Month: December 2011

United Nations Arab Voting Unbelievable

United Nations Arab Voting Unbelievable  Courtesy of Judy McGrane

How they vote in the United Nations:
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State  Department and United Nations records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the United States 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the   United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:

Egypt, for example, after voting 79%  of the time against the United States ,
still receives $2,000,000,000  annually  in US Foreign  Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against  the    United States
And receives  $192,814,000 annually  in US Foreign  Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against  the    United States
Receives $6,721,000,000 annually in US Foreign  Aid.

India votes 81% against  the    United States
Receives  $143,699,000 annually.
WHY?
WHO IN THE HELL
STARTED THIS AND WHY?
THEY ACTUALLY BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS THEM.

Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.

Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know, party lines irrelevant!

GO GREEN- RECYCLE  CONGRESS IN 2012 ! ! !

(If you don’t know any taxpayers just delete  it!)

 

United Nations Arab Voting Unbelievable

The Difference

The Roar

The Difference

The year was 1962, the same year in which this writer graduated from high school.  I must admit that as momentous as the Engel v. Vitale Supreme court decision would become, my interests were far from that fateful outcome which banned school prayer in the New York State school system.  With next year marking its fiftieth anniversary, the results from that Constitutional blunder are now in plain sight.

Through these intervening years, society’s journey has consistently traveled down the road of rack and ruin.  From the perspective of then verses now, the denouncing of religious attention and instruction within the confines of our educational system, seems to have been the single most detrimental legal ruling against our cohesive society and our Founder’s original intent.

During the intervening years, current speculation has thus floundered to the point which now even questions our Nation’s Christian foundations.  In my previous “A Day For Prayer,” which detailed George Washington’s proclamation, setting aside a day for thanksgiving and prayer, the devious intent to this anti-Christian debate becomes clear.  Adding to his 1789 proclamation is his Presidential Address which explains the importance to which our founding rested upon what our modern day Jurists outlawed.  To quote the Father of our Country, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.

This discrepancy between our beginning beliefs verses today’s secular contentions lays bare the road which should have never been traveled.   And it is to this one individual effect, from our apathy and disloyal slumber, which has inspired and continues to strengthen the thousands of Tea Party formations nationwide.  Our slumber is now over.

All is not lost.  Along side these Tea Party uprisings comes the home school phenomenon, which elevates the welfare of the child over the glitz of this materialism craze.  A supportive companion to this inherent sacrifice brings the recognition that Christian values and beliefs will  strengthen our life’s journey.  Yesterday, one national figure, brought into focus what has been ignored within his professional football genre.  The missing ingredient is that of being humble.

Professional sports, with football leading the charge, has also undergone sweeping changes which in retrospect bring questionable results.  How many viewers and fans witness these personal on field tributes after almost every play?  No matter the score, or if the team is winning or losing, these me, me, me exhibitions have diluted the game’s integrity and worth.  Well, yesterday, a winning QB returned to the days when winning brought out the best in a person.

When Tim Tebow, won his fifth straight game, this one at the buzzer, his humble presence shone through his interview when stating, “I know that I had a lot of help.  Offensive line did a great job, and receivers stepped up and made me look better than I really am.”

One might ask, what makes Tebow such a humble throwback to bygone days?  Could it be his Christian upbringing and spiritual guidance throughout his life.  This one instance brought back a clear recall of what was the order of the day before that 1962 Supreme Court ruling.

This recollection to a lost societal trait can be used to canvas today’s demographics.  As our view centers on the younger generations, it becomes apparent that being humble is not on their agenda.  People today try to draw attraction similar to those football players during a game.  The only difference is instead of chest thumping and gyrating,  we now revel in nose rings, tattoos and an assorted mix of colored hair.

As George Washington also said, “True religion affords to government its surest support.”  The same can be said for its aiding human decency and self respect.

Jim Bowman, Author of
This Roar of Ours

Tea Party Problems For Pileggi

State Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi’s (R-9)  bid to replace incumbent Democrat Bob Casey in the U.S. Senate is not warming the cockles of the hearts of some Tea Partyers this Christmas season.

Montco activist Bob Guzzardi has sent an email blast saying that Pileggi is “The Establishment’s Guy” and noting that he has a perfect rating with the National Federation of Independent Business  (a small business advocacy group) and a 75 percent rating with the AFL-CIO.

Frankly, that’s a rather impressive trick.

Lisa Esler of the Delaware County Patriots has published a list of problems with Pileggi which note, among other things, that he has neither adequately addressed the crushing burdens of teacher strikes in  Pennsylvania nor the ever-increasing burden of public pensions.

In fact, some suspect he has been keeping these issues from being addressed.

While I do think Pileggi has his good points, one does kind of wonder why the fair and commonsense reforms that would make life a lot easier for the average Pennsylvanian never seem to happen in this state.

