It’s Unconstitutional, That’s Why it’s Wrong

Well now, Ms. Pelosi is in the Middle East on a 'fact-finding mission'. Do we realize why it is called a fact finding mission? For the simple reason that it is unconstitutional for an elected member of the Federal Government to attempt diplomatic relations with foreign nations. Yeah, illegal, wrong, and a slap in the face of the sitting President, no matter the President or the party of the traveler. The constitution clearly states, in article II, section 2, that the power to appoint ambassadors resides in the executive branch, not in the legislative branch. In article I, section 6, it clearly states that no member of congress can be appointed to any civil office, which covers ambassadors.

These fact finding missions are in violation of the constitution, they need to stop. These trips hurt our Country, as opposition parties have begun to use them for political reasons, to one-up a sitting president, and heck, that is just wrong. We have a very precarious standing in the world, as the only super-power, as the richest nation, and to have our elected representatives traveling to the shores of our enemies, as Ms. Pelosi plans to do, should actually be labeled as the treason it is.

insanity

I have to touch on Iran and the British Sailors again, as I am still confused by the issue. England scurried around the UN looking for one of those useless condemnations from the security council, the kind that no Country has ever taken seriously, and was rebuked in their efforts. The UN did issue the dreaded 'strongly worded letter'(STW), but fell short of condemning Iran for its obvious violation of the international law the UN is so fond of pretending to care about. The EU did finally realize that ignoring the situation was probably a bad idea, so they issued their own STW. The Geneva Conventions are also being trampled on by Iran, in a manner much more blatant than our trampling in Club Gitmo, and the UN seems to not care. The obvious double standard is driving me nuts, is driving the right wing nuts, while the left is positively beside themselves with glee. I would copy and paste the comments here, but I am trying very hard to keep this blog family friendly…that means if you click through, be prepared to read the foul language that is extremely common on left wing blog sites.

Now, these troops are being paraded for propaganda purposes, and the left does not care, actually, they seem to think, if the posters are any indication, that the troops deserve it because they carry the flag of England. I hate to think it, but I would venture to say that if the 15 were American, they would be treated like that dailykos dude treated the contractors that were hung from the bridge in Iraq…"Screw them" is what he said. The world is topsy-turvy, the American left believes the Iranian Government, yet thinks everything our President says is a lie. Maybe if the Iranian President had mentioned the Weapons in Iraq, weapons Hussein had used on Iranian troops, the left wouldn't be whining about the war!

Oh, and what ever happened to the three Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped by Lebanon, and the soldier kidnapped by the Palestinians, you know, the ones that were going to be released if only Israel would stop bombing Lebanon and pulled out of Gaza? Yeah, trustworthy opponents, and the World spins on….

The Socceriztion of kids

Soccer is socialism, simple as that. At their peak, professional soccer players are athletes, yes, I agree with that, but to drop a ball on the grass amidst a mob of screaming kids, that is insanity. Soccer, and the popularity thereof, runs in spurts. Parents are caught up in the 'fairness' of soccer, and the obvious lack of any skill needed to play the game. Baseball, softball, lacrosse, hockey, basketball and other real sports require at least rudimentary skills to be fun, while soccer requires only showing up. Every kid gets a trophy for showing up, every kid gets praise for winning, or losing, it really doesn't' matter, 'cause no one keeps score anyway.

This is leading somewhere, honest…socialists, or as they are called in America, Democrats, have been attempting to force our children to be socialists for years now, mainly in the classrooms and gyms of public schools. Dodge ball is gone, picking sides is gone, some want grades gone, and the classes are taught to the lowest common level, stifling the more intelligent among us. This is socialism, equality of outcome, not of opportunity, but the teachers, and the democrats, have been hiding behind other terms. Now, though, a group of teachers comes right out and says that 'capitalism is bad' so we are going to force our politics on the kids. You have to read the whole article, there are quotes in there that will make your head explode!

 

"This is my favorite: We also discussed our beliefs about our role as teachers in raising political issues with young children. We recognized that children are political beings, actively shaping their social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity — whether we interceded or not. We agreed that we want to take part in shaping the children's understandings from a perspective of social justice. So we decided to take the Legos out of the classroom."

