skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"House Republicans advanced legislation Thursday to avoid a government shutdown for one more week, cut spending and fully fund the Pentagon, but the White House labeled the measure a distraction and said President Barack Obama would veto it.
Obama said in a statement he believes "we need to put politics aside and work out our differences" on a spending plan that covers the government through September, when the current budget year ends.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, quickly countered with a statement saying he was "confident that those Democrats who believe it is important to fund our troops and make real spending cuts will prevail upon Senator Reid and our commander in chief to keep the government from shutting down.""
Yahoo News
"The government would be forced to shut down if President Barack Obama follows through on a promise to veto a Republican-backed stopgap spending bill, House of Representatives Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Thursday.
"I've just been informed that President Obama has threatened to veto the only bill before us to keep the government functioning ahead of tomorrow's deadline," Cantor said in a prepared statement. "If the President vetoes this bill and shuts the government down, our men and women in uniform serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world will not be paid. ... I urge the President revisit his decision and work with us.""
Yahoo News
Kind'a makes you wonder just what they consider essential, doesn't it?
This is the game that government's always play and it's right out of the union playbook. When money is short and they want more of ours the first thing that gets cut is the most important and vital service the government supplies. They always cut the police, fire and school budgets first but leave their own pay and perqs in place. They feed the fish in the zoo and starve the soldier in the field. I've got to find a list somewhere of just what will be funded when they shut the government down. I'll bet that there's plenty of stuff on it that is a whole lot less important than the military. But those things wouldn't put the pressure on the employers as effectively as not paying the military.
I don't know how long this strike is going to go on. The one thing that I'm going to be real interested to see is how long it takes all the retired people I saw at the TEA Party rallies to start screaming about not getting their checks from Social Security and Medicare. It's time to put up or shut up. We all want smaller government but its not going to be painless.
There's something else that I've been wondering about. Right after the last election there was all kinds of resistance from the old guard in the GOP to the TEA Party and it demands to cut spending. Suddenly we had this huge turn around and the GOP leadership seems to have embraced the whole concept of spending cuts and smaller government. Do you think, and maybe I'm just too cynical, but do you think that somebody, somewhere in the GOP said let's give 'em what they want and before you know it they'll be back, screaming for benefits and leaving the TEA Party in droves. Is this shutdown being driven by Progressive interests in the GOP as well as the same interests in the Democrat Party?
I don't trust any of 'em.
"Democrats and Republicans tried yesterday to reach a spending compromise that would keep the government running after President Barack Obama said it would be “inexcusable” for Congress to fail to avert a shutdown looming at week’s end.
House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told Democrats at a private White House meeting that he wanted to slice $40 billion from current spending, according to an administration official who sought anonymity. That is $7 billion higher than the $33 billion plan lawmakers had been working to assemble."
Business Week
With a community organizer as President and union bosses visiting the White house on a very regular basis I have to wonder if the impending government shutdown isn't a strike.
If I think about it all the classic labor relations problems are there. We have an employer (the people) that is tired of losing money, basically insolvent and needs to make cuts. We have an entrenched union (all the various special interests) that demand we continue to pay them an exorbitant salary regardless of profitability. The line has been drawn in the sand by the recent budget proposal submitted by Congressman Ryan.
The union won't accept our offer and we can't afford anything else and stay in business so a strike (government shutdown) has been threatened. The union believes that the service they provide is so special that they can't be replaced. They're banking on other unions supporting their play. They think that if they cause enough pain we'll roll on their demands.
Now, if this were my business I would have plans in place to replace these workers with new ones as soon as they walked off. And yes, I know that may be illegal based on contractual obligations but too bad. If we don't make serious changes and do it right now we're going under. I'd begin slashing programs and any other extraneous costs as soon as the strike begins.
All this would take planning and leadership. Fortunately the budgetary problems aren't something that came up over night so I've had plenty of time to get my act together.
Unfortunately, the government isn't a privately run business and we have no leadership that's worth talking about on the conservative side. And because of this the unions hold all the cards. And they know it. That's why they're (the Democrats) forcing this to happen. They know the strike will be successful and the business owners will cave.
If we had leadership it would have set the stage to weather the strike that's heading our way. This could have been done by getting out ahead of the union last year when the Democrats never submitted or approved a budget. Hell, the handwriting was on the wall at that point. Republicans should have taken the facts to the people and explained what we're up against. Of course, this would have pissed off their own special interest groups but real leaders wouldn't care.
