Obama

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: I'll let you decide. I don't care that he is a muslim or not. What I care about is that his first loyalty, after his religious preference, is to the United States of America and safe guarding its place in the world.

Edited or Not - Here is the film:

Rep. Mike Kelly, PA - 3rd District

Apparently this is such a rare thing to speak like this that it actually gets an applause. However, this doesn’t need to just be a one time deal. This needs to be repeated over and over with various examples of how big government does nothing but get in the way of the American people.

Random Thoughts, by Thomas Sowell

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Even squirrels know enough to store nuts, so that they will have something to eat when food gets scarce. But the welfare state has spawned a whole class of people who spend everything they get when times are good, and look to others to provide for their food and other basic needs when times turn bad.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution prescribes "equal protection of the laws" to all Americans. But what does that mean, if the President of the United States can arbitrarily grant waivers, so that A, B and C have to obey the laws but X, Y and Z do not -- as with both ObamaCare and the immigration laws?

Two reports came out in the same week. One was from the Pentagon, saying that, in just a few years, Iran will be able to produce not only a nuclear bomb but a missile capable of carrying it to the United States. The other report said that the American Olympic team has uniforms made in China. This latter report received far more attention, both in Congress and in the media.

People who lament gridlock in Washington, and express the pious hope that Democrats and Republicans would put aside their partisan conflicts, and cooperate to help the economy recover, implicitly assume that what the economy needs is more meddling by politicians, which is what brought on economic disaster in the first place. (Skeptics can read "The Housing Boom and Bust.")

Racism is not dead, but it is on life support -- kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as "racists."
One of the arguments for Medicare is that the elderly don't want to be a burden to their children. Apparently it is all right to be a burden to other people's children, who are paying taxes.

Those who talk as if more people going to college is automatically a Good Thing seldom show much interest in what actually goes on at college -- including far less time spent by students studying than in the past, and a proliferation of courses promoting a sense of grievance, entitlement or advanced navel-gazing and breast-beating.

One of the most dangerous trends of our times is making the truth socially unacceptable, or even illegal, with "hate speech" laws. It is supposed to be terrible, for example, to call an illegal alien an "illegal alien" or to call an Islamic terrorist an "Islamic terrorist." When the media refer to "undocumented" workers or to violence committed by "militants," who is kidding whom -- and why?

After the charismatic -- and disastrous -- Woodrow Wilson presidency, the voters did not elect another president in the next decade who could be considered the least bit charismatic. Let us hope that history repeats itself.

For more than two centuries, the U.S. military never had a public celebration of anybody's sex life -- until the recent "gay pride" event under the Obama administration. Here, as elsewhere, the gay political agenda is not equality but privilege.

Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Then he proceeded to generate fear among businesses for years on end, with both his anti-business rhetoric and his anti-business policies. Barack Obama is repeating the same approach and getting the same results -- namely, an agonizingly slow economic recovery, as investors hang on to their money, instead of risking it in a hostile political environment.

If we wake up some morning and find some American cities in radioactive ruins, courtesy of a nuclear Iran, nobody is going to care whether the president who lets this happen is the first black president or the last WASP president. But, in the meantime, many people will keep on voting for symbolism, as if an election is a popularity contest, like choosing a college's Homecoming Queen or Parade Marshal.

There seems to be something "liberating" about ignorance -- especially when you don't even know enough to realize how little you know. Thus an administration loaded with people who have never run any business is gung-ho to tell businesses what to do, as well as gung-ho to tell the medical profession what to do, lenders whom to lend to, and the military how to fight wars.

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: I truely like Thomas Sowell's articles. I'll continue to post some of them as I get them. However, you can also find them: Townhall.com.

Project Veritas

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: And people don;t have a problem with stuff like this going on?

Well, I do!

