skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"The president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank said Thursday the Fed may need to increase short-term interest rates by year's end if underlying inflation rises as he anticipates.
In a interview, Narayana Kocherlakota said he expected "a big upward movement" in core inflation—inflation excluding volatile food and energy prices—from about 0.8% late last year to about 1.3% by year-end.
As a result, he said, it's "certainly possible" the Fed's target for short-term interest rates, now near zero, would be lifted by more than half a percentage point late this year."
Wall Street Journal
Does anybody remember the Carter years? We're about to go back to them again, but this time around it'll feel like steroids have been shot into the monster.
The Fed seems to have two possible reactions to most any economic problem. The first is to create money out of thin air, lend it into the system, profit from the transaction and in the process devalue the dollar, causing more dollars to chase fewer goods and creating inflation.
They respond to this by invoking action number two. They raise interest rates to pull excess money back out of the system which, of course, allows them to profit once again.
Now, if the inflation we are just beginning to experience, and which is going to get much, much worse before it gets better, were caused by expansion in the economy due to the injection of capital then perhaps the Fed would be justified in raising rates and could do it without causing too much pain. But our inflation is only partially caused by the increase in the money supply this time. You see, most of the money created by the Fed has never been put out into the economy. It's been held by banks to make their balance sheets look good and to cover the defaults and other problems brought on by a nearly historic high in unemployment and underemployment. It's been used to play games in the stock market, keeping stock values artificially inflated, most likely to cover the true ugliness of our economy. Most people I talk to use the market values as a reason to believe that everything's just fine, even though they're working less and spending more for basics. The inflated market is the crutch they can lean on to support their financial fantasy world.
So, just like the Carter years, we've got people making less money and the cost of goods, mostly energy and food, going through the roof. And now interest rates will begin to rise, squeezing everyone even tighter. And as the cost of borrowing rises businesses that rely on loans to function will begin to cut back even more, increasing employment woes across the land.
One really big difference between the Carter years and today is the number of people that have mortgages tied to the current rate of interest and not a fixed interest rate. As rates rise and their mortgages become increasingly difficult to meet more and more will just simply walk away from their homes. And the number of empty houses. already numbering in the millions, will continue to grow.
Speaking of loans that are tied to interest rates, what about our Treasury Bonds? America can't meet her obligations with interest rates at near zero. And the world is slowly beginning to abandon our bonds because they're considered way to risky for the little potential upside. So we'll have to raise interest paid on them to try to make them more attractive to investors, which of course most will realize we'll never pay back anyway, so the rates will have to continue to climb and with every increase our ability to pay will fade further over the horizon.
I wonder if this is the real reason the Fed is talking about raising rates? Are they trying to lure investors back in? Maybe they're using inflation as an excuse because they don't want to admit publicly what most of us already know, that America is on it's last leg and falling quickly and that higher interest rates are essentially a Hail Mary pass attempt, one last shot at bringing us back that stands little or no chance of success.
Whatever the reason, it appears higher interest is on the horizon and times will get tougher for the average American. Buy food and other essentials now, while you can still afford it because this year has the potential to be a year unlike anything most of us have ever experienced.
Get ready and pray.
I'd like to recommend that you go over to Lee Stranahan's site and read his article "Media Matter’s Deceptive Editing On Fox Story". Be sure to watch the videos, viewing the Media Matters video before Mr. Starnahan's breakdown of it.
It's important that all of us understand the ways we are getting jerked around by the powerful on both sides. The one thing we deserve, the one thing that we are absolutely owed, is the truth. What we do with it is up to us. However, without it we're like a blind person walking the edge of a cliff. We will eventually make a decision that will cause us great harm that we could avoid if we could only see and understand the situation we face.
I think that the level of emotion that I see on both sides of the debate is caused by this lack of basic, honest information. Most people sense that something is desperately wrong with our country and the world but they can't get their hands around it because they are never given the information, the truth, they need to come to grips with it.
We're being played with like puppets on a string. The truth is the knife we need to cut ourselves free. And the only way you'll find it anymore is by doing your own research and being honest about the information you read. Don't trust anything until you've verified it yourself. And don't just chase a link around from site to site. Find the ORIGINAL source material and read it yourself.