Unemployment Benefits For Filthy Rich

Unemployment Benefits For Filthy Rich — The headlines last week were filled with outrage over the revelation that former Philadelphia School Superintendent Arlene Ackerman has filed for $573 a week in unemployment compensation, the maximum amount in Pennsylvania.

Ms. Ackerman, who was contracted to receive a $348,000 salary through 2014, was bought out of it for a $905,000 lump-sum payment plus $83,000 for unused vacation and personal days.

In other words, her job performance was not exactly satisfactory.

Leaving aside the point that the buyout means that Ms. Ackerman is being employed to basically sit on her butt and watch TV for the next three years, why should anyone be able to get $573 a week in unemployment comp?

Is it to allow our dainty betters to live in the style to which they have become accustomed?

Sorry, that’s not the way most of us think the social safety net is supposed to work.

The idea of an unemployment safety net is that a working stiff with a run of bad luck can still feed his kids and keep a roof over their heads until he finds another job. Nobody is against that.

But if you’ve been pulling down a good income and lose your job you presumably have assets that you can start selling off before you come to the rest of us — or at least to those business owners still trying to save their existing employees — with your hand out.

My proposal — cap the benefits at $150 per week; and  add  a $50-per month SNAP (food stamp) card, along with  an exemption from the residential property tax.

Also, cut the time for receiving them from 99 weeks to 16 weeks.

The cost of unemployment insurance would drop drastically for employers. This means it will cost them less to hire people which means they will start hiring people and very likely increase their pay.

What could possibly be the objection?

Government would lose power?

Unemployment Benefits For Filthy Rich

Red Flag In 2012 Defense Bill

Red Flag In 2012 Defense Bill –The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 is raising concerns across the political spectrum for language that would give the Office of the Presidency the ability to detain people indefinitely without trial.

The Senate version of the act — S. 1867 — was passed 93-7 on Dec. 1 with both Pennsylvania senators, Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Bob Casey Jr. voting aye.

It is now being reconciled with H. R. 1540. which did not include the rather disconcerting language now found in sections 1031 and 1032 when it was passed   322-96  on May 26.

The senators who dissented on S. 1867 were very conservative Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mike Lee of Utah; very liberal Democrats Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Oregonians Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkeley; and outright Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Paul is the man leading the charge against the new language and explains his reasoning on this YouTube video.

The actual language passed Dec. 1 of the sections which are part of Subtitle D — Detainee Matters  is:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION
FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.


(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the
authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered
persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law
of war.


(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:


(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored those responsible for those attacks.


(2) A person who was a part of or substantially
supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.


(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include
the following:


(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of
Military Force.


(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of
Public Law 111-84)).


(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.


(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s
country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign
entity.


(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to
limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.


(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or
any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.


(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of
Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the
authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons’ for
purposes of subsection (b)(2).


SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.


(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-


(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4),
the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in
paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in
military custody pending disposition under the law of war.


(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section
1031 who is determined–


(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the
direction of al-Qaeda; and


(B ) to have participated in the course of planning
or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States
or its coalition partners.


(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the
meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless
consistent with the requirements of section 1033.


(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of
Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph
(1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that
such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United
States.


(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-


(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to
citizens of the United States.


(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to a
lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by
the Constitution of the United States.


(c) Implementation Procedures-


(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to
Congress, procedures for implementing this section.


(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:


(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized
to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which
such determinations are to be made.


(B ) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United
States.


(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the
conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the
determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such
ongoing session.


(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the
United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the
custody of a third country.


(E) Procedures providing that a certification of
national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for
the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if
such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not
otherwise be accomplished.


(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who
are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United
States on or after that effective date.


The bills can be tracked at Thomas.Gov

A Serious Matter

The Roar

A Serious Matter

My last anti-media essay will not let go of me.  While questions as to whether Cain did or didn’t will predominate till he becomes demoralized and beaten, the sad and lingering thought is that this is just the latest in a long line of channeling public thought to a predetermined position.  For too long, the true culprit is not the individual topic but rather the topic provider.  Our national media has now taken on the appearance of becoming our crucible, our test, for whether we remain not only free in action and deed but free in thought as well.

It seems to me that along with our “freedom of speech,” “freedom of the press” has been prostituted to the max.  Are we okay with free speech’s only reservation being “fire” yelled in a crowded setting or with the mentioning of a “bomb” at an airport?  In reality, there is so much more to free speech than those two exceptions but that is for another time.

These nagging notions of mine, brought about by this despicable portrayal of Cain, urges a further understanding, not only for myself but hopefully for all who remain curious.

Suffice to say that since the freedoms of speech and press are explicitly acknowledged within the First Amendment to our Constitution, it also follows that an ordinary amount of responsibility accompanies these rare public provisions.  This stipulation is often lost with the individual’s flaunting, as exemplified today with the occupiers “free speech” debasements taking place around our Country.