How CAIR is trying to destroy the Country, and who is helping them

Okay, we all know the story of the Six Flying Imams, and the fact that they wanted to be kicked off the plane. Well, most of us now also know that they are suing, with the help of the CAIR. I sent you to the actual CAIR site, so you can read who they are in their words; of course, this site will tell you who they really are. The suit includes the passengers that were scared out of their minds by the yelling, screaming, and requesting stuff the Imams did not need. These passengers were simply exercising their right to feel safe on an airplane, something they all paid for. Let me say now that airline travel is a privilege, not a right, so anyone that wants to complain about profiling, or civil liberties go back to KOS or DU where the line between rights and privileges is always blurred. The U.S. House last night held a vote on this issue last night, trying to safe-guard people who are acting in the interests of security from frivolous lawsuits, much like a whistle-blower statute. Please click on this link to see how your representative voted on this most important issue. It should be well known by now that the jihadists will use our legal system against us, all with the goal not of equality, but of supremecy.

They are not our Friends

Okay, so why are the Russians, our allies, reporting on this? What is wrong with the world? Is it just to stir the pot? We are not ready to invade Iran, all of the talk is hype, more left-wing posturing, the straw-man argument. The British have a problem, sure, and if they back down, like Jimmy Carter (the worst President in American history), it will only embolden a rogue regime, just like in the late '70's. I can't believe that Russia has done this, there is no good that can come from reporting this, even for Russia, that just found out that Iran says one thing and means another.

Cool Straw Poll

<SCRIPT language=JavaScript src='http://www.blogsforbush.com/strawpollwidget.html'></SCRIPT>

The Senate spends it too!

When will they stop spending our money?

Water Stuff

I found something interesting on the company website today, so I went to the source, copied the whole thing, and will also link it here. The highlighted paragraph is the one that caught my eye. Simple feel good legislation that means absolutely nothing. At first I was mad that the Government was going to spend my money so others could have sewer, but then I realized that the whole darn thing is a scam. Now I am wondering how much of the rest of the pork is never 'appropriated', and who gets to decide what is paid for…I really don't have the time for this, but this may be interesting.

Two Water Bills See Action, Opposition

The House of Representatives voted 367 to 58 March 7 to approve a bill, H.R. 569, that would authorize $1.7 billion over five years to repair and replace sewers. As this was happening the White House said, "This excessive authorization will distort market signals by discouraging utilities and their consumers from moving toward full-cost pricing, as they have elsewhere."

The Water Quality Investment Act of 2007 (H.R. 569) would authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to distribute the money in grants to states and municipalities for reducing sewer overflows from FY 2008 through FY 2012.

The $1.7 billion figure is slightly less than the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved in committee in February. An amendment was offered to bring it to the lower funding level for budget austerity reasons. Still, at $1.7 billion the funding level is higher than the $1.5 billion Congress authorized in 2002, after adjusting for inflation.

While Congress has authorized such funds before, they have never appropriated for them, so no such grants have ever been given. Also it is unclear when or if Congress will consider such legislation, and the administration has signaled it may veto the bill if it ever reaches the President's desk in its current form.

Another bill, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act (H.R. 700), which would authorize $125 million for a pilot program for alternative water source projects, was approved March 8 by a vote of 368-59. The bill would reauthorize an existing program under the Clean Water Act under which the Environmental Protection Agency would disburse grants over multiple years to fund projects intended to increase the usable water supply. Eligible projects include those designed to develop innovative ways to conserve, manage, reclaim or reuse water or wastewater.

Similar to H.R. 569, though Congress has authorized such grants in the past, they have never appropriated funds for them. Also, the White House has voiced budget concerns with the bill and hinted at veto if H.R. 700 reaches President Bush's desk.

Both H.R. 700 and H.R. 569 were not considered controversial, and Democratic and Republican committee members were taken by surprise when the White House issued two statements opposing both bills.

I guess we don’t like Hillary

50% of adults in America would not vote for Clinton!

 

Now, the spin is going to be that that leaves 50% to vote for her, but, c'mon, we all know that aint gonna happen. Hillary is way too socialist for most, not a strong woman in the eyes of many, and hated by the anti-war crowd. She has no shot…well, she has a shot, which is why she has S. Estritch out there telling everyone that Edwards needs to stay in the race. That's the only way she has a shot. If the vote is split three ways, then Clinton might eke it out, especially if something pisses off the nut-roots about Obama or Edwards. But, if one of the men drop out, leaving only two serious contenders, Clinton loses, end of story.

Taxes

Not that anyone with any common sense at all needed to be reminded of this, but the rich pay more in taxes, and receive less benefits than the poor. Yeah, that's right, rich people pay more, both in hard numbers and in percentages, and the poor benefit the most, in hard numbers and in percentages. I am so tired of the 'tax-cuts-for-the-rich' meme, it is the biggest paper-tiger lie of the left.

