on SALT and the tax bill

I know this will go nowhere, but as I sit here listening to the talking heads, I had a thought.

In looking at what SALT, (state and local tax )deduction does,  it is basically no more than a backdoor way for the feds  to pay the state .just look at how it works,  you pay your state and local taxes,  then at the end of the year you deduct them off your federal bill .

I have a much better idea,  instead of having all that paperwork to deduct  money that the federal government is going to give the state,  why not just have the federal government go and pay the state direct ? This would have the effect of cutting down on paperwork maybe even get the tax form down to a postcard. Wouldn’t that be a much better way of doing things? But then again that may expose the state for all the excess taxes it gets.

Glenn

To the Dems on the tax reform bill

As I sit here looking at some of the posts about the tax reform bill, There is something that strikes me as funny. I listened to all the attacks from the left on it and found that they were talking out both sides of their butt.

You see, you can’t both say you haven’t read a thing, and in the next sentence say that that thing is bad because. you say that you didn’t have time to read it because it came on the floor almost straight from committee, and yet you say it will do all these bad things. How do you know? Just the fact that you are using both fights in almost the same sentence makes your arguments null and void. Either you read it and found all this, Or you didn’t read it and you don’t know.  You cant have it both ways.

I know the Democrats had people on the committee to where they could, and did ask for changes. then there was the public posting of the bill, then there was how many days of debate? And how did you know about the amendments? they were posted and you read them.  Yet in all the debates on the floor, there was very little mentioned about most of what was in the text of the bill. What I saw most was about 1 line that took away the individual mandate. Does that mean you actually like most of what’s in the bill?? And that if it was your President you would have voted for it? Come on, get your debating right. Either you are against it because there are bad things in it, or you are against it because you didn’t take the time to read it. I am pretty sure based on the complaints that I have heard, you or your staffers have read the bill,  So you are not allowed to use that defense. And to those that believe any of the bovine scattia that came from that floor of congress, start to use your brain.

Glenn

She said he did what?

Hard to think that in this day and age we could get this low. After watching a bunch of news feeds,  is it true that we have turned from the nation we are supposed to be? A nation that would allow an allegation to be considered true before the facts are in? Since when? We have all been seeing the allegations against numerous men that they somehow are sexual deviants. And most of these allegations there is no proof to back them up.  Yet the men are being treated as if they, without proof, have commited the most hienious of acts,  and being treated as lepers.

How could this be? Aren’t we supposed to be the nation that says you are innocent until proven guilty? Absent an admission, where is the proof so far? What have these men done to be so boldly accused and treated in this way? political retribution? Draining the swamp?

And where did this start? Well that I may be able to answer a little, maybe. It would appear this all started with a Washington Post article. (And we all know how reliable they have been as of late). Or is it somehow a further cover up over some allegations (with some proof, albeit questionable) of the Clintons possible sickness of pediofillia? (as some have alleged).

There is a train that says, if your seeing fake outrage at something in the political world, look behind the covers to see what they are really trying to hide. If this is true in this case, what are they trying to hide?

As you can see, I have no answers. Just questions. But like most of you, I too am tired of all the BS from the majors. Show us the real news, not this tabloid stuff. I turn to the news channels to see NEWS, not the enquirer. And unless they admit to the crime, Let us not damn to hell the men that are being accused.  Let us return to the nation that says, ok we need proof of guilt before we do something. Not just some person that has possibly been paid to say something.

NJ’s Phil Murphy Can we vote for him?

Hi folks:

I have been seeing a lot of the ads both on tv and in the press about Phil Murphy. A few things stick out in my reading of the guy. He appears to tow the radical left’s side of the road in his ads..  Can we actually vote for a guy that would go against the US Constitution? One of his ideas is to gut the 2nd amendment. Yes that’s right, He wants to take this state, which already is one of the hardest in the nation to get a gun permit in and actually make it unlawful for you to own a gun, by restricting the gun and its components. (btw: none of these restrictions would have stopped any of the things that they are using to justify the restrictions.)

Then he wants to bypass the Federal government (which is ok, IF it is not in the constitution, This unfortunately for him is) by making us a “sanctuary state”. What does that mean? I am glad you asked. What that means is to let a person that has already broken the law by coming over the border unlawfully, that has now broken a state or other law (robbed someone for instance?) that got put in a NJ jail, Avoid federal prosecution by not notifying the federal government (that is actually in charge of immigration) or even going so far as to not holding a prisoner that ICE has put a detainer on.  Thus releasing that prisoner back on the streets to commit another crime and disappear into cracks of the streets.