I've found that most of what you read, especially if it's all the rage and everyone is posting it, is suspect at best or an outright lie a good deal of the time.
We can no longer be passive consumers of information, at least not if we want our freedom.
"Marquette University, a 130 year-old Jesuit institution, has announced plans for the school to offer benefits to employees of same-sex couples effective next year.
School president Fr. Robert Wild made the announcement in a March 24 statement.
“Fr. Wild said the benefit provision was an expression of pastoral care and an acknowledgment that health care is a basic human right,” Kate Veene, the school's spokeswoman told EWTN News.
Fr. Wild said that offering same-sex couples medical, dental and vision benefits – currently provided to the university's married heterosexual couples and their dependents – was an issue he'd suffered internal conflict over.
He argued that gay couples “who have legally registered their commitment to each other” merit the same benefits as married couples under the Jesuit principle of “cura personalis” or “care for the whole person.”"
EWTN News
What is it with the Jesuits? If I were to have to choose which religious order is most likely to go off the reservation this would be the one.
Father Wild may have suffered all his internal conflict needlessly since the answer to his dilemma has already been provided by the Church, you know, that creaky old institution that he swore fealty to at one time?
The following excerpts come from a document released by the Vatican's Office for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2003 entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons":
The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose...
There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law...
Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons...
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection...
Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex...
It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure...
Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. ..
Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children...
The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.
Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State...
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society....
The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
So is Marquette following either the letter or spirit of Church teaching in granting homosexual couples the same rights regarding health insurance as it does married heterosexuals? According to the document above, a document approved by Pope John Paul II, it doesn't. And for Catholic it's important to note that when the Magisterium speaks in accord like this it means that what it is saying is for all intents and purposes infallible. Catholics, particularly priests, are not free to ignore these sorts of teachings. Regardless of the amount of internal conflict one involves himself in.
We are quickly moving towards a collapse of the Church here in America because not only does the laity refuse to follow Rome but it appears the prelates are refusing to do so, also.
What is truth?
Pray and then pray some more. And keep your eyes fixed firmly on Peter.
"Newt Gingrich suggested Friday that he's not looking to "get past" his three marriages and admitted affairs as a potential stumbling block with voters, arguing it's about admitting to "weaknesses" and "failures" for which he sought God's "forgiveness."
The comments from Gingrich came during his latest trip to Iowa, in an interview on "Iowa Press," set to air Friday evening and again Sunday.
The former House speaker was asked by Associated Press reporter Mike Glover, "You've been married three times. You've had messy divorces. You're campaigning in a state where the Republican Party is dominated by Christian conservatives. How do you get past that?"
Gingrich replied, "I think you don't get past that. I think you tell the truth and I think you share your life's experiences and you admit that you've had weaknesses and that you've had failures and you've gone to God to seek forgiveness and to seek reconciliation and then people make a decision.""
Politico
I hope Gingrich is being honest, not just with the voters but with himself, and I hope that he's found the peace and forgiveness that only a relationship with God can bring. That being said, as a voter, and one with a conservative bent, I would have a hard time voting for this guy.
I think that he's brilliant and that of all the candidates on the Republican side so far he'd have the best chance of beating Obama in a one on one debate. He knows history and that's an invaluable asset for a President. He's hard headed enough to stand tough on something he believes passionately. And he's undoubtedly tough.
But, even with all those strengths he has one glaring weakness; he's part of the old guard, a neo-con from the nineties, someone that will support wars overseas and the expansion of American empire. And I can't support that.
We're broke, game over, end of story. It's time for America to retract from the world, gracefully and from a position of strength. Bring the troops back and protect our own shores, develop our resources, live within our means, and learn to get by on the energy we produce here.
We need a President that will lead us into the new reality we face, not one stuck in the age of empire. I don't think Gingrich is that man.
"The cash-strapped MTA may soon put welfare recipients to work scrubbing and cleaning the subways.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority wants to revive its participation in the city's Work Experience Program - which makes the unemployed toil for their benefit checks.
"This is a program that has a proven track record of doing three things: providing low-cost cleaning help for the subway; providing job training to people who need it, and leading directly to full-time employment for many of the people who participate in the program," MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin said.
The MTA eliminated 173 cleaner positions last year in a series of budget cuts that slashed a total of about 3,500 jobs."