More of "Going Around the World Wide Web

Meet Willard Mitt Romney

Personal Information: His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old. His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan He was raised in Bloomfield Hills , Michigan He is Married to Ann Romney since 1969; they five children. Education: B.A. from Brigham Young University, J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University Religion: Mormon - The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints Working Background: After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary. After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam, but never worked as an attorney. In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States . In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy. He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit Some Interesting Facts about Mr. Romney: Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts, turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people. Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others. He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign 1 year. He was an unpaid intern in his dad's governor's office for eight years. He was an unpaid bishop and state president of his church for ten years. He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years. He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years. He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity. Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men. And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income.... Just for comparison purposes, Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%. Mitt Romney is Trustworthy: He will show us his birth certificate He will show us his high school and college transcripts. He will show us his social security card. He will show us his law degree. He will show us his draft notice. He will show us his medical records. He will show us his income tax records. He will show us he has nothing to hide. Mitt Romney's background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be a great leader and an excellent citizen for President of the United States. You may think that Romney may not be the best representative the Republicans could have selected. At least I know what religion he is, and that he won't desecrate the flag, bow down to foreign powers, or practice fiscal irresponsibility. I know he has the ability to turn this financial debacle that the current regime has gotten us into. We won't like all the things necessary to recover from this debt, but someone with Romney's background can do it. But, on the minus side, He never was a "Community Organizer", never took drugs or smoked pot, never got drunk, did not associate with communists or terrorists, nor did he attend a church whose pastor called for God to damn the US. ThoughtsjustofCenter: Maybe it's time the USA actually tried to let a business person lead. The career politicians sure haven't done a very good job. That is, unless the politicians actually listened to a business person that wasn't trying to screw over the American people.

Why "I'll" Vote for a DemoRAT!

When people cannot explain why they voted for a Democrat, give them this parcial list to choose from:

1. I'll vote for a Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

2. I'll vote for a Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3. I'll vote for a Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

4. I'll vote for a Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers, rapists, thugs, and thieves.

5. I'll vote for a Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will disappear in ten years because of Global Warming if I don’t start driving a Prius or a Chevy Volt.

6. I voted for a Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7. I'll vote for a Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

8. I'll vote for a Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9. I'll vote for a Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution regularly to suit some fringe folks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: I'll vote for a DemoRAT because I believe what others tell me and I am to lazy to do any research on my own to find out whether or not I am being lied to. On top of that - I GET FREE STUFF that all those rich people have to pay for!

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/07/top-12-reasons-to-vote-for-a-democrat/#ixzz2152SWsOi

2011 Tax Return

I just received my tax return for 2011 back from the IRS. Puzzles me!!!

The question is, “How many dependents do you claim?”

I guess it was because of my response to the question: "List all dependents?"

I replied:

12 million illegal immigrants;

3 million crack heads;
42 million unemployed people on food stamps;

2 million people in over 243 prisons;
and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate.

Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer.

I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHO DID I MISS?

 

 

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: Thanks Ruby!

Unhappy Muslims

I have to admit, this is brilliant...never heard it put this way...so succinct and to the point...plain and simple!!! Whoever thought this out is nothing less than a genius.

The Muslims are not happy!

They're not happy in Gaza.
They're not happy in Egypt.
They're not happy in Libya.
They're not happy in Morocco.
They're not happy in Iran.
They're not happy in Iraq.
They're not happy in Yemen.
They're not happy in Afghanistan.
They're not happy in Pakistan.
They're not happy in Syria.
They're not happy in Lebanon.

So, where are they happy?

They're happy in Australia.
They're happy in England.
They're happy in France.
They're happy in Italy.
They're happy in Germany.
They're happy in Sweden.
They're happy in the USA.
They're happy in Norway.
They're happy in Holland.
They're happy in Denmark.

Basically, they're happy in every country that is not Muslim and unhappy in
every country that is!

And who do they blame?

Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.

THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!

And THEN; They want to change those countries to be like....
THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY!

Excuse me, but I can't help wondering... How dumb can you get?

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: Thanks Ruby! Hope this makes everyone think - just a little more. I can figure it out, can you?

Four More Years?