I have not had a chance as of this writing to look at his plans for the state’s budget yet, but if the way the rest looks, I can be sure it won’t be something that I think would work for this state.

Me? After seeing this much, I know I can’t in good conscience vote for him. I am sorry. If you are going to take an oath that says you will follow the US and the NJ constitutions, and then the minute you are sworn in violate those, How am I to trust you?

Glenn

On Vegas and personal freedom

We live in a great country. A country based on of all things, freedom. But why is it, when there is a terrible annomoly such as the Vegas shooting there are people that are not only willing, but who actually  call for the taking away of our precious freedoms. Without knowing anything, just minutes after this attack, there were people and politicians calling for more gun control. And just this morning I was hearing even worse, that there are some calling for hotels to institute the same level of security as the airports (which I am not sure I agree with) of searching your baggage as you enter the hotel.

How can we, as a nation that is based on freedom, simply allow such loss of freedom and dignity? A knee jerk reaction is not what is needed. What is needed? find out the 5 w’s that every jourlnalist is supposed to find. We know a couple the who, what, when and where. but at this point we do not know the why or the how. With out knowing these, how can we know what we should do, if anything, next?

What I say we do, pray for the living and the dead, help those we can, and find out all the facts we can. Let us heal the nation and those injured. Let us bury the dead and grieve. Let us find the truth about this sad event. Then once that is done we might be able to find what is needed, If anything.

Let us pray :
Almighty Father whose mercy is deep, show us your tenderness and show us the way of the light from this darkness. Please comfort all those that are suffering, and take those angels into your bosom.
In the name of the Father , the Son and the Holy Ghost
Amen

Possible DACA deal?

With all the thoughts on DACA, here is a possible deal that might be made. (I am not backing this deal, but it is a thought).

Mr Trump gets his border wall, and we do a Reagan style one shot deal on “the dreamers”. the way it would go is that legislation would be put in that would end anchor babies, If an illegal has a kid here they are the citizen of the country of the mom. that takes care of 2 big ticket items, and gets that many more off the roles . Congress is already setting immigration limits , so we follow those, maybe increase them a little.

Now for the part a lot including me aren’t going to be happy with, but will probably happen. The “dreamers” on DACA get 1 year to gain citizenship. Those in the military would be granted citizenship (they did step up and decided to defend this country for all of us). If the only thing holding them back from gaining citizenship is that they have to leave the country, then we, for this group only, bypass this requirement. After the 1 year, all those “dreamers” that did not get citizenship are immediately deported, as they did not want to be a citizen. This program would only be offered to those that have been here say over 10 years and brought in before they were 12? The rest get deported.

Some have talked about a special permanent visa, One that does not make them a citizen, but would allow them to stay here legally. This would not give them any rights like voting or food stamps or such. This may be a good idea.  This would take care of some of the problem of a gain from an unlawful act.

These are the most probable deals I can see coming from congress. Even these are more than most would like to see to solve this problem, But they are almost acceptable. What say you?

 

Glenn

On DACA

My friends. I sit here trying to come to some coherent thoughts on DACA. I have asked God for his influence, and have thought on this with the little bit that I know about the law. This is what I have come up with:

God does call for us to have compassion and love for our fellow man, and in all his talk the best that I can come up with is that the only place meant to be with out borders is heaven. I remember some of Jesus teachings, like, give unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and that while God’s law is supreme, we also have to follow the laws of man.(no I can’t cite chapter and verse, I am not that good.). Yes he also taught that man’s law should be based on God’s laws. But he did recognize that here on earth among men, men will create the laws to live by.

In some of the laws that were created for this great country, there are laws that specify who can be here, and who can come here.. We have set certain laws like you have to come in to this country invited. DACA parents did not come by invite but rather by stealth and subterfuge. These parents brought their children with them, either not wanting to leave to fend for themselves or to give them a better life than they could have where they were. This they did unlawfully. In other words illegally. Now I am not up on all the judicial precedents, but I do remember one from the 1970’s, In this legal finding the judge said you can not profit from a crime.(I think this was about a book deal someone famous wanted to do).  Following this finding we can only choose, if we are to follow the laws of this land, to say that since the parents committed a crime and you can not profit from it, and since they are profiting from this by being able to live the American dream, that the “dreamers” should not be afforded the life that American can bring.

Now I am not totally heartless. I will say this, IF congress can come up with something that would find a way such as military service, or if the “dreamers” would simply TRY to become legal citizens instead of not caring and being in limbo, then I might be able to go with that. I am questioning why these children that are now adults, have not simply applied for citizenship? Yes if one of the requirements are to leave the country we might be able to waive that, for this one time, for this one group. But it must NOT be put in law that this waiver is gone forever. (there are reasons).