New York Daily News
This is what true "social justice" looks like. As a Catholic I realize that there is a responsibility on the government's part to take care of its citizens when those citizens have no other way to get by. This is because those same citizens supported the government through taxes and service when times were good. It's a two way street.
However, just as those citizens rightfully expected a return on their treasure and energy when it was given to the government, things such as roads, police and fire protection, among others, the government has a right to expect a return from the citizens on money spent to support them in time of need. Again, this is a two way street.
Unlike the Progressive form of "social justice" where self centered greed drives the entire process, true "social justice" has at its core the concern for the other. The government gladly looks to the welfare of the citizen while the citizen gladly labors for his dollar from the government because he realizes that the people from whom the dollars that support them are taken deserve a return on their money.
Concern for the other, on both sides of the equation, makes true "social justice" a worthy and holy undertaking. Narcissism and greed, the two hallmarks of all Marxist enterprises, corrupt and pervert the "social justice" that the Progressives continually try to sell us. This has had the effect of turning most Conservatives against something that properly understood and implemented is a vital component of our human society.
Proving once again that everything Marxism touches goes bad.
"Military intervention in Libya, in the judgment of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), “appears to meet” the just-cause criterion of Catholic teaching on just war. The USCCB, however, cautioned that it has “refrained from making definitive judgments” in light of “many prudential decisions beyond our expertise.”
“In Catholic teaching the use of force must always be a last resort that serves a just cause,” Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, chairman of the USCCB Committee on International Justice and Peace, wrote in a letter to National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church limits just cause to cases in which ‘the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave and certain’ (#2309). The just cause articulated in UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to demand ‘a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians’ appears to meet this criterion in our judgment.”"
Catholic Culture
We find ourselves in a new war (whether we choose to call it that or not) in yet another Muslim country, backing a group that we know little about but which seems to be, because one of its leaders has said as much, affiliated with al-Qaeda, and the American Bishops have pronounced it just. Why? Because the U.N. is nominally in control of the situation? Or because President Obama is one of their own politically? I don't know but something isn't right.
This is what this same group of Bishops had to say about our invasion of Iraq:
"Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature. With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force.*"
USCCB
I'm curious how Libya differs from Iraq in "lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature"? We have not been attacked and neither was any other nation in the United Nations coalition. Libya is undergoing an internal civil war, the people having risen up, for whatever reason, to throw off their own government. Sure, Gaddafi is a butcher, a terrorist and a killer. But he's been that way a long time. And yes, he'll kill the people that turned on him if he wins the war. But they knew that going in and still figured it was worth the cost. So how does any of this justify ours or any other nations involvement in this mess?
Also, we didn't go in to stop the fighting. We went in and clearly took sides, backing the rebels with air power and supplies. We clearly intend to see Gaddafi taken out. How does all this fit into your just war theory, Bishops?
This pronouncement from the Bishops seems to me to be more about politics than faith and morals. But then lately most everything from the USCCB seems that way. I'm to the point of not listening to them at all anymore. They've become representatives of the Democrat party, not the Church leaders they're supposed to be.
But, the African Bishops and possibly the Pope disagree with our American Church leaders:
"“The Holy Father's appeal was wonderful news and gives us great comfort. The Pope spoke words that affirm the need for reconciliation, peace and dialogue,” said Bishop Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli, Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli. On Sunday, March 27, upon praying the Angelus, Pope Benedict XVI launched “an urgent appeal to international organisations and political and military leaders for immediate dialogue, to suspend the use of arms.”
“We have translated today's appeal by the Holy Father into Arabic and we will send it as a voice message to the Libyan Foreign Ministry, for their information,” says Bishop Martinelli. The Apostolic Vicar states that he did not participate in the event of Saturday, 26 March (see Fides 26/03/2011), and that in any case, as he explained to Fides, he would join in only if it had been a peace rally. “They have not asked again for our presence,” says Bishop Martinelli. “It was a manifestation to reaffirm the national unity of Libya. We have joined the tribal leaders, intellectuals and other personalities. I do not think either side wants a divide in Libya. However, this emphasises the need for dialogue to end the crisis,” says the Vicar Apostolic of Tripoli."
