New York State Department of Health released a list of games that were deemed "too risky" for kids to play. The list was in response to a State Law that was passed in 2009 which was created to provide more oversight and regulation to summer camps, as if the New York State Legislature doesn't have anything more important to do with their time right now.
Some State laws are becoming so ridiculous that you're nearly on the verge of exploding...
The list of games that the New York Department of Health wants to ban:
- Dodge Ball
- Kick Ball
- Wiffle Ball
- Freeze Tag
- Red Rover
Yes, even Red Rover, Red Rover, please send some one right over and kill me because I can't believe I actually read this article in TIME magazine from yesterday...
The Health Department thinks that these games are so risky, they are imposing a $200 filing fee if they are even played at summer camp.
These are the same government regulators that say school cafeterias cannot have coke, or anything deemed fattening. No sweets and no foods with high cholesterol. Yet, while the same government regulators whine all day about higher obesity in kids, they're essentially taking away the play activities that are designed to keep them active and energetic. Simply hypocritical and simply unbelievable.
Meanwhile, The State of New York continues to experience an escalating budget crisis and unemployment problems. Is banning dodge ball now the top priority for Governor Andrew Cuomo?
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Debt ceiling doesn't exist?
For the last month or so, we've been hearing from the circus in Washington D.C., about our nation's dire financial issues. The fact is that we have a national debt of nearly $15 trillion and more than $100 trillion in unfunded financial liabilities. As everyone knows by now, this nation has endlessly borrowed so much money and accumulated so much debt, that it is inevitable sometime down the road, the country may be entirely untenable, whereas a default is likely to be anticipated.
But President Obama's little weasel of a Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has been attempting to stop a default from happening. He's been pleading with Congress all month to approve raising the debt ceiling and it is apparent that in the coming days, if the debt ceiling is not raised, the United States will not be able to pay its bills and we'll all be in for perhaps another severe economic collapse.
Now hear is something very intriguing. According to Professor Antony Davis at Duquesne University Donahue School of Business, he says that the so called 'debt ceiling' really doesn't exist and that Americans shouldn't waste time listening to all of the lies coming out of Washington.
Davis says that since 1970, Congress has raised the debt ceiling limit more than 70 times and says it is nothing more than a complete work of fiction. If you are anticipating a default, you simply stir up a bunch of scare tactics and then you raise the barrier bar, by a few notches.
Furthermore, Davis implies that since 1969, Federal income tax ranged from 77% to a low of just a slender 28% in the early 1990's and then going up and down between 30% to 40% from 1993 to 2010. Federal revenues from 1969 to 2010 remained about the same, an average of roughly 18% of GDP.
In short, Davis suggests that the Federal Government really has no control over its own revenue. He adds that if the tax brackets are actually fixed, then it is completely obvious that our so called debt problem is really nothing more than spending problem.
Despite this, it looks like Geithner has the Republican lawmakers in the House, deep in his pockets. No pun intended.
But President Obama's little weasel of a Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has been attempting to stop a default from happening. He's been pleading with Congress all month to approve raising the debt ceiling and it is apparent that in the coming days, if the debt ceiling is not raised, the United States will not be able to pay its bills and we'll all be in for perhaps another severe economic collapse.
Now hear is something very intriguing. According to Professor Antony Davis at Duquesne University Donahue School of Business, he says that the so called 'debt ceiling' really doesn't exist and that Americans shouldn't waste time listening to all of the lies coming out of Washington.
Davis says that since 1970, Congress has raised the debt ceiling limit more than 70 times and says it is nothing more than a complete work of fiction. If you are anticipating a default, you simply stir up a bunch of scare tactics and then you raise the barrier bar, by a few notches.
Furthermore, Davis implies that since 1969, Federal income tax ranged from 77% to a low of just a slender 28% in the early 1990's and then going up and down between 30% to 40% from 1993 to 2010. Federal revenues from 1969 to 2010 remained about the same, an average of roughly 18% of GDP.
In short, Davis suggests that the Federal Government really has no control over its own revenue. He adds that if the tax brackets are actually fixed, then it is completely obvious that our so called debt problem is really nothing more than spending problem.
Despite this, it looks like Geithner has the Republican lawmakers in the House, deep in his pockets. No pun intended.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Schwarzenegger feels depressed because he isn’t young
Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to be enjoying his lifestyle since leaving office in January. He’s been traveling, and meeting with his old pals in Hollywood and even became a superhero in a new comic book series called “The Governator”.
