governs best.” Well, you do not get much closer to the people than (y)our local Union County, NC Commissioners.
In Election Year 2010, as well as in many previous elections, Union County, NC voters have demonstrated their preferences to “re-elect incumbents” for some while “rejecting other incumbents” for re-election for others.
Voters are regularly choosing their rights to extend or curtail the political life’s individuals in public life.
Money is not everything. If so, in 1994, Michael Huffington (former husband of Arianna Huffington) spent $28 million of his own money in a failed effort to become a CA US Senator.
In General Election 2010, Billionaire and GOP CA Gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman spent millions of her own wealth in a failed effort to become CA Governor.
SHOULD UNION COUNTY, NC COMMISSIONERS BE LIMITED TO TWO TERMS?
Should the number of terms a politician serves be limited? In the 1940‘s the United States Constitution was amended to limit the President to two, four year terms. That followed President Franklin Roosevelt’s election to a 4th term as President. President Roosevelt died in office while serving his 4th term. I discussed term limits with a friend of mine a few years ago. He felt they were unnecessary because we can just vote the politician out of office if we no longer want his services. Have you noticed how well that works? Consider Senators Kennedy and Byrd as examples as well as our own Senator Helms.
Politicians are usually indebted to two groups. One group are the folks who financed their election, who bought them their job. The other group are the people who voted for them. It is apparently a tough balancing act to take care of both the people who elected them and those who paid for their election. If they want to be reelected, they must vote for the things that the people who paid for their election want, like keeping the four billion dollar government subsidies for big oil. They must also get all the goodies they can for the people back home who voted for them. The longer the politician is in office, the more powerful they become and the more goodies they can deliver back home.
The United States was founded on citizen representation, not professional politicians. That is why some people think we need term limits for those who represent us in government. This is why I recently wrote a letter to Mr. Jerry Simpson, Chairman, Union County Board of Commissioners stating that I had been informed that some of the Commissioners were in favor of limiting each Commissioner to two terms. Limiting the service of each Commissioner to two terms would provide opportunities for the County to benefit from the services of an expanded group of people. I am sure there are many people in Union County with a wealth of great ideas on how to utilize the Counties resources for the benefit of all its residents. Here is an opportunity for the Commissioners to provide positive leadership for the benefit of the residents of Union County by establishing limits of two terms.
Submitted by:
Byron J. Ward, Ph.D.
April 29, 2011
Open Response By Oscar Y. Harward To Byron J. Ward, Ph.D.
Clean open local communities practice (un)limited terms by elections.
By Oscar Y. Harward
One once said, “Government closest to people governs best.” Well, you do not get much closer to the people than (y)our local Union County, NC Commissioners.
In Election Year 2010, as well as in many previous elections, Union County, NC voters have demonstrated their preferences to “re-elect incumbents” for some while “rejecting other incumbents” for re-election for others.
Voters are regularly choosing their rights to extend or curtail the political life’s individuals in public life.
Money is not everything. If so, in 1994, Michael Huffington (former husband of Arianna Huffington) spent $28 million of his own money in a failed effort to become a CA US Senator.
In General Election 2010, Billionaire and GOP CA Gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman spent millions of her own wealth in a failed effort to become CA Governor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)