We MUST look closer at what has happened and why. We also must do a lot of thinking and soul searching to find the right way to solve this issue. There are many smarter people than I am(unfortunately not so many in congress) that I await to see their thoughts. No I will not accept the open borders acts, we do have to keep America, America.

Here is a further thought, That since the Executive order was unlawful, anything that results from the unlawful order should be null and void.

So here I still sit. What have I come up with? Very little. What am I expecting? That congress will follow the law, While making the law and not destroy this country. Yes I am in favor of lawful entry, and against unlawful entry and the cascading effects that happen from that.

With GOD’s love do I end this and wish for HIS mercy in what will come. May God bless you and keep you. And may HIS guidance govern the hands of those that will write the laws that hopefully will solve this issue.

IHS

Glenn

Way to go making good bad and bad good

here we go again, another off thought for your consideration.

Was watching tv and the commercial for wicked came on and had a thought. They took the premise of good and evil and are changing it around.

Now good is bad and bad is good. the wicked witch of the west is just a misunderstood woman. And the good witch is now an underhanded woman masquerading as good.

Come on. The changes they are making are making what we know to be all wrong. just another example of the reprogramming of the youth.

Glenn

KKK support of Mr Trump a Plot?

Hi. Been sitting here thinking(never good) and had a thought.

We have been told that the KKK is a radical democratic group, right? An we all know that most of the media and most of the politicians are against Mr Trump(evidenced by all the twisted news and congressional voting records). What if, just if, to try and discredit the President starting all the way at the election, They all decided, hey let’s try this, let’s do a reverse attack using the KKK on Mr Trump? Yes that’s right a reverse attack, IOW: let the KKK  support him voraciously and then attempt to link Mr Trump to them in any fake way we can.

What would this do? well it might erode his base thinking no sane non racist person would affiliate with the KKK. We must withdrawl our support. And even when denounced by Mr Trump a favorable statement from Mr Duke will keep it going.

How can I say this? well I am seeing the many denouncements from Mr Trump about the KKK. Yet even when he does it seems the media finds some way to twist it to him supporting them.  ex: Saturday he denounced many groups in the protest. they said he didn’t denounce the kkk.  Ok so at the time of the speech he says he didn’t have all the information in. Then on Monday he strongly denounced them. The media still wasn’t happy. said it was too late. ughhh. then on Tuesday after he had gotten all the information in from his sources, he denounced them and other groups that apparently the msm and congress likes.(anti-fa, blm,…. ). that led to such a brouhaha in the media they blew their minds. I mean he actually put down their groups as a hate group. and then Mr duke posted a message in defense of the President and salvaged their narrative.

There’s a couple things the media keeps trying to blame him for. That there were many fine people on both sides, remark. if you listen to it he said that were not involved in the violence, which he later clarified to be not with either group but there to protest the removal of the statue. And then there’s the point that he actually had the temerity to support the first amendment rights of a hate group. Yes that’s right, hate speech is actually a protected first amendment right. So he was defending the constitution. weird huh? with that remark the media et al. decided that meant he was defending the KKK and therefore must be in bed with them.

I have watched his speeches and his tweets and no where in them can I find anything other than support of the constitution. Since when is it racist to support and defend the constitution? Do I Like either of the sides involved in that fracas? No. IMO they are all hate groups and deserve none of my support. Do I support and defend the constitution? yes to the best of my ability. Do I think that there was wrong on all sides and corruption in the way the politicians in local and state government handled this? A big yes. And yes I think they will all still, no matter what he says, try to hang that banner on Mr Trump. After all, he is not the anointed one that the msm and politicians wanted. yep, he does things a bit different. and that’s why we elected him. We simply did not want yet another politician in that office.

Glenn

I am tired.

I am tired.

I have been watching since Saturday all the info about Charlettesville. I have been watching as the media has gotten outraged with statements that Mr Trump has made that didn’t come up to their standards. In their zeal to take anything the President says and make it go against him because they don’t like that he was elected, They have torn apart and taken out of context everything he has said.

Today was yet another example.

I am hearing from the exploding heads that because he denigrated BOTH sides he legitimized the Nazi’s. Really? Lets take what he said. He said there was violence from both sides. He said that there was a very bad group on one side(white supremacists) and a very violent group on the other (anti-fa). He said that the alt left didn’t have a permit(true)(the alt right did obtain a permit for their demonstration). He said there were people on both sides that were fine(not affiliated with alt right or alt left) that were there to protest the statue.