However, Schwarzenegger has been down as of late, because he feels that he isn’t young anymore. He tells Newsweek that he feels “so shitty when he looks in the mirror.”
As he should.
This former has-been actor left the State of California in a massive economic crisis and did nothing to work with the State Legislature on addressing huge problems, things like illegal aliens flooding the State every year, which tax payers have to pay billions for, or the outrageous pension funds to State employee unions, that again, tax payers can’t afford any longer. As a result, thanks to both Schwarzenegger, his predecessor Gray Davis and our idiots in the State Assembly and Senate, California continues to struggle with a $26 billion budget deficit, more than $200 billion in long term liabilities and state unemployment at about 12%.
Furthermore, CBS last week caught up with Schwarzenegger while he was in Hollywood and was asked once again, about his decision for reducing the prison sentence of Esteban Nunez, the son of former State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, for the murder of college student Luis Santos. This was a decision that Schwarzenegger made in his last days in office. His flat out arrogance and ignorance to refuse to offer any explanation was beyond incredible, simply giving CBS the “snore sound”.
Now, all the while, Schwarzenegger runs around the world somehow feeling proud and relaxed about his so-called accomplishments while he was in office, but more importantly, he’s depressed because he isn’t young anymore.
The truth of the matter is he simply accomplished nothing during his reign in California and his decision to reduce Nunez’s prison term was obviously political motivated.
Maybe one of these days that decision will really start to haunt him, instead of whining over his disappearing good looks. This way, the next time he looks into the mirror, he can take a closer look at himself and realize that what he is looking at is a horrible, disgusting and despicable example of humanity.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Senate plans to remove Presidential confirmations
On Wednesday, a Senate committee moved forward on legislation that would eliminate the confirmation process of nearly 200 Obama Administration appointees.
200 appointees.
The bill, known as the 2011 Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, which included participation from both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate, would no longer require confirmation hearings. The act has been brought up because the Senate is apparently getting tired of having to sit through confirmation hearings and they believe this will speed up the process.
I have an idea. Maybe we should just do away with Congress completely. After all, Congress has seemingly become irrelevant every day, and they don't represent the interests of the American people anyway. Why not? Just have them transfer the legislative powers completely over to the President so we can have a full blown dictatorship in this country!
They just passed a budget that is only going to cut $350 million in spending this year, not $38 billion that was perpetrated. And now they're all off for Spring Break, but not before they decide on this bill to eliminate confirmation of more than 200 appointees.
I don't know about the rest of America, but Senate confirmations are especially important because it allows both parties to essentially interview and then approve of these people's confidence, integrity and commitment to the job. No question that some presidential appointees approved by the Senate have turned out to be a complete disgrace, but the process still allows the American people to see the kind of administration officials that will eventually be earning a salary from the people's tax money.
Furthermore, I don't want this administration to have the power to select anyone he chooses to help run certain functions of the federal government, whether its assistant positions in the U.S. military or individuals working for the Department of Defense. Looking at the people who worked for the Obama Administration in the past two years, one can say they all come from rather shady backgrounds. Remember Van Jones, the former green jobs czar, who is an openly admitted Communist? Or Anita Dunn, Obama's former presidential adviser who cared deeply for Chairman Mao? What about his current adviser Samantha Power who is married to Cass Sunstein, a man who practices Marxism on a daily basis? Is the Senate really serious about eliminating appointee confirmations at this time, even if the backgrounds of these people are rather anti-American?
House Speaker John Boehner has no idea what kind of man he is dealing with in the White House. I know most of these morons in Congress think this is just the same political game we've been playing in this country for centuries now and its all about Republican vs. Democratics or vice versa.
Mr. Speaker, this President is no Jimmy Carter, nor is he Bill Clinton. This is a self-described socialist, Marxist who's ultimate goal is to destroy this country. If you can't see the writing on the wall, you're doomed as well. Like I said, Congress is becoming irrelevant, it doesn't matter which party is in power.
We are dealing with a madman. The political game has been over for a while.
200 appointees.
The bill, known as the 2011 Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, which included participation from both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate, would no longer require confirmation hearings. The act has been brought up because the Senate is apparently getting tired of having to sit through confirmation hearings and they believe this will speed up the process.