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: What say you? 4 more?

Uncle Jay explains Congressional Recesses

I hesitated,...for about 20 seconds, before posting this video from Uncle Jay because it paints Congress as a bunch of do nothing, tax payer leaching clowns. This is true as a whole, but there are good people in Congress,...take for instance Allen West (R-FL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT) to name but a few,....actually there are only a few but the aforementioned list isn't ALL inclusive. The Senate, after 3 YEARS, still does not have a budget. I think they need to adopt a "work to standard" as opposed to "work to time" requirement. After all, with a $165,200 annual salary, we need to expect something other than lies from Pelosi and total in-action from Harry Reid.

Thoughtsjustoff Center: I didn't hesitate, at all, from stealing this from my friends web site. Thanks Brad! I told you I would.

Is America a Great Nation?

Three and a half minutes of the most honest television ever - - -

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: This video can be found on U-Tube by just typing in a portion of the above sentence. That's where I found it. Allthough "I have to be honest and say that it was sent to me, as a link, from a good friend!

Beginning scene of the new HBO series The Newsroom explaining why America's Not the Greatest Country Any Longer... But It Can Be.

Religious Freedom - Not in Phoenix, AZ

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. Note: The first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances....

Who would have thought that in the ‘land of the free and home of the brave” that there would be such a thing as it being unlawful to have a bible study in your home? Well apparently in Phoenix, Arizona it is. Since 2002 Michael Salman and his wife have opened their home up to between 15 and 20 people and they share in many things that Christian believers enjoy: Bible study, food, fellowship and prayer. That all ended recently with Mr. Salman being sentenced to 60 days in jail and $12,180 in fines.

So what brings all this about? Why is a man fined and imprisoned over simply having guests at his house and one of the things they engage in is bible study?

According to Christian News - -

Michael Salman says that he has been battling the City of Phoenix for years after code enforcement officials told him that if he was going to hold worship gatherings on his property, it would be considered an “occupancy” and must be subject to commercial code regulations. Salman hosts a weekly study with his family and friends in a building located in his back yard, which is on approximately an acre and a half of land, with an additional 3.2 acres behind it. He asserts that the meetings are private and not open to the general public.

“The only people who go in that building is my wife and I and our guests,” he said.
“People have a right to gather at their home and on their property with their guests.

Why can’t we have people as our guests?”

He said that the city responded by stating that religious worship cannot be considered as being private.

Say what? OK, hold on a second here. This is what people wanted right? Remember the claims of keep your religious beliefs out of the public eye? I’m not advocating that for surely if you have serious religious beliefs they are not a private matter simply because they are part of a world view. They never leave you and thus it is part of your character that you take everywhere you go.

 Many neighbors began calling authorities complaining about the number calling authorities complaining about the number of cars parked at the property of the Salman’s. Was it any of their business? No. It was on his property. Sure, if the people were loud and bothering others I could see the issue, but there seems to be no difference in what was taking place with the Salmans and what people do all the time for birthday parties, Super Bowl parties, or just get-togethers with family and friends.

In 2008 firefighters came and attempted to break up the meetings and Salman ordered them off his property. “We told them they had no right,” he said. “They had been harassing us since February. This is our home. We are a private gathering. This is Christians gathering on my private property.”

It was then that Salman obtained building permits to construct a 2,000 square foot building in his backyard and the building passed inspection. They then moved to meet in the building and the city went ballistic.

The long-running feud between Salman and the City of Phoenix came to a head in June of 2009 when nearly a dozen police officers armed with a search warrant and accompanied by city inspectors raided his home near 31st and Northern avenues and combed the 4.6 acre property in search of violations. They charged him with 67 code violations.

However, maybe you are someone who thinks that this is just Christians getting what they deserve. Aren’t you concerned at all that if the Salman’s Constitutional rights, specifically ‘the right of the people to peaceably assemble’ and the right to ‘freedom of religion’ are seriously being violated here?