Somehow because he didn’t have tin fact on Saturday he is to blame for not immediately putting down the alt right before he got the facts. on Monday he read a speech that put down the alt right and it still wasn’t good enough after getting all the information. Now because he dared to tell the truth and blame both sides on Tues. he is now a Nazi?

So yeah I am tired of trying to bring what is the truth to the uninformed that rely on the media to push a narrative of hate. As I watch the actual events unfold instead of waiting for the approved soundbite from the media I guess I will grow even more tired.

My thoughts on The Charlettesville protest

I am sitting here watching the news and facebook posts and twitter feeds, And I am noticing something. What I have noticed is that EVERYONE is saying that it was all the white supremacists fault for Va.. With NO mention of the ALT lefts participation and incitement in this situation.

As I sit here, there are all the complaints that the President failed to denounce the white supremacists. In fact he did that and more, he denounced both sides. If the President would have called out just the one side as most are lamenting he didn’t, then that would have legitimized the other side. I got a clue from the news that most of this is all stemming from a failed cnn attempt to link Mr Trump to the kkk during the election.

Lets go thru the facts as I have seen them with out taking any sides.

A right wing group gets a permit for a demonstration against taking down a statue, thus removing history from our sight. The left gets a whiff of it, says hey we can’t have them shutting down our attempt to change history. So they organize a counter demonstration without a permit. the right gets wind of this, says ok, if there is going to be trouble lets go armed for it.

Day of protest, the governor pulls the permit (not sure of this). both groups show up. The right is told to go home. the left – nothing. The right starts going and the left starts a fight? The cops are told not to interfere?

There were a couple of times that a different action would have kept this from becoming the national talk as it is now. If the left didn’t show up, no one really would have heard anything about the protest, it wouldn’t be on the news. If the cops had kept the sides apart and maintained the rights of the group with the permit….. . Well you get the idea, there were many opertunities for the mayor, govenor et al: to keep this from going national.

Go forward to the next day. Guy goes to talk to the press, left shows up creating such a situation that the cops have to escort the guy away. Thus shutting down free speech.

In all this I do not support either side. But remind you of a famous saying that I will mess up a bit.

I may not support what you have to say, But I will defend your right to peaceably say it.

 

Mr Trump the Twitter Troll

Is President Trump a troll? This week Mr Trump caused a ruckus thru out the media and social media world with a series of tweets. In those tweets he said that the military would no longer have transgendered people. In exactly what he expected to happen, the medias all blew up. But, The question is, Is a tweet from the President an official order? According to the top brass in the military, no. So while the military awaits the official paperwork saying that Mr Obama’s executive order has been reversed they will do nothing.

Does this mean the military is disregarding a direct order from the commander in chief? maybe, maybe not. Usually a verbal order of this magnitude is followed up by the proper paperwork, And as far as I can tell no such paperwork has been issued. So while the medias all thrash this out and fight, I am going to sit here and laugh that the President with twitter has changed the direction of all the “outrages” in the medias.

Way to go Mr Troll, ummm, Mr Trump.

The President and Russia

Forgive me if I seem ignorant about this. Did we take a wrong turn and end up in the 1950’s? I am trying to figure out what would be so wrong about a businessman doing business with Russia. In this day and age where the Chinese own how much of our debt, we regularly do business with Japan, Germany, Italy and so many more countries (all our former enemy’s), How can doing business with Russia in this day and age where Russia is not at war with us be bad? Or even unlawful? Don’t we do lots of business with the Arabs, most of which we have declared an unofficial war on? (Lots and lots of oil).

What is it about Russia that has the Democrats thinking they are that bad? Oh they are communist. Right. ok. Is that all? Yes I remember the bit about the Ukraine. But what  did  Obama do when the Russians did that. He did NOTHING. So the Dems don’t mind if Russia takes over a small country or 2, as long as they aren’t muslim?

Someone explain to me, Please, how in this day and age, Doing business in Russia is a bad thing. Then maybe I can understand why the left is so concerned about it, if it is other than, any way they can take down the President?

If all it is, is take down the President, then let’s all back the President and show the left for what it is right now. A party that has no direction, has no real evidence of wrong doing, but are acting like a 2 year old that didn’t get their way.

On the other hand if there is a real problem with real evidence and laws were broken, then stop being crybabies and show us the proof and indict already. We are all getting very tired of this circus that has no other road than to block and defame the man holding the highest position of service in this country.