I have an idea. Maybe we should just do away with Congress completely. After all, Congress has seemingly become irrelevant every day, and they don't represent the interests of the American people anyway. Why not? Just have them transfer the legislative powers completely over to the President so we can have a full blown dictatorship in this country!
They just passed a budget that is only going to cut $350 million in spending this year, not $38 billion that was perpetrated. And now they're all off for Spring Break, but not before they decide on this bill to eliminate confirmation of more than 200 appointees.
I don't know about the rest of America, but Senate confirmations are especially important because it allows both parties to essentially interview and then approve of these people's confidence, integrity and commitment to the job. No question that some presidential appointees approved by the Senate have turned out to be a complete disgrace, but the process still allows the American people to see the kind of administration officials that will eventually be earning a salary from the people's tax money.
Furthermore, I don't want this administration to have the power to select anyone he chooses to help run certain functions of the federal government, whether its assistant positions in the U.S. military or individuals working for the Department of Defense. Looking at the people who worked for the Obama Administration in the past two years, one can say they all come from rather shady backgrounds. Remember Van Jones, the former green jobs czar, who is an openly admitted Communist? Or Anita Dunn, Obama's former presidential adviser who cared deeply for Chairman Mao? What about his current adviser Samantha Power who is married to Cass Sunstein, a man who practices Marxism on a daily basis? Is the Senate really serious about eliminating appointee confirmations at this time, even if the backgrounds of these people are rather anti-American?
House Speaker John Boehner has no idea what kind of man he is dealing with in the White House. I know most of these morons in Congress think this is just the same political game we've been playing in this country for centuries now and its all about Republican vs. Democratics or vice versa.
Mr. Speaker, this President is no Jimmy Carter, nor is he Bill Clinton. This is a self-described socialist, Marxist who's ultimate goal is to destroy this country. If you can't see the writing on the wall, you're doomed as well. Like I said, Congress is becoming irrelevant, it doesn't matter which party is in power.
We are dealing with a madman. The political game has been over for a while.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Liberal Hypocrisy 101
Yesterday during President Obama's budget speech, which was nothing more than total boredom, specifically he made an attempt to address the nation's long term debt problems... the tune of nearly $15 trillion that is. His speech was so far-left leaning, that apparently it seemed as though it put Vice President Joe Biden asleep.
When it came to Obama criticizing Republican lawmakers for refusing to raise taxes, one of the comments that President Obama said was "those who benefited most from our way of life can afford to give a little bit more... I don't need another cut tax cut and Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut."
Now let's analyze the President's comments for a moment. He wants to raise taxes on the wealthy people in this country because they can afford to give a little bit more. Radio talk show host Michael Savage made a good point yesterday which is this: Let's say Congress imposed a 100% tax on the rich and we take away all earnings of $250,000 and above, this tax would net about $1.4 trillion. The end result is that would fund the federal government for a couple of months.
Did you also know that if Congress were to take the profits of every single Fortune 500 corporation in America which is roughly the tune of more than $400 billion and allocate those funds into the federal government, it would also only last a couple of months? So let's tax the major corporations and the wealthy people, and that money will be gone in just a few months. I rest my case.
So if the super rich in this country can't save us, then what is President Obama's real agenda? Anti-capitalism? Destroy a free-market economy? I guess so.
By the way, General Electric, didn't pay any income tax this last fiscal year. Should I also mention that Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE is on President Obama's economic advisory board, and GE also owns the Obama cheerleading news channel MSNBC? Conflict of interest? Deal with the devil? Again, I rest my case.
But President Obama's hypocrisy and flat out ignorance doesn't stop there. His liberal and socialist philosophy is this ambition that the wealthy should support the programs in the Federal Government, and in turn support the welfare and the social rejects in this country. Not once did he acknowledge and give credit where credit is due, which is the billions of dollars tax payers have to shove out of their hard earned money to compensate for the benefits of illegal aliens. California alone pays nearly $10 billion a year in the cost of illegal immigration, something that has drastically destroyed the State's economy and without a doubt, has no chance of recovery. But I suppose in President Obama's book, compensating for illegal aliens, is the generous form of socialism.
Furthermore, President Obama has failed to show any sympathy or consideration towards my generation and the generations of people to follow who will be inheriting this massive debt caused by both he and former President George W. Bush.
On March 20th, 2006, then Senator Obama stated "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
Yes, we deserve better. And raising the debt limit? Isn't that exactly what Obama's little weasel of a Treasury Secretary is trying to do as we speak?