I’m aware that as a believer in Jesus Christ, my Lord said that I would face tribulation in this world, but to take heart because He has overcome the world. However, that will not keep me from voicing the truth that Arizona here is clearly in the wrong.
Salman was to begin his sentence on July 9. The Assistant City Prosecutor, John Tutelman, who has characterized Mr. Salman as a “rebel” because he would not put an end to the Bible studies asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to revoke Salman’s probation and turn it into a two-and-a-half-year jail term.

Mr. Tutelman apparently has no heart. Salman is not only a father of five, but a husband and the city should re-evaluate their priorities of criminalizing what the First Amendment protects. I’m wondering if someone could bring Mr. Tutelman up on charges of being a rebel to the U.S. Constitution and put him out of his office of Prosecutor.

On a final note, notice that it does not appear that any of the neighbors actually spoke with the Salmans. They simply tattled on them. This is the whole thing that the federal government is doing to the people of America now with its “See Something, Say Something” campaign. They want to make us a nation of gossipers, and backbiters, spying on one another. As the now popular saying from the epic television series Lost so aptly put it, “If we dont’ learn to live together, we’ll die alone.”

If you would like to help the Salman family with expenses, you can contact them on their Facebook Page for more information.

Watch Salman and his wife discuss their legal battle, below:

The Lying Media

Over the past four years, since the rise of these insidious media fact-checkers, we've seen it a hundred times.

1. Anyone launches a potent and perfectly fair criticism of a Democrat.

2. Fearing this criticism will evolve into a damaging narrative against the Democrat, a panicked and dishonest media fact-checker comes along and finds a way to declare the criticism as false or mostly false or just false enough to protect the Democrat.

3. The media then uses this phony fact check to kill the emerging narrative and makes sure it gains no traction.

4. Then the media will sometimes take it a step further and use the phony fact check as a way to turn the perfectly valid criticism of the Democrat into a weapon against the Republican by questioning his character and integrity.

This is the reason why these fact checkers were invented by the media. It allows them to craft a bludgeon called "objective truth" and beat us silly with it. Except that nine times out of ten, that bludgeon has been crafted with parsing, rationalizing, and lies of omission.

Well, now we have a fascinating test case before us.

1. FactCheck.org has found that the Obama campaign's ads declaring Romney an outsourcer-in-chief are completely false.

2. Even the corrupt Washington Post, the media outlet the Obama campaign is using as its source for the dishonest claim, has said the ads are false.

And…

3. Suddenly the media, specifically the corrupt Politico, will not be making a politician pay a price for continuing to lie about his opponent even after the facts have become clear.

Politico's Alexander Burns (you remember him):

The whole FactCheck.org/Politifact/Glenn Kessler approach to covering the campaign has its uses, but one of the limitations is that it often blurs the difference between standard-issue political rhetoric and brazen, obvious distortion of the facts. Right now, the Obama campaign is casting undisputed facts of Romney’s records (Bain assets created jobs overseas and also cut jobs in the U.S.) in a very negative light (it created foreign jobs at the cost of the U.S. economy.) Romney’s response so far has been to try and discredit the whole line of attack as false and “vicious,” without really getting into the weeds of what it means to lead a major financial firm with a complex web of foreign entanglements.

Oh, look, suddenly the media is "finding limitations" in "the whole FactCheck.org/Politifact/Glenn Kessler approach."

Well, isn't the timing of that attitude handy.

Worse still, you have Burns furthering the Obama campaign's dishonest shell game:

Right now, the Obama campaign is casting undisputed facts of Romney’s records (Bain assets created jobs overseas and also cut jobs in the U.S.) in a very negative light (it created foreign jobs at the cost of the U.S. economy.)

What Burns doesn't tell you, though, is that no outsourcing occurred at Bain under Romney's leadership. So now you have both the media and the Obama campaign teaming together to blame Romney for what Bain did after he left the company.

That would be like blaming Edward R. Murrow for RatherGate. Well, hell, it's all CBS News!