 

Think about this for a minute. Two people pay a water bill, one person uses 5000 gallons, so they pay, hypothetically, $50. Person #2 uses 3000 gallons, and they pay $30. It turns out that the water company has been overcharging by 10%, so they issue rebates. Person 1 gets 5 bucks, person 2 gets 3 bucks, perfectly fair, right? Not in the eyes of a liberal, person 2 should get 5 bucks, and person 1 nothing at all, or maybe person 1 should be paying the water bill for person 2.

 

Hello all (all two of you), it is disclaimer time, time to try to be honest and forthright. I am writing on this blog in an attempt to enlighten people, to get people to think. Sure, I would like everyone to believe what I write here, those that see it, but more importantly, I want people to THINK. It really is as easy as that. I write from a mostly conservative view-point, mostly, but from time to time, I will go on a libertarian rant, or even a relatively socially liberal direction. Don't take this to mean that I am wishy-washy, or, gasp, a flipper, it just means that I THINK about things.

So think people, think about the issues that concern you and your family, and make informed decisions. Do not believe one source, ever, (and NEVER believe Wikipedia) check things out for yourself. Sure, follow the links I provide to back up my opinion, but then go Google things and figure it out on your own.

 

So now the British sailors are Spies. There some very telling quotes buried in that story, read the whole thing if you have time. It seems that this may have been authorized by Kahmeni, and that the goal is to trade the British for some Iranians the U.S. is holding in Baghdad. Good luck with that!

 

I may not be an expert on the situation regarding Israel and the palestinian people, but it sure seems to me that the AP has chosen sides. In the first paragraph, thee AP writer refers to "…Islamic militant Hamas group…", then later in the article, almost as an accusation, "…Hamas, branded a terrorist group by the U.S. and European Union,…". This is disgusting, the group has claimed responsibility for hundreds of dead civilians, mostly women and children, mostly by suicide bombers. That is the definition of a terrorists group; and let's not miss the word "branded", it isn't used lightly here, it is meant to make the reader feel that the group was harshly labeled a terrorist group, even painfully so.

COT ???

NASCAR…yeah, that's right, a NASCAR post. I am a closet redneck I guess, I love it. Well, I loved it, and now, more than even in the '70's the sport is changing. There is too much tweaking going on, in my opinion, and this is going to drive me nuts. I loved it when all the cars were different, and you could tell which one of the production cars on the street your favorite driver was using. Now tough, they all look the same, much the same as all F1 cars look the same. Perhaps it would have been okay to keep NASCAR American, and small-time.

stuff

Who is buying this? Let's see, 'according to an Iranian Commander, reported in the Iranian State Television Network. I will only believe the sailors themselves, and then only when they are on British soil, safe.

 

Okay, I can't stay away from Gorbal warming…even our children have it figured out!

 

I can't find a direct link here at work for this next insanity, so I am going to link through another Blog. The left isn't even pretending to support the troops anymore. This can be found on LittleGreenFootballs as well, and there seems to be a youtube video out there that can be linked from TammyBruce.com.

They wanted another Saigon, they are gonna get it

Do the liberals never learn? Seriously, the major military minds are saying that if we pull out of Iraq, thousands will be killed in the insanity that will ensue. Rather than listen to the folks with all the info, the left listened to the nut-roots bloggers from Kos and DU with this stupidity. Have those that were in power forgotten the images of the fall of Saigon? Do they really think that Pol Pot was a nice, warm and fuzzy guy? How about pulling out of Somalia, how did that work out? Pulling out of Beirut? We need to finish what we started, like we did in Germany and Japan. If it takes decades, then it takes dacades.

Mishmash of ideas

I don't want this to be the anti-global warming all the time site, so I am going to have one of those disjointed posts that readers will come to recognize as normal.

How insane is this fake scandal regarding the fired attorneys? Every President has fired them, why s it a scandal when Bush does it? Stupid, really stupid.

Why didn't anyone ask Ms. Plame if she was covert when she was supposedly outed? And what is this bullcrap of having her before congress anyway, there was a long, drawn out, investigation already, at our expense. An investigation that should have ended with Armitage admitting his role, something that was known even before Scooter lied. Yeah, Scooter lied, and he should go to jail, as should Bill Clinton, and anyone else that lies to a Grand Jury.

How can a private golf course advertise itself as public in order to get a liquor license?

Monster rules, I am hooked!

Roger Waters or David Gilmore?

