Housing bailout bill

Housing bailout

The Housing bailout bill announced this week by President Obama flies in the face of American tradition and good government policy. Our Nation's strong moral backbone and traditions are built on hard work, reward and yes, some failures. We are to learn from failures, so has to not repeat them, not reward the failure. Yet this housing bailout bill does just that, it rewards reckless behavior and punishes good responsible behavior. This policy theme of rewarding bad or reckless behavior creates apathy and hopelessness within a country which is very damaging in the long run. Do you remember the very excited convention delegate from the Democratic convention last summer? She was seen on TV after the convention nominated Senator Obama stating that now she would no longer have to pay her mortgage or put gas in her car. I think most of us thought she was a bit delusional probably as a result of her extreme enthusiasm for then Presidential candidate Obama. However, after this week's announcement, I think we should all be waiting for the new Administration proposal that provides free gasoline for those who purchased vehicles they can no longer afford. Yikes! I don't know about you but I am getting really tired of drinking from this fire hose known as bad Obama Administration policy.

Stimulus Bill

Stimulus bill isn’t so stimulating for our youth

The Stimulus bill now making it’s way thru the Congress isn’t so stimulating, especially if you are a young person in America. Believe it or not, according to numbers provided by the US Census, the debt each American will owe the US Government to pay for items in the pending “spendulous”bill is $15,783. Then if you add the trillion dollar debt already owed by the Federal Government and the $700 billion spent for the bank bailout, the total owed by every American will be $29,028. So young folks, before you buy your first car, take out your first student loan or buy your first home, you will have to figure a way to pay back Washington DC for money they spent supposedly on your behalf.
This is a serious debt to be dumping on the future of America, those being the young. Yet, unfortunately the news gets worse when it comes to Uncle Sam going on a spending spree. I am referring to the funds spent by our government for the bank bailout, better known as TARP.(Troubled Asset Relief Program) We learned today from the chairperson of the TARP oversight board that when our government spent the first half of the TARP funds, it overpaid the banks for their assets by $78 billion. This means that we as taxpayers bought something at the price of $254 billion and learned it was really only worth $176 billion. With all of this money being spent on behalf of the American people, by Members of Congress who have already bought their first car, borrowed the money needed for college and more than likely have bought their first home, I would hope the younger folks in our great nation would rise up and take notice as to what they are being asked to shoulder. By the way, does anyone know what comes after a TRILLION?

Government "talk police"

Government "talk police" is not a good thing

If the general public can't quite grasp the dangers inherent in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, either in whole or in part, then maybe they will get it if they look at the latest political scandal that is surrounding the Governor of Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich.

If you read the special prosecutors criminal complaint, you would think that this Governor, his wife and chief of staff were auditioning for the Jerry Springer show, especially the foul language used by all involved.

However, as you read further in the 78 page document, you will see on page 43 that the good Governor wanted to silence his local newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, because a certain editorial writer had written derogatory pieces on the Governor and his administration. The complaint clearly shows how the power of Government could easily silence the freedom of speech.

Think for a moment about the possible abuse of power that could occur when regulators in Washington, DC, not the general public, decided what content or point of view could be aired over our radio waves. If that isn't the Federal Government regulating our freedom of speech, I'm not sure what else you could call it. To me, having the "talk police" insist on certain content be aired, notwithstanding the views of the listeners, is precisely robbing us of our freedom of speech.

You see, we exercise our freedom of speech by choosing to listening to, or not listen to, certain points of view. If content is going to be regulated in Washington, DC, and not by listener, then our freedom of speech has been silenced. Let's not let one of our most basic rights under the constitution be stripped away from us because we are asleep at the switch. Having our government be the "talk police" can never be a good thing!

Stay tuned,

Elizabeth

The New York Times Judgment?