And yet the facts are pretty clear here, aren't they?

Romney did not outsource jobs.

Obama is lying by saying he did.

And the corrupt media intends to let him continue to lie and to aid and abet that lying, including Politico and the Washington Post.

ThoughtsjustoffCenter:  Well - are the major media organizations finally going to step up and tell the truth - I don't believe so, yet I do get my hope up from time to time.

The Ruling Explained

ThoughtsjustoffCenter: After much reading, I came accross this article that explains why SCCJ Roberts wrote the opinion this way and why the ruling upheld the law.

For your thoughts and comments (if you so desire).

An insider’s guide to the Supreme Court’s dramatic ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act - by Jesse Wegman, The Daily Beast

What exactly did the Supreme Court rule?

By a 5–4 margin, in a decision (surprisingly) written by traditionally conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that the health-care law is constitutional.

The law’s most controversial component, known as the “individual mandate,” requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a “shared responsibility payment” to the government.

On the day the law was enacted, 26 states, several individuals, and others sued to have the law struck down as a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states.

In its ruling, the court held that the law could not be upheld under the Commerce Clause, which was the government’s primary argument in its support. “The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,” Roberts wrote for the majority.

But wait—doesn’t that mean the law should’ve been struck down?

The Commerce Clause argument was only one of three the government made in support of the law. It also argued that the law could be considered a tax, and this is the argument the court bought.

Specifically, the court held that the individual mandate is not a “penalty,” as the health-care law identified it, but a tax, and therefore a constitutional application of Congress’s taxation power.

In accepting the tax argument, the court relied on the “well-established” principle that “if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.”

The court then noted that the government’s argument—that the mandate represented a tax on people who choose not to buy health insurance—“makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.”

In deciding to accept the government’s tax argument, the court wrote that “the question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one.”

How can the court call the mandate a tax if the law itself didn’t call it that?

The court is not bound to interpret laws exactly as they are written, but uses what it calls a “functional approach”—considering the substance of a law in addition to its formal language.

Under this approach, the court ruled that the penalty the law imposes on people who don’t buy health insurance “looks like a tax in many respects,” and that it is permissible under the court’s previous case law for several reasons: the amount of money due is “far less than the price of insurance” and it is collected by the IRS under normal means of taxation.

The court acknowledged that the mandate “is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage,” and noted that “taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new”—for example, the taxing of cigarettes to discourage smoking.

Finally, the court reasoned, the mandate does not make the failure to buy health insurance unlawful. Beyond the payment to the IRS, the court explains, “neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance.”

So am I going to have to pay more tax now?

Starting in 2016, when the “shared responsibility payment” is fully in place, the amount you would owe for not having health insurance is the greater of 2.5 percent of your income or $695. There is currently no means to criminally prosecute those who do not have health insurance and also refuse to pay the shared responsibility payment.

What’s that part about the Medicaid expansion?

The health-care law also expanded Medicaid to cover all nonelderly people with an income below 133 percent of the poverty line, and gave the government the authority to penalize states that choose not to participate in this expansion by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.

The court called this “economic dragooning” that leaves states with no option but to accept the expansion, and found that it violated the Constitution because states could not have anticipated such a dramatic restructuring of Medicaid.

However, the court found that the Medicaid expansion could be saved by removing the government’s authority to remove all of a state’s Medicaid funds if it chooses not to accept the expansion.

What will happen next?

Politicians have been falling over each other to respond to the ruling.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor immediately called for a vote to repeal the law. The vote is scheduled for July 11.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare is a crushing blow to patients throughout the country,” Cantor said. “Obamacare has failed to keep the president’s basic promise of allowing those who like their health care to keep it, while increasing costs and reducing access to quality care for patients.”

In remarks Thursday morning, Mitt Romney told reporters, “What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.

“Our mission is clear,” Romney said. “If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that.”

Ahead of a closed-door meeting of Republicans, House Speaker John Boehner issued a statement: “Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. “What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health-care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country Obamacare.”