The most acceptable of public impressions is that our “freedom of the press” qualifies as a “free press.”  Both terms, “freedom” and “free,” are defined as a state of liberty.  Yet there is liberty and there is liberty.  Since our Constitution was written back in the day, definitions from Webster’s 1828 dictionary become more appropriate.

Liberty is a freedom from restraint.  Yet in society, there is natural, civil, political and religious liberties.  Civil liberty pertains to an “expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation.  This should form the guidelines for the operation of our information industry.

Who among us can argue that “the safety and interest” of our nation is served best by the retorts of unsubstantiated recollections?  Who among us can accept the defamation of character which these claims are now producing?  Is this the act of a “free press” or an unsubstantiated press?

Is this a new media phenomenon and if not, just how damaging can the whimsical become?  The answer is “very damaging” when one remembers the supposed theories surrounding the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin attacks.   Today, credible doubt has surfaced as to whether this cause for war ever took place.

Another current day media escapade is this “global warming” facade.  Without getting into the nitty-gritty, nuts and bolts of this scheme, the thousands of emails to have been discovered two years ago detail the attempts of scientists to concoct and deceive.  Just recently, another batch of email evidence was brought to light with identical intent.  Still, our media continues with it’s promotion of a future doomsday while the federal government legislates to the point of outlawing the ageless and proven worthiness of the incandescent light bulb.

The media’s product of the unsubstantiated now promotes the public’s acceptance of the absurd.  When it’s weight can start wars and reverse industries, what chance does one innocent man have? But more importantly, what chance do we have for obtaining the truth, if in fact, that  remains our objective?

Jim Bowman, Author of,
This Roar of Ours

Anti-Taxpayer Write-In Campaign Fizzles In Pa.

An attempt by the teachers’ union  for a guerrilla victory in the West Chester Area School Board race was found to have fizzled when the dust cleared and the votes were counted.

When conservative Republicans running on a platform that put concern for elderly or unemployed property taxpayers  ahead of teacher-union interests won in the spring primary,  union supporters launched an unconventional and expensive write-in campaign to take the board.

The West Chester Area is a strong Republican area and winning on the GOP ballot is considered  a shoo-in for a municipal election.

In fact, three of the candidates — Karen Miller,Linda Raileanu and Maureen Snook — also won on the Democrat ticket as cross-filing is allowed in Pennsylvania school board races.

There were two others on the Democrat ballot — Wayne Burton, who was endorsed by the Democrat Party, and Ted Diehl, who called himself an independent and was not endorsed. Neither was part of the write-in campaign.

On Election Day, Nov. 8, 43,665 write-in votes were cast divided among six candidates, including one in a race to fill the remaining two years of the term originally won by John Wingerter, who resigned, and now held by Ms. Miller, who was running for a four-year term.

It was very likely the largest write-in campaign ever held for a school board election in Pennsylvania.

When the results were certified, however, only one of the insurgents, Sue Tiernan, managed to win sneaking in fifth for the final four-year seat.

The final count for the four-year seats is:Ms.  Miller, 9,206; Maureen Snook, 8,958; Linda Raileanu, 8,505; Vince
Murphy, 7,945; Ms. Tiernan, 7,690; Gary Bevilacqua, 7,550; Galen Plona,
7,497; Rick Swalm, 7,453; Spencer Virta, 6,979; Antonia Keg, 6,785;  Burton, 3,568;  Diehl, 3,253.

The other write-in candidates were Bevilacqua; Swalm, who is  incumbent board president; Virta;  and Ms. Keg.  Bevilacqua and Virta were the ones who did not have teaching backgrounds.

Plona was the taxpayer candidate who did not make the cut.

In the two-year race, conservative Ed Coyle easily beat Jim Smith, an incumbent who changed his mind about stepping down,  9,658 votes to the
6,413 write-in votes.

The election has resulted in at least five pro-taxpayer directors on the nine-person board.

Community Organizers Faces Of Hate

Community Organizers Faces Of Hate — Reader Tom C sent a pair of fascinating links regarding the methods and organizers of those who want to radically transform this country into a place where all power lies in the hands of the self-appointed select.

This one involves Heather Booth who co-founded Midwest Academy, a Chicago-based training academy for “community organizers”.  It boasts of training 30,000 activists since 1973 in  the lying and Luciferian methods of Saul Alinsky. The Academy is funded by George Soros’s Open Society Institute, Tides Foundation, and the Woods Fund of Chicago, on whose board  Barack Obama and Bill Ayers.

This one involves Kalle Lasn, who was born in occupied Estonia during World War II and spent his child in a German refugee camp. Lasn is the co-founder of Adbusters Media Foundation, the force behind the fizzling Occupy Wall Street movement.

Community Organizers Faces Of Hate