Energy Publisher
"Following the midday Angelus prayer this Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI launched the following urgent appeal:
“Faced with the increasingly dramatic reports from Libya, my trepidation for the safety and security of civilians and my concern for the unfolding situation, currently signed by the use of arms, is growing. In times of greatest tension, the need to put to use all means available to diplomacy becomes increasingly urgent and to support even the weakest signs of openness and willingness on both sides involved, for reconciliation in search of peaceful and lasting solutions. In view of this, as I lift my prayer to the Lord for a return to harmony in Libya and the entire North African region, I also appeal to the international bodies and all those in positions of military and political responsibility, for the immediate start of dialogue and the suspension of the use of weapons”.
“Finally, my thoughts turn to the authorities and citizens of the Middle East, where in recent days there have been several incidents of violence, so that the path of dialogue and reconciliation be privileged in the search for a just and brotherly coexistence”."
Catholicism Pure and Simple
Raw Story, a consistently incendiary left wing website is running the following story:
"An Indiana prosecutor and Republican activist has resigned after emails show he suggested Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker stage a fake attack on himself to discredit unions protesting his budget repair bill.
The Republican governor signed a bill on March 11 that eliminates most union rights for public employees.
In an email from February 19, Indiana deputy prosecutor Carlos F. Lam told Walker the situation presented "a good opportunity for what’s called a ‘false flag’ operation."
The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism discovered the email among tens of thousands released to the public last week following a lawsuit by the Isthmus and the Associated Press.
"If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions' cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions," Lam said in his email.
"Currently, the media is painting the union protest as a democratic uprising and failing to mention the role of the DNC and umbrella union organizations in the protest," he continued. "Employing a false flag operation would assist in undercutting any support that the media may be creating in favor of the unions."
Lam resigned from his position after the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism published an article about his email."
I've noticed that this is gaining some traction among some on the left that, like some on the right, grope and grasp for anything that fits their particular world view, regardless of whether it's important or spun so badly as to become meaningless.
I'll assume that this Lam guy wrote the e-mail since he resigned. What does this prove? He's an idiot? The story goes on to say that in a phone call to Wisconsin Governor Walker, someone posing as a Koch brother (the current boogie men on the right if one is to believe the left wing hysteria) suggested a similar "false flag" operation and Walker said that they'd thought about it. Again, so? They didn't do it, did they? Where's the harm in talk, even talk about something ridiculous?
At the same time that we have sites like Raw Story trying to gin up problems for the Republicans most of the main stream media is completely avoiding the story first broken by Glenn Beck and backed up by tapes of a speech given by Stephen Lerner in which Lerner details plans to collapse the American economy by creating a situation where people stop paying there mortgages and by demonizing J.P. Morgan and other financial institutions. You can find details here,
here and here.
So here's the thing. We've got two stories competing for attention, one about a low grade political operative writing an e-mail supporting a stupid and pointless idea that was never acted on and for which he resigned and another reporting a conspiracy that seems to be in motion that has the potential to bring down our economy. If both succeed the first would have limited consequences, embarrassing the Governor and bringing into question the motives of a state issue and those that back it, a motive about which there is little question anyway. The second has international ramifications, with the potential to change everything about the way life in America and the world functions.
One has to wonder why partisan websites such as Raw Story promote political theater at the expense of important stories and further why anyone cares whether Walker got an e-mail or not. We live in extraordinarily dangerous times yet the average American, when they can tear themselves away from American Idol, focuses on partisan bickering and gamesmanship instead of the things that could destroy their lives.
Even if Beck is wrong about the plot he describes he has enough evidence and the threat is big enough that we should focus our attentions there, not on the stupid actions in Wisconsin and Indiana.
We must divorce ourselves from the politicians and the games they play and begin to function as one family working for the survival of our clan. These stupid games can wait for a different time when we, hopefully, once again have the luxury of playing in the dirt like kids.
Grow up America. And act like adults and fix the real problems.
"A bill proposed by the Missouri General Assembly earlier this month would change some regulations of Proposition B, which passed with 51 percent of voters in November, could occur as soon as next month.
The Missouri Senate passed the bill that amends Prop. B with a vote of 20 to 14 on March 10, according to the Missouri Senate website. When the House votes on the bill in April, the final decision will lie with Gov. Jay Nixon.
The new provisions in House Bill 131 renames Prop. B the Dog Breeders Cruelty Prevention Act and removes the provisions concerning living conditions and specific medical regulations for animals.