I have a link to add to this about how the democrats forget the constitution when it comes to foreign diplomacy, and another about the eu. At least I think I have one about the eu, I can't remember now and I have to wait till I am connected to the 'net before I can check it out. Hmmm, maybe I can do some searching now for how to turn words into links! Figured it out, somewhat, it is CTRL K, for those who didn't know that. I love learning!

Well. Maybe a little Gorbal Warming…There, I did it!

http://drudgereport.com/flash2.htm Can't wait to see this play out!

Here in Pennsylvania, we will be heading to the polls in May, and most of us will find a question on the ballot. This question will ask the voter to raise taxes in accordance with Act 1. To learn more about Act 1, go here: http://dasd4.dasd.org/QuickPlace/ad-act1/Main.nsf/h_50C369E16FC5DF05852571F10065C07F/ee51071af854fa85852571f10065cbe7/?OpenDocument.

I seriously would like to council any PA readers of this blog, of which there are exactly 3 (myself, my wife, and one of my sons), to vote no. This is a scam, a mess, and will end up costing the people who can least afford it, the most amount. Renters get destroyed with this piece of legislation, and for those that think renters fail to pay school tax, I will redirect you here for some pleasant reading: Oh heck, the Daily Local News is not loading I can't get the link. It is dailylocal.com. Go to opinions…

Please, there are other ways for our wonderful politicians to help the seniors among us, starting with reigning in the uncontrolled spending of the individual school districts, but this is at the expense of others, socialism rears its ugly head in America once more!

 

Unions

This was first published in the Philadelphia Inquirer a few years ago:

 

Let's think about unions for a minute, okay? Unions came of age in a time when business owners treated employees as expendable, when those that made products could not afford to purchase what they were making. Unions didn't just help with wages though, it was the unions that brought workplace safety to the fore, saving countless lives in the process. Unions galvanized the working class, for the betterment of the Nation.

A union card was a badge of honor, not easily earned. There was hard work involved in joining a union. One needed to learn the trade first, through schooling, or long apprenticeships, and only then, could the worker join the union. There was pride in the work, and the union label was synonymous with the highest quality available, whether textile, steel, or masonry. The union card then guaranteed the worker a fair wage for the quality provided, everyone benefited, and America became the strongest and richest nation ever to grace the planet. Now, however, something is changing.

A union card no longer means the same things it meant even twenty years ago. A union card is another form of entitlement today; the holder entitled to high wages, exorbitant benefits, and security from job loss regardless of productivity. Before you assume I know not of which I write, I have a union card in my wallet. I know what the unions do, and I know what the unions do not do. While I will not name the union to which I belong I will tell you that unions, in their current incarnation, are useless entities, holding on by a liberal political thread.

In the union, everyone is equal. A worker can do almost nothing, and another can work his tail off, both receive the same reward. Actually, sloth is rewarded, while hard work is frowned upon. If one worker produces more than another, she makes the rest look bad, even if the rest could perform to the same higher standard; it is the perception that counts. Everyone must perform to a low standard, that way, there is the bargaining chip of higher production come contract time. A union, as it stands today, is socialism, pure and simple, even approaching communism.

The union bosses rarely work in the trades, collecting high salaries from the wages of the workers. If any particular plant closes, for any reason, the union elite move on to another post, it is the worker that suffers. Those same union elite also make political donations with the union dues without polling members, seemingly forgetting that the membership is as diverse as the Country. Considering the socialistic nature of unions, is it really a surprise that democrat candidates benefit the most from those donated union dues?

There seems to be a new movement, a breaking away from the huge power hungry AFL/CIO's of the Nation, and this can only mean good things for America. Perhaps there will be a return to the quality and pride that once made us the envy of the world.

Even more proof that this global warming religion needs a timeout

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

 

Well, I still haven't figured out to make those interesting links that are words but are really inks, however, this article in the Telegraph bears reading. The left leaners that are pushing this mess are now falling back on the socialist version of free speech, it's only free if you agree with the party line!

And rumour has it, the NYT is gonna rip Gore and his minions tomorrow…can't wait for that.

AN addendum to the Global warming issue

On top of the channel 4 video from Britain, that helps to debunk the human causation theory, here is another article that shows that the 'greens' will use any tactic to hurt America, and Americans.

