1 - 10 Next
The race hustlers like Jackson and Sharpton AND most of the liberal/progressive politicians have never really seemed to care about the 'race based victims' they profess to champion. Power and money (tons of money) allegedly directed toward the improvement of opportunities for those alleged 'victims' seem to have provided very little toward improving the lot of those alleged 'victims' -- but the hustlers seem to have improved their lifestyles into incomes that most Americans only dream of while the number of people they claim to want to 'help' only increase the number of people on 'assistance' and of course 'dealing'. In other words, the alleged 'victims' are only used to enrich and further the cause of the hustlers and their political allies.
In response to:

Cash for Russian Clunkers

OldTimer Wrote: 14 hours ago (9:41 AM)
So far, the only thing "American" that Mr. Obama seems to care about is that the "American taxpayers" fund a 'lifestyle of the rich and famous' for him, his family and the close cronies he has put on the "American taxpayer funded" payroll.
Unfortunately, it seems that we now need protection from the minorities.
More and more it is beginning to appear that the Obama Administration is a 'government' version of organized crime, Chicago style.
As I understand the 'history', the original act was titled "Service Members Homeownership Tax Act of 2009 and the individual mandate totally originated in the Senate version. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590: I guess that be some strange rationale they could conclude that it was 'constitutional, like they did the act itself. Still, it is strange that the legislators were adamant that it was NOT a tax each time the 'origination' question or 'new tax' came up.
If some sort of intimidation was used to Chief Justice Roberts' bizarre rationale to prevail, then who is to same the same 'pressure' won't be applied again? After all, it seems that several hundred Democrats claimed the individual mandate was not a tax and hence was not required to originate in the House and then when SCOTUS concluded that it WAS a tax, that of itself should have made the law unconstitutional - but that was ignored. On the subject of 'subsidies', Mr. Limbaugh wrote, '[The subsidies would shift the cost of the policy from the individual to the government -- thus, the proverbial "free health care." '. I wish the writers would refrain from using the word 'government' when they are speaking of taxpayers who are forced to pay the bills for the 'free' stuff.
In response to:

She Will Be Crowned: Hillary 2016

OldTimer Wrote: Jul 29, 2014 7:06 AM
The Democratic Party of Entitlements will no doubt try to get a woman elected and Mrs. Clinton seems to be their choice, no matter how much KNOWN baggage she carries. They managed to get a virtually unknown person into the White House whose only claims to eligibility was his skin color and ability to read prepared and audience tailored speeches. We must never underestimate the power of 'fraud' and 'bribes' and of course, a news media that seldom sees anything wrong with a 'Democratic Party' candidate but is willing to exploit any 'blemish' they can magnify into a mountain, or even manufacture. Of course, a Democratic Party candidate whose résumé has fewer 'bumps' might be a better leader, but it is apparent that strong 'leadership' is not that important when political correctness and entitlements are the reasons so many people vote for the Democratic Party candidates.
"Overreach" and "conflicting government messages" seems to be the identifying features of the Obama Administration. After all, when the 'Crown Jewel" promised so much, delivered so little, broke so many promises and had so many 'executive orders' re-writing (possibly illegally) so many of the law's requirements and adding 'exemptions' in addition to so many other 'glitches' and disruptions in business across the nation, plus intrusions in so many other areas while essentially turning many people into lawbreakers -- with JUST ONE LAW -- and a Supreme Court decision that calls the law "Constitutional" by calling a provision a 'tax" and essentially saying that legislators who pushed the law were liars for telling us the 'individual mandate' was not a tax, who can believe that most of the "presumptions" by this group of 'leaders' in the Executive Branch and in the Senate are not deliberate power grabs, taking control of everything from the most mundane to the most necessary areas of our lives. In other words, to establish a suzerainty if not a dictatorship.
Like millions of Americans, I am always dubious when politicians get involved in private business. Oh, I'll admit that some government 'intervention' and 'control' (or 'regulating') has been beneficial, but I always think of the danger of letting the 'camel get its nose in the tent' and anything that has been sponsored in any way by a liberal like Sen. Leahy, gone through the hands of a Senate controlled by Sen. Harry Reid and signed into law by Mr. Obama, angst always visits me.
I agree that government has the power to tax and to punish lawbreakers, but those in government can overstep the intended purpose of those powers. Even the Founders recognized that people 'abuse' or 'misconstrue' the powers given to 'government' by the Constitution, so they added the Bill of Rights. It is clear that the Founders did not intend taxation or confiscation to provide 'assistance' to individuals just as punishment was not intended to be imposed on those with political differences. In other words, Justice meant that the innocent were not to be punished while the guilty received punishment befitting the crime. The quest for votes, contributions and political power have almost removed 'Justice' from much of the legislation, executive policies and regulations and even judicial decisions.
1 - 10 Next