If someone would just speak the truth and tell the people exactly why we're broke and what it will take to fix it we'd get on board. Look at the TEA Party turn outs last year! We'd be ready and willing to fight the unions and their strike and win.
So how would the people circumvent the unions? By hiring new workers and crossing the line. Now, it would be damned near impossible to do this at the federal level. The way around it is to put systems in place to begin handling essential government functions at the local level to the greatest extent possible.
To do that we'd need money. So we'll kill two birds with one stone; starve the beast. A real leader would have begun helping state and local governments to begin to stop sending money to Washington and keep it locally if a strike is called. Roads, schools, health and whatever else is extorted from the people and then redistributed to them by the extortionist would just stay with them from the beginning.
This would force an instant reduction in the size and power of the federal government and undercut the bargaining power of the union. It would also force the people to look honestly at the cost of services supplied by government and then to decide which are truly essential. The fed would still keep receiving our payroll taxes so they should have enough to keep the military functioning, especially if we immediately disengage overseas.
But, since we don't have any real leaders, when the union shuts down the government they'll hold all the cards. The strike will work when things start to shut down because there won't be any way to quickly replace the essential needs with local alternatives because the ground work hasn't been laid. The strike will work because the people will cave because no one has made the case to them so they'd have the strength to resist union tyranny. The media will make it sound as though we can't get along without the union, playing up any problems they can find, exaggerating the real affects of a government shutdown and backing their buddies in the union. And of course the union will make sure that the truly essential services go off line first for maximum effect.
So get ready for a week or so of theater and hand wringing before everything goes back to normal and the death spiral resumes anew. The lack of leadership on the conservative side means the unions will win the strike. And the people will lose.
ONE MORE THING
The more I've thought about this during the day the more I've started to wonder about the timing with all the union unrest at the state level. I know that most of it has been in response to budget cutting by Republican governors but still, isn't it just a bit...convenient, that just when we may need to shift services to the state or local governments we have all the union state and local workers all twisted in knots and ready to rumble?
If we try to sidestep the federal government how hard would it be for the unions to direct their members at the state and local levels to not do the work or actually go on strike?
Just wondering.
Mr. Voris is onto something here. What he describes is exactly what I see happening in my own Catholic community. We're all starting to realize that staying loyal to Rome and to the faith may mean divorcing ourselves from the American Church establishment. It's walking a fine line but I think as long as we stay focused on Christ and Peter we'll do OK.
The danger is that it would be all too easy to stray away. But the reality is that to do nothing, to blindly follow the apostate teachings of many of the bishops in America would be equally, if not more, dangerous.
"The president of the Pakistani bishops' conference has called for the arrest of a U.S. Protestant pastor whose decision to burn the Islamic sacred book has caused fury in the Muslim world and the deaths of more than 20 people.
Archbishop Lawrence Saldanha of Lahore, conference president, said the U.S. government should seek to diffuse mounting tensions by detaining the Rev. Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center Church in Gainesville, Fla., who oversaw the burning of the Quran by the Rev. Wayne Sapp, his assistant.
"The U.S. government should detain the pastor for some time," Archbishop Saldanha told the British branch of Aid to the Church in Need, a Catholic charity for persecuted Christians around the world."
Catholic News Agency
I'm curious. What exactly does the good bishop think that Rev. Jones should be arrested for? Burning the Koran may be provocative, it might be stupid and it was probably simply an act of self promotion. But illegal? Hardly. The act itself harmed no one and didn't damage another's property. It didn't offend the natural law rights of another; in fact it was an exercise of the natural law right to freedom of expression and religion that the pastor possesses as a part of his humanity.
It's frightening how quickly a bishop is willing to excuse the truly horrendous, immoral and illegal behavior of the Muslim rioters and to then turn around and place the blame on an innocent man.
I have some questions that I'd love to hear the bishop answer. When Christian missionaries are arrested and executed for the crime of preaching the Gospel, are they guilty of causing their own deaths? If a person hands out Bibles in a Muslim country and is killed because of that, who should be arrested? The killers or the church leader that sent the person in the first place? If the bishop sends someone to preach the gospel and riots erupt because of it, should the bishop be arrested? Or, in the bishops way of thinking, is the preservation of peace and ecumenism so important that he wouldn't send the missionary or preach the Gospel in the first place?