 

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/forum/index.php?ntid=121337&ntpid=2

the 'nutroots' win, America loses

It seems that the shrill noise from the left-wing blogs and fringe groups have once again used thier power to shut down something they disagreed with. The left is famous for stifiling dissent, and has always been. Does anyone remember when the USSR had one newspaper? It seems to me that the left would love it if there was only left-leaning outlets in America. By shutting down the debates that had been sponsored by Fox, the liberals have made an even bigger statement than they think they did. Read the story at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html

When I get better at this I will learn how to create links within my posts, bear with me.

Moveon.org is quoted in the article as owning the democrat party, is there any doubt now?

Global warming debate

The following is a debate I seem to have become embroiled in through a local newspaper. I am going to 'redact' the names for the purpose of this blog.

Ed:

In your editorial of February 21, 2007 you legitimized global warming and the assumptions that humans are to blame. This editorial would be simple to refute from an ideological perspective as it seems to have been written from such a perspective, even with the word 'bipartisan' in the title. To anyone that seriously thinks about the underlying reasons for the global warming 'alarmists' it is clear that these are people that accept no higher power in the universe then humans. They make up the narcissistic segment of our society and are also the same group that pushes the absence of personal responsibility for any number of society's ills (think crime or un-wanted pregnancies) yet finds humans personally responsible for changing the climate of the earth.

Still ideologically, just for another paragraph, there are 6.5 billion people on the earth; there is 326 million cubic miles of water on the earth, and each of those cubic miles contains over 1 trillion gallons of water. Simple math tells us that each human is responsible of .05 cubic miles of water, or, 50 billion gallons…do we all really think we can effect 50 billion gallons of water? It just isn't possible, and I haven't even added in the amount of land mass that each human would have to effect, not to mention the immense amount of air that surrounds the planet. But all of that is ideologically driven, true as it may be, someone from the other side will simply scoff because the warming side claims to have scientific evidence.

Quoting Al Gores questionable 'documentary' as "…expertly illustrat(ing) the effects of global warming…", and using imagery of an anecdotal nature from that movie hurts the argument for human causation rather than helping it. There are many scientists that do not believe that humans are causing global warming, but they seem to be ignored by the major media. I did a simple library search of global warming and found many articles that debunk the current theories, but one only needs to see the list provided by Human Events, volume 59, issue 26 in an article entitled "Climate Experts on Global Warming". This article lists over 20 scientists by name, and also refers to the "Over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners, who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which says that no compelling evidence exists to justify controls of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions."

There are many more reasons to move slowly when dealing with legislation concerning global warming, including economics and sociological problems, but it seems that this paper wants to ignore all of that and dive right in, further controlling human existence, just more of the coming 'nanny-state', this time, with bad science to back it up.

In response to R.G's letter to the editor, "Another View On Global Warming," Feb. 26: Global warming is a serious problem. Mr. clearly has some misguided ideals about this issue. While most are respectful toward thoughtful, serious questions about global warming, Mr. asserts that folks concerned about the environment are only liberal Democrats. It's ignorant to purport that global warming is simply political rhetoric. Americans from both parties have united to do everything possible to solve this problem, since the Bush administration has exacerbated the crisis by pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty, giving huge tax breaks to Big Oil, and regarding global warming as voodoo.

To complement his global warming denial G includes a baseless attack on Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," a movie that he clearly has not seen. Otherwise, he wouldn't make claims like how the ample evidence provided in the movie "hurts the argument for human causation rather than helping it."

It's equally silly to portray a movie that has been acclaimed by countless scientists and experts, and received an Academy Award for best documentary, as a movie that is not scientifically sound.

As for the evidence: 10 of the last 14 years were the warmest in history; Japan and the Pacific are experiencing record typhoons; Hurricane Katrina passed over Florida, doubled back and strengthened from unusually warm Gulf waters, and went from Category 3 to Category 5; cores of polar ice show CO2 is higher than ever in 250,000 years.

As for the certainty of scientists: out of 925 articles in scientific journals about global warming, there was absolutely no disagreement about the issue; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its fourth report on global warming Feb. 2, which concluded global warming is "unequivocal," the IPCC being over 90 percent certain that global warming is caused by human activity; the national science academies of all the G8 nations, Brazil, China and India have signed referendums on climate change. When will America?