House Bill 131 states Prop. B is not applicable to breeders unless they own more than 100 female dogs, and breeders are permitted to own more than 50 dogs.
Other changes to Prop. B that would be omitted deal with scientific facts, such as specific dog cage temperatures, which would harm some puppy breeds, said Representative Zachary Wyatt, R-District 2, who supports the House bill.
The "domesticated animal" provision would be removed because it could mean any animal from a dog to a horse, cow or pig, he said. Therefore, under Prop B, all the regulations would also apply to farm animals, which would be detrimental to agriculture, he said."
Truman Index
There's been a good deal of discussion, most of it on the passionate side, about Prop B both before and after its passage last year in Missouri. Most of the yelling right now revolves around the legislature making changes to the bill after it was voted on by the people.
Prop B was a bill written by the Humane Society of the United States under the guidance of its CEO and President Wayne Pacelle to whom the following quotes have been attributed:
“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
— Animal People News, May 1993
"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. ---Wayne Pacelle, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.
Can you blame those of us that voted against the bill for just a bit of concern about what the true intent of the legislation is? Section 9 of the act reads as follows:
"”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof."
Those of us that have domesticated animals other than dogs and cats have quite a few reservations when it comes to the possibility of applying the regulations included in the act to our farm animals. My chickens are "domesticated animals" and they live about 50 feet from my house. Is that near enough for them to fall under the requirements of the act? If so, do I now need to heat and cool their coop and follow all kinds of other regulations that have nothing to do with the health and fitness of my birds? What about hogs, goats and cows? They're all domesticated, too. Do they fall under the regs in the act?
It seems to me, based on the known predilections of the leadership of HSUS that this bill is meant to be something more than just a way to prevent the abuse of dogs in large scale puppy mill operations. It is worded in ways that leave the legal door open for increasing government meddling in farming and private business/property issues, all with the intent of eventually creating legal protections for animals equivalent to those humans posses as a matter of the natural law. And those are the sorts of holes the legislature is trying to plug.
Further, if one reads the bill a glaring problem is found in its lack of establishing an enforcement mechanism or the funding for one. The Senate is trying to rectify that problem by increasing licensing fees for breeders to as much as $2500.00 to fund more inspectors. It seems that supporters of this bill would be happy with that.
"Missouri Humane Society president Kathy Warnick can't help but feel outraged by watching the Proposition (the Humane Society wrote) get overturned.
"A total miscarriage of justice has occured," Warnick said, "simply because Missouri's citizens voted for Proposition B. The measure passed, and we feel the Senators should have respected the will of the people of Missouri to provide better care and conditions for the animals in Missouri's breeding facilities. We feel very strongly that the Senators have absolutely gutted proposition B, and that they have stripped away the protection Missouri's animals so richly deserve."
Fox 2
I guess it's just because I'm a dumb country boy but I don't see this bill being overturned. I see it being tweaked, corrected or brought into line with other statutory law in Missouri but that's hardly being overturned.
You see, this is the problem with the way the left misuses democracy. Notice how they constantly characterize our form of government as democracy when thats not what we are? The reason for this is because they know that through direct vote an ignorant populace can be coerced into voting for something against their own interest or against the interest of a minority group.
After all, democracy is nothing more than two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.
"The measure passed, and we feel the Senators should have respected the will of the people of Missouri...". If this is the case I wonder if Ms. Warnik would feel the same way if the people of Missouri had voted to allow dogs and cats to be served as food in our restaurants? Or what if we had voted to take away womens suffrage?
Democracy is nothing more than a tool used by the left to hijack the process in a republic. They know that they'll never get a bill like Prop B through the legislature so they do an end run by getting it put on the ballot, which is perfectly legal. However, it's also perfectly legal and normal for the legislature to amend statutes after they're passed; it happens all the time. Why should Prop B be sacrosanct?
Since the legislature doesn't seem to be looking to throw Prop B out I think that the outrage from the animal rights fringe is mostly for theatrical affect. They have an agenda far greater than the protection of dogs and they thought they had us fooled. Thankfully our reps are doing their jobs and now maybe we can get a law in place that protects both the dogs and the rights of animal owners, producers and breeders.
Isn't that really what most people want?
Posts