So just five years ago, Obama showed remorse towards my generation over the country's reckless spending under Bush and a then-Republican controlled Congress, but totally refuses to acknowledge the reckless spending under his reign over the last two years and a Congress presided under Nancy Pelosi, who couldn't even pass the damn budget when it came due in September!
By the way, Mrs. Pelosi thinks "elections shouldn't matter as much as they do." Moammar Gaddafi would be so proud, I'm sure. After all, Libya doesn't have any elections!
In the end, I really wish President Obama would have just come clean and admit to his anti-American stance. Please Mr. President, just say that the country is screwed and there is no way out. Not through higher taxes and not through the massive spending. You people in Washington can't even strike a balance between either of the two, much less address the problems alone.
It is really getting pretty old, having to hear the constant hypocrisy and failing to address the issues this country is facing, and President Obama is simply embarrassing this country on every single point. Right now the United States is like the Titanic. We've already hit the iceberg and we're slowly sinking, but Obama is standing up there in the ship's bridge smiling and saying "its unsinkable!"
Oh well! Tomorrow, lets see if we can survive in the frigid icy waters.
When it came to Obama criticizing Republican lawmakers for refusing to raise taxes, one of the comments that President Obama said was "those who benefited most from our way of life can afford to give a little bit more... I don't need another cut tax cut and Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut."
Now let's analyze the President's comments for a moment. He wants to raise taxes on the wealthy people in this country because they can afford to give a little bit more. Radio talk show host Michael Savage made a good point yesterday which is this: Let's say Congress imposed a 100% tax on the rich and we take away all earnings of $250,000 and above, this tax would net about $1.4 trillion. The end result is that would fund the federal government for a couple of months.
Did you also know that if Congress were to take the profits of every single Fortune 500 corporation in America which is roughly the tune of more than $400 billion and allocate those funds into the federal government, it would also only last a couple of months? So let's tax the major corporations and the wealthy people, and that money will be gone in just a few months. I rest my case.
So if the super rich in this country can't save us, then what is President Obama's real agenda? Anti-capitalism? Destroy a free-market economy? I guess so.
By the way, General Electric, didn't pay any income tax this last fiscal year. Should I also mention that Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE is on President Obama's economic advisory board, and GE also owns the Obama cheerleading news channel MSNBC? Conflict of interest? Deal with the devil? Again, I rest my case.
But President Obama's hypocrisy and flat out ignorance doesn't stop there. His liberal and socialist philosophy is this ambition that the wealthy should support the programs in the Federal Government, and in turn support the welfare and the social rejects in this country. Not once did he acknowledge and give credit where credit is due, which is the billions of dollars tax payers have to shove out of their hard earned money to compensate for the benefits of illegal aliens. California alone pays nearly $10 billion a year in the cost of illegal immigration, something that has drastically destroyed the State's economy and without a doubt, has no chance of recovery. But I suppose in President Obama's book, compensating for illegal aliens, is the generous form of socialism.
Furthermore, President Obama has failed to show any sympathy or consideration towards my generation and the generations of people to follow who will be inheriting this massive debt caused by both he and former President George W. Bush.
On March 20th, 2006, then Senator Obama stated "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
Yes, we deserve better. And raising the debt limit? Isn't that exactly what Obama's little weasel of a Treasury Secretary is trying to do as we speak?
So just five years ago, Obama showed remorse towards my generation over the country's reckless spending under Bush and a then-Republican controlled Congress, but totally refuses to acknowledge the reckless spending under his reign over the last two years and a Congress presided under Nancy Pelosi, who couldn't even pass the damn budget when it came due in September!
By the way, Mrs. Pelosi thinks "elections shouldn't matter as much as they do." Moammar Gaddafi would be so proud, I'm sure. After all, Libya doesn't have any elections!
In the end, I really wish President Obama would have just come clean and admit to his anti-American stance. Please Mr. President, just say that the country is screwed and there is no way out. Not through higher taxes and not through the massive spending. You people in Washington can't even strike a balance between either of the two, much less address the problems alone.
It is really getting pretty old, having to hear the constant hypocrisy and failing to address the issues this country is facing, and President Obama is simply embarrassing this country on every single point. Right now the United States is like the Titanic. We've already hit the iceberg and we're slowly sinking, but Obama is standing up there in the ship's bridge smiling and saying "its unsinkable!"