And last, he throws out statistics about how many miles of water and land mass there are on the Earth, and how it "just isn't possible" for humans to proportionally affect so much. While I would remind him that global warming has nothing to do with Earth density, but actually affects the polar ice caps, I would also point out that where there's a will, there's a way; and when there's a way, we can indeed move mountains

Mr. W:

After reading your response to my earlier letter, I felt I had to chime in once more in an effort to bring understanding to my point of view. Never once in the original letter did I attempt to disprove the rise in the earths temperature, I only questioned the relationship between human activity and that rise. Since you mentioned the rise, and shockingly claimed that "10 of the last 14 years were the warmest in history" I must ask: Is that human history? Biblical history? Or geological history? By treating that claim as 'evidence', the term history should have been defined. As mentioned in another letter of March 8, "find out for yourself' at http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm. This scientific site clearly shows that the earth has been significantly warmer, for eras that spanned millions of years, then it has been in the last 14.

I never once in my letter mentioned a political party, but, it seems that I may have brought light to the politics of this debate. I find it telling that Mr. W immediately attacks the current administration with regards to Kyoto, but fails to mention that the previous administration refused to ratify it as well. Mr. W also fails to mention that the leading scientists in Canada, that had once pushed for the ratification of Kyoto now admit that Kyoto fails to do anything about CO2 emissions. Mr. W also tosses out the 'big oil' meme, and resorts to calling me 'misguided', 'ignorant', and 'silly', the first a straw man argument, and the latter, ad hominem, clearly a sign of no argument at all.

Mr. W also wonders why I scoff at a movie that claims to push science, while solidifying the political agenda of the host, or why I ignore the science that comes from the U.N. I do not trust Hollywood, nor Al Gore, as they both have clearly stated political agendas, in fact, those political agendas tend to mirror the agenda of the U.N.; that agenda is world wide socialism. The attempt to place the blame for any climate change has been part of the socialist movement for quite some time now, who could ever forget that the first "earth day" was centered around the coming of the next ice age, also caused by humans.

As far as scientists, studies, models, and proof, I will readily admit that a study will achieve what the payer wants it to achieve. If the funding from an environmental group will dry up without proof of human causation, then the study will prove human causation, and on the flip side, if an oil company is paying for the study, the study will find that there is absolutely no human causation, until it is politically expedient to jump on the human causation band wagon of course. This is why I attempted to bring a little reality to the problem, educating the readers as to just how big this earth is.

Lastly, my main concern, as stated in my last paragraph, was that the legislators of Pennsylvania move slowly regarding this issue before drastic measures are taken that will only hurt those least able to afford it. The working middle class would be drowned in any energy taxes, or in the inherent costs of mandatory reductions by either auto makers or industry. Corporations never pay these bills, the end user of a product or service pays the bill.

(I must admit, I do not ike my over use of the word 'also' in my rebuttal let's see if the paper likes it!

Welfare and Drug use

I got an email that questioned the fairness of randomly testing wage earners for illicit drug use but not testing welfare recipients. The gist of the email, that was supposedly a letter to an editor of some newspaper somewhere, was that if we wage earners were tested in order to earn the money that was given to the welfare folk, why shouldn't they be tested in order to receive our money? Off the cuff, I agree wholeheartedly with the premise, and I am not afraid to say it, here on this never-read-blog, or in public. Then I realized that if this bog was ever going to receive any attention at all, I probably shouldn't write off the cuff, I should research y subjects, give the reader that comes back this far some meat to digest. So I did a Thompson-Gale search with the terms "welfare" + "drug use". Too many articles to read them all, but I found one that supports the premise, just not in the manner that one would expect.

It turns out that giving a welfare check to an injection drug user kills them. Yeah, a study done by Chris Riddell and Rosemarie Riddell, published in the Journal of Human Resources found "…an increase in the likelihood of an overdose in the days following heck arrival,…" There ya go, a liberal progressive reason not to give drug users free money, it kills them. Now, there may be some out there that see this as simply another vast right wing conspiracy to rid the nation of low-income drug users, but, it is actually a direct result of both the New Deal and the Great Society. I will personally lay the deaths of these druggies at the feet of Johnson, with his now 4 generations of welfare takers. Heck, I don't want to see anyone die, even the drug addicts that make our cities unsafe for law-abiding citizens, and here we have a great way to keep them alive…Stop giving welfare to drug addicts!

Welcome

Okay,
simple thing, to keep a blog, right? This is my third attempt, and I am wondering if this is going to work. I hold many opinions, some of them popular, and others not so much. If this works, I will be posting a few times a week, maybe more, hopefully not less, and I am hoping to actually get some traffic. Now, how the heck can I get traffic? Hmmm, I guess I need to begin writing something that will catch the eye of the Internet minions and begin to gain a following. Then do a little work to get linked from other spots....I guess you don't need to know all of that, i will try to write an actual post later tonight, then begin to fix things so this looks real.