Just wondering.
Liquor Guns amp Ammo Sign
Myspace Graphics
Why is this even a question here in the land of the free?
"Cynthia Willis calls up and down the firing range to be sure everyone knows she is shooting, squares up in a two-handed stance with her Walther P-22 automatic pistol and fires off a clip in rapid succession.
Willis is not only packing a concealed handgun permit in her wallet, she also has a medical marijuana card. That combination has led the local sheriff to try to take her gun permit away.
She is part of what is considered the first major court case in the country to consider whether guns and marijuana can legally mix. The sheriffs of Washington and Jackson counties say no. But Willis and three co-plaintiffs have won in state court twice, with the state’s rights to regulate concealed weapons trumping federal gun control law in each decision.
With briefs filed and arguments made, they are now waiting for the Oregon Supreme Court to rule.
When it’s over, the diminutive 54-year-old plans to still be eating marijuana cookies to deal with her arthritis pain and muscle spasms, and carrying her pistol."
The Blaze
As someone that's spent more time in duck blinds with guys that are stoned than I care to think about the answer to this question is an unequivocal YES! And as a guy that's spent a whole bunch of Sunday afternoons drinking beer and shooting clay birds my answer is still YES!
The truth is that people that are responsible can have a few beers or blow a couple one bangers and still be responsible. At the same time, I've been around a whole bunch of stone sober idiots with firearms that I wouldn't trust no matter what. I've had to go as far as to remove the weapons from them on occasion.
This isn't about inebriation. It's about a political agenda. And it's about stupid federal firearms laws that should have never been enacted, especially because they violate the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution. Firearm laws should be left up to local officials and legislators. If Chicago wants to outlaw guns because its citizens demand it, fine. But it shouldn't speak for Mascoutah. And Washington, D.C. shouldn't have any say on this subject anywhere.
So, unless this lady in the article above is shown to be irresponsible with her weapons irrespective of her use of marijuana leave her be.
This is, or at least should be, a state issue. Keep the fed out of it.
A first time author named John Eklund contacted me a few weeks ago and asked if I would like to read and review his book “The Third Testament”. Having never done a book review before, and having not done a book report since my days in grade school so long ago, I agreed, with a certain amount of fear and trembling (sorry, St. Paul), to go ahead and try my hand at reviewing someone else’s work. So, here goes:
I’ve never read a book quite like “The Third Testament” before. It’s not wholly a work of fiction and yet it’s fictional. But it’s also filled with historical information. But it’s not historical fiction because the fictional story runs parallel to the historical. And they interact and intertwine to create a third story of redemption and faith. But even this story is not confined to a character or a particular group, though it applies to both, but to all of humanity.
The book, at least the fictional part, reminded me in many ways of reading something written by Wendell Berry. Not in style or subject but in that it has a certain gentleness to it. It follows the ebb and flow of a normal life that has been interrupted by a series of life altering problems. It’s the response to the problems, a response grounded in faith, that strike me as honest and true. No explosions, gunfire or incredible acts of heroism, just human suffering and confusion, all wrapped up in a daily life that must go on, punctuated by moments of grace that allow a person of faith to endure.
The central character, Fred Sankt, a professor at a Catholic college and a widower, is confronted with the very real possibility that his only daughter will be killed by the same type of cancer that killed his wife years earlier along with a legal threat to his financial security from an unjust accuser. He experiences a series of dreams that lead him to believe that he has been chosen to write a book of salvation history, picking up where the New Testament leaves off, a Third Testament. In writing this book he finds solace from the pressures in his life, and hope.
From the author’s point of view this is an effective device because it allows him to switch back and forth from the story of Mr. Sankt to the book that Mr. Sankt is writing. This lets the reader journey along with him as he chronicles the triumphs and failures of the Church throughout the last 2000 years, painting a picture of struggle and redemption that one can hardly help but to begin to see mirrored in the personal struggles of Mr. Sankt and, by extension, all of us.
I don’t read much fiction because, for the most part, I have a limited amount of time to read and I like to try to make it count. I don’t read much fiction because I don’t learn much from it, at least the fiction that is produced today. I find myself drawn to the classic works of fiction when I read any fiction at all. I just reread “To Kill a Mockingbird” and a short story by Faulkner, “The Barn Burner”. Both had messages worth hearing. Not long ago I read “On the Road”, Jack Kerouac’s classic. Not exactly uplifting and holy but well worth reading because of the use of language and how the rythym of the words evoke a jazz/bop riff. Also, as a person of faith, it’s a really good book to show just how little hope there is in a life driven by hedonism. The characters lives were pointless, but not the book. Again, great stuff.