Oh well! Tomorrow, lets see if we can survive in the frigid icy waters.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Wachovia bank laundered Mexican drug cartels
Here's something that may deter anyone doing business with Wells Fargo, one of the largest U.S. banks that absorbed Wachovia Bank after the 2008 financial collapse. Oh, and by the way, they were a recipient of more than $25 billion in tax payer money.
The U.K. Guardian had reported that Wachovia Bank, since 2008 had laundered more than $378 billion in Mexican drug cartel cash. That is roughly one third of Mexico's gross domestic product.
The U.K. Guardian also took a shot against the mainstream news media in America for ignoring this story and rightfully so, because the liberal left would look at something as an 'attack on Hispanics', even though the story is simply breathtaking, not to mention corrupt.
Authorities involved in the investigation uncovered billions in wire transfers and cash exchanges throughout Mexico exchanges into Wachovia accounts. In March of 2010, Wachovia had settled the largest action brought under the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act.
While Wells Fargo admitted wrongdoing and agreed to pay $144 million as a settlement for federal charges, I wonder if they have any remorse for laundering money to drug cartels that have been responsible for grisly and brutal violence throughout Mexico and also putting American tourists in danger over the years?
I am also curious to know how much of that $25 billion in tax money may have gone to the laundering as well?
The U.K. Guardian had reported that Wachovia Bank, since 2008 had laundered more than $378 billion in Mexican drug cartel cash. That is roughly one third of Mexico's gross domestic product.
The U.K. Guardian also took a shot against the mainstream news media in America for ignoring this story and rightfully so, because the liberal left would look at something as an 'attack on Hispanics', even though the story is simply breathtaking, not to mention corrupt.
Authorities involved in the investigation uncovered billions in wire transfers and cash exchanges throughout Mexico exchanges into Wachovia accounts. In March of 2010, Wachovia had settled the largest action brought under the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act.
While Wells Fargo admitted wrongdoing and agreed to pay $144 million as a settlement for federal charges, I wonder if they have any remorse for laundering money to drug cartels that have been responsible for grisly and brutal violence throughout Mexico and also putting American tourists in danger over the years?
I am also curious to know how much of that $25 billion in tax money may have gone to the laundering as well?
School bans students home packed lunches
It becomes a red letter day in America, when the government starts telling you what you can and cannot do. It is even worse when you find out that our public school system is simply becoming some kind of re-education camp for your children as if we were living in the days of Chairman Mao.
The Little Village Academy School, which is located in the people's corrupt republic of Chicago, basically tells students they can either eat cafeteria food only, or go hungry. Simply disgraceful.
The school, acting like nothing more than a prison, says that this policy, enacted a few years ago, was designed to encourage students to choose more healthier food choices. You may remember Michelle Obama going around the nation lecturing kids that they should eat carrots, instead of cupcakes, and then the next day she's at the White House chowing down on ribs and pizza. A little hypocritical isn't it?
Granted, students in our schools should get a nutritional and balanced diet, however they should not go without, if they simply choose not to eat at the school's cafeteria, and they're parents should have the right to pack their kids' own lunches and allow them to bring it to school. Remember the line, "let them eat cake."
This has apparently started a national debate on how schools are providing nutritional lunches to kids. Other schools across the country either have already enacted similar policies or are in the process of doing so.
Judging from news reports, the students at Little Village Academy hate the cafeteria food so much, they just throw it away. Kind of wasting money on school food, aren't we?
The Little Village Academy School, which is located in the people's corrupt republic of Chicago, basically tells students they can either eat cafeteria food only, or go hungry. Simply disgraceful.
The school, acting like nothing more than a prison, says that this policy, enacted a few years ago, was designed to encourage students to choose more healthier food choices. You may remember Michelle Obama going around the nation lecturing kids that they should eat carrots, instead of cupcakes, and then the next day she's at the White House chowing down on ribs and pizza. A little hypocritical isn't it?
Granted, students in our schools should get a nutritional and balanced diet, however they should not go without, if they simply choose not to eat at the school's cafeteria, and they're parents should have the right to pack their kids' own lunches and allow them to bring it to school. Remember the line, "let them eat cake."
This has apparently started a national debate on how schools are providing nutritional lunches to kids. Other schools across the country either have already enacted similar policies or are in the process of doing so.
Judging from news reports, the students at Little Village Academy hate the cafeteria food so much, they just throw it away. Kind of wasting money on school food, aren't we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)