It is truly hard for me to believe that The New York Times made the conscience decision to publish the story revealing the United States Government classified program via the CIA & Treasury Department to monitor international financial transactions to help win the war on terror. Mr. Bill Keller, Executive Editor said that, "Revealing the program wouldn't harm the national security" and thus gave the go ahead to publish the story. I didn't know that Mr. Keller had worked for the CIA and Treasury Department and thus had the proper knowledge to know if harm would result from revealing the classified program? As a matter of fact, Mr. Keller's own resume reveals he has worked only in the journalism industry and has never worked for the CIA, the Treasury Department or for that matter the Department of Defense. Maybe when the editors of the New York Times have to make similar decisions in the future, they should apply the "Abe Lincoln test". Simply take a piece of paper and draw a line straight down the middle, vertically. Now, in the left column, write who would benefit from publishing the story in question. In the right column, write who would be harmed from the publishing of the story. If the word TERRORIST, (remember those folks who cut off American heads on TV), ever appear in the left column, please do not publish the story. Publishing such a story means you would be aiding and abetting the enemy.
Stay tuned,
Elizabeth

Fairness Doctrine-Not so fair!

I, like most Americans, are thankful that the elections are behind us and a peaceful transition of power will occur on Jan. 20, 2009. This is a real time for America to be proud that we live in a free country. It is with this in mind that I worry a bit about some of our new President' ideas about free speech. President elect Obama has said that he wants the Fairness Doctrine, which was abolished in 1987, to be reinstated. This means that the Federal Government will play "talk police" and decide what should be broadcasted via our airways. I understand that all of us want and need to hear all sides of every important issue, but the operative thought here is that we already do make that decision simply by choosing to tune into our favorite news/talk/broadcast show. If we are compelled to listen to all sides of an issue, regardless of it's merit, then we have lost our choice, or more succinctly put, our freedom of speech. After all, don't we exercise those freedoms each time we tune into our favorite broadcast. If the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated during the aftermath of 9/11, all the talk that Osama Bin Laden was a bad guy would have to be balanced with opposing views that maybe Osama wasn't such a bad guy. I don't know about you, but my freedom of choice and speech would immediately turn that broadcast outlet off! Just a thought, God Bless America and our freedom of speech.

Posse Comitatus reform or local & state accountability?

Posse Comitatus reform or local & state accountability?
While America rebuilds after Hurricane Katrina, and prepares for the other hurricanes that may effect this great United States of America, I think it is important for all of us to understand the role that local, state and the federal government play in protecting and informing the American people of potential danger these terrible weather phenomenon can inflict.
In 1878 the Posse Comitatus Act was made a US Public law. It bars federal troops from making arrests and assuming other domestic law enforcement duties within our 50 States in America. Also under the law, the National Guard can assume some law enforcement roles, but only after the request of state officials and only when operating under and with state officials.
On Saturday, August 27 at approx. 8:30PM, the director of the National Hurricane Center, Mr. Max Mayfield personally called the Governor of LA, the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of MS to make sure that each of these individuals understood the severity of the upcoming Katrina Hurricane. This type of personal communication, according to his testimony in the United States Senate subcommittee on Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2005, was unprecedented within his agency.
Given these factual chains of command, and the desire for all Americans to be informed and kept safe from such disasters, I would implore all Americans to reevaluate their state and local official’s strengths and weaknesses. Remember, according to Public law dating back to 1878, these well intentioned public servants are the first line of defense for the American public in the face of a natural disaster, and not the Federal Government.
If you don’t want the buck to stop with your State and local officials then you must be in favor of changing the Posse Comitatus Act. This in my opinion would unjustly empower the President of the United States and the Federal Government, in allowing ground troops to conduct searches, seizures and make arrests during a major disaster on U. S. soil. Lets all think about this major civil liberties issue before calling for the Federal Government to come to the rescue during major natural disasters in the great United States of America.

NCAA needs to GET a LIFE!!

The NCAA needs to get a life................or at least redirect their energy towards something that truly effects college students. Instead they continue to pursue the Florida State University use of the Seminole as their mascot. The NCAA claims it is offensive to Native Americans. However, the head of the Seminole tribe has approved and supports the use of the Seminole as FSU's mascot. If it is not offensive to the Seminole tribe then who is it offensive towards? Maybe they should go after the Miami "Hurricanes" because the state of Florida had 4 of them hit their state last year............that must be "offensive" to somebody in Florida. Instead the NCAA needs to get some common sense back into their organization and stop wasting the courts time with this law suite.