On the other hand, I also just read a Brad Thor novel, “The Last Patriot”. It’s a complete waste of time. It just seemed so pointless. What could I learn from it? Nothing. Sure the story moved along and there was plenty of action but it was empty of any sort of moral sense, good or bad. It was just an aimless exercise in reading; junk food for the mind.
Mr. Eklund’s book “The Third Testament” is worth reading because it expresses a truth that too many have forgotten. As Christians we are part of one body and whatever happens to one of us happens to all of us. We all suffer, sometimes as individuals and sometimes corporately through the suffering of the Church, our one, shared body. Also, there is no new suffering. It’s all happened before. And it seems that there is a reason for it because, if one reads their history, they know that few if any saints became holy without it. The history of the church is a history of patient endurance.
“What is it that hath been? The same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? The same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.” Ecclesiastes 1:9-10
As Christians we need to understand our shared family history so that we can place our own lives in their proper context. Religion devoid of history is dead (sorry, St. James). Conversely, history devoid of God is a lie. Without the examples of our fathers in the faith how can we see that our lives have meaning, that we are much larger than what we see in the mirror, that our lives are part of a greater life, the life of the Church and through it the life of Jesus and through Him the life of God the Father? And if we read history without seeing the guiding hand of grace we miss so much of the underlying truth and the conclusions we draw will be twisted and confused.
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18
In this book we come to see, along with Mr. Sankt, that the Church stands as a beacon, a reason for hope. We see that it’s very endurance, the fact that it still survives today, after 2,000 years of attacks and brutal betrayals, just as Jesus promised it would, is as sure a reason for faith in Christ as anything else. Only a miracle, or more rightly, one whole never ending series of miracles and heavenly protections could have kept our Holy Mother Church on this earth. The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest form of government on the earth today, outlasting everything before or since. That is a miracle, maybe the greatest of all since the beginning of the Church itself.
The following can be found on page 248 of "The Third Testament":
"One day a humble servant of the Lord lost a very dear friend to the scourge cancer. The humble servant felt great sorrow and prayed that he would someday see his friend again. After much time in prayer, the humble servant was confronted by a demon. The demon said to him, "Why do you waste your time in prayer? There is no proof that God exists."
The humble servant answered him, "I have faith and that is why I pray."
The demon then said to him with disdain, "Faith is no more than superstition. On what do you base this 'faith?'"
The humble servant answered, "I base this faith on trust."
"Trust in whom?" the demon retorted. "In whom do you have such trust that you would ignore the laws of probability and the laws of science?"
"I trust in Christ," the humble servant replied.
"In Christ!" the demon exclaimed. "In Christ! Name one thing Christ has done to earn your trust. Tell me please, what has He ever done to earn your prayers? I dare you to name one miracle He has ever performed that has been proven by science to be true. Name it! Name it!" he taunted with glee.
The humble servant stood with patience, and then answered with three simple words: "The Church exists."
"What?" the demon declared in confusion. "What!" he said again with vexation. "What do you mean 'the Church exists?' Please tell me how this relates to trust. Please tell me how this justifies your wasted time in prayer?"
The humble servant calmly explained his answer. "Jesus Christ made a promise--the simple promise 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' And now after 2000 years the Church still endures. It endures despite a history of heresies and persecutions. It endures despite the tyranny of despots. It endures despite the laws of probability and the laws of science. What greater miracle is there than this—that the son of a simple carpenter, who lived a life of poverty, and dwelled with the lowly, who never ventured more than a hundred miles from the town of his birth, and who died a criminal's death on a cross, would establish a great and holy Church, and that the teachings of this Church would be spread throughout the world by twelve simple men--men who hid in fear after the crucifixion? Yet in a mere three days after this lowly criminal's death, these twelve sprang forth and proclaimed His word and gave up their lives so that His promise would ring true. And over the centuries thousands of others gave their lives also, so that the Church would go on. The most powerful kings and most menacing armies stood against her, but the Church did not falter. For 2000 years this Church has withstood the test of time, overcoming the greatest of odds again and again. It surmounted the insurmountable. It beat the unbeatable foe. It prevailed through the harshest of storms. I say to you, this Church has shattered the very laws that you exalt. It defied that laws of probability, and it humbled the laws of science."