The Media and The President

As I sit here reading the millionth article about how the Trump campaign has done something wrong, It leaves me to wonder. Why are all the main stream media spending so many resources on everything Trump? Where were they during the Obama administration? Have you noticed that almost all the stories of wrong doings mostly all just look bad? that there was no laws broken, or the offense was so slight in the eyes of the law, that no prosecutor would even look at it?

For example, The latest bit on Jr.. How many man hours were put in to find the latest “scandal”? That Jr. met with someone that claimed to have opo research that led nowhere? They are trying for treason on this, and the best that can be found about this by stretching for it, is an election law that may or may not apply? (contributions from a foreign country).  This is the latest BIG thing.

Yes we get that the MSM is mad because their girl messed up so bad that she lost the election. The fact that she is not in jail right now speaks volumes about our legal system, but we wont get into that.  When there was a genuine question about Mr Obama, where was the media? Hiding under their desks.

I will congratulate the MSM for actually investigating Mr Clinton and showing that out to the world, you actually gave Mr Trump the election. Now that you have done that , you are going to turn your back on him?

Yes MSM gave Mr Trump the election. Look at all the free advertisments he got. Look at the unmasking of Ms. Clintons problems. granted they tried to cover it up and make it small, still they were all about that. The fact that she was shown to do all the bit with the emails, the Russian thing with urainium, bengazi and so much more, showed a lot of people she was not to be trusted in that high office.

So I call on the MSM to get behind the canadate you elected. Quit trying to tie up Washington with this dribble. If you are against a policy make that known. Remember, we the people (misguided or not) elected someone that was a businessman and outsider for a reason. We were sick of the usual politics, and we wanted the country fixed in a way that only a businessman could. Have you noticed the stock market? The jobs reports? yes there is a big problem with the insurance bills from congress, in that the Feds. do not belong in a free market.

It’s time the media actually started to be the media again and report on the news, not this drama. Americans are getting tired of it already. You are going to loose your market, and not be trusted when something actually does happen. I bet 75% of America already does not trust the reporting from the “news” organizations. You are showing that now anyone with a blog, can be a “news organization”. Just look at all these new popup newspapers on the web. (they are actually almost more trusted than the msm).  So get back to your job and stop spending so many resources on nothing.

 

Just my thoughts and ramblings as usual. your millage may vary.

Glenn

(blog owner and now a newspaper thanks to the web?) ROFL

 

Declaration Of Independance

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


Georgia

Button Gwinnett

Lyman Hall

George Walton

 

North Carolina

William Hooper

Joseph Hewes

John Penn

 

South Carolina

Edward Rutledge

Thomas Heyward, Jr.

Thomas Lynch, Jr.

Arthur Middleton

 

Massachusetts

John Hancock

Maryland

Samuel Chase

William Paca

Thomas Stone

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

 

Virginia

George Wythe

Richard Henry Lee

Thomas Jefferson

Benjamin Harrison

Thomas Nelson, Jr.

Francis Lightfoot Lee

Carter Braxton

 

Pennsylvania

Robert Morris

Benjamin Rush

Benjamin Franklin

John Morton

George Clymer

James Smith

George Taylor

James Wilson

George Ross

Delaware

Caesar Rodney

George Read

Thomas McKean

 

New York

William Floyd

Philip Livingston

Francis Lewis

Lewis Morris

 

New Jersey

Richard Stockton

John Witherspoon

Francis Hopkinson

John Hart

Abraham Clark

 

New Hampshire

Josiah Bartlett

William Whipple

 

Massachusetts

Samuel Adams

John Adams

Robert Treat Paine

Elbridge Gerry

 

Rhode Island

Stephen Hopkins

William Ellery

 

Connecticut

Roger Sherman

Samuel Huntington

William Williams

Oliver Wolcott

 

New Hampshire

Matthew Thornton

the new senate health care bill (1st half)

after reading about 1/2 of the senate bill to reconcile health care, I am not sure i can go for it.
Here are a few things I came up with:
It expands coverage to unlawful aliens by changing terminology to qualified aliens
has Multiple effective dates for various parts and has retroactive dates.
changes coverage for elective abortions.
Kills funding to planned parenthood
in funding the states it says if not all money expended in that year they are to reallocate the remaining funds. Instead of returning them to the treasury
It eliminates a bunch of health care taxes, BUT includes a payroll tax of 1.45% and a self emplyment tax of an additional 2.9%. (guess they had to get the money back from the medical taxes somehow)
changes the amounts you can put in a health care savings account (this one is good. it increases it)
it allows for faster implementaition of medicare