The humble servant continued on, "The existence of this Church is not a myth. The existence of this Church is not a legend. That this Church exists is an undeniable fact. That Christ's promise was kept is an undeniable fact. And if He kept this promise, then how can there be any doubt that He will keep His greatest promise—the promise that was central to His ministry, the promise that said 'If you believe in me, and eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, you shall live forever.' So when you ask 'why do I have faith,' I tell you, it is because I have trust, and nothing that your fair science can offer can break that trust. This is why I pray, so that someday I will enjoy that most sacred covenant of all"--the humble servant paused briefly and then added with solemnity and conviction--"together with my friend!" He then looked the demon right in the eye. "What good can your science and probability offer that is greater than this?"
With those words, the demon turned away, never to bother the humble servant again."
“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32
Fear of the truth (and isn’t that really fear of God?) has led many Christians to completely dismiss history. Many in the Catholic Church are as guilty of this as many in the other Christian faiths. It’s far past the time that this should be remedied.
Mr. Eklund’s book, “The Third Testament” is a really fine place to start.
"Thousands of people in Missouri who have been unemployed for more than a year soon will lose their jobless benefits, marking a significant victory for Republican fiscal hawks who are crusading against government spending.
When eligibility ends Saturday, Missouri will become the only state to voluntarily quit a federal stimulus program that offers extended benefits. Michigan, Arkansas and Florida also recently took steps to cut back on money going to the unemployed, although they targeted state benefits instead.
"We have to take a stand and say, `When is enough enough?' and send a message to the federal government, and hopefully shame them into doing the right thing and quit spending money that they don't have," said state Sen. Jim Lembke, a Republican from St. Louis.
...At issue is a provision in the 2009 federal stimulus act that allowed residents in states with high unemployment rates to receive up to 20 additional weeks of federally funded jobless benefits after exhausting the 79 weeks authorized under other federal laws. At least three dozen states, including Missouri, enacted laws to participate.
Although their unemployment rates were high enough to qualify, seven other states – Arkansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma and Utah – never passed laws to join in, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Maryland is now pursuing participation, but many of the other states seem content to remain out of the program. Much like his Missouri counterparts, Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups said the states need to set an example of self-sufficiency.
...That federal backlash is particularly strong in Missouri, where voters were the first in the nation to pass a measure challenging the new federal health care mandate and where Republican senators also are holding up federal stimulus money for education.
...The National Employment Law Project says its supporters sent 15,000 emails in a roughly 24-hour period from Tuesday to Wednesday urging Missouri senators to allow a vote on the legislation reauthorizing the extended jobless benefits.
But Sen. Brian Nieves, a Republican from Washington, Mo., who is popular among tea party activists, said he has no intention of compromising his position. "The people have been crystal clear for about the last two years in saying that they expect us to at least start the process of weaning ourselves off of the federal government," Nieves said."
Huffington Post
Way to go, Senators Nieves and Lembke! This sucks for the people that can't find work here in Missouri but reality has a way of sucking most of the time anyway.
The reality is that the money that the federal government wants to send to us to pay for additional unemployment benefits doesn't exist! They're creating...no I take that back. The Federal Reserve is creating it out of thin air and lending it to the government which is giving it to the states. In other words, this is no different than asking your parents to borrow money to pay your bills and then expecting your grandkids to pay the debt.
Yep, reality sucks alright but it is what it is. America is broke and it seems that a good deal of the people are, too. Going deeper and deeper into debt won't change that. It'll just make the eventual day of reckoning that much worse.
Now, I know that the usual suspects on the left - the unions, celebrities, politicians, community organizers and the USCCB will scream and rend their garments, demanding their perverted version of "social justice" be enforced. They'll demand that Missouri repent of its conservative ways and return to the Progressive fold.
There is nothing JUST about stealing money from future generations and hanging the albatross of debt around their necks to remedy our problems today. In fact, it's the opposite of justice; it's theft.
So I'm glad that my Senator, from my state, has the cajones to stand up for what's right regardless of the political fallout. I'm proud to say that I voted for Brian Nieves and I'll do it again.
Thanks, Senator and keep up the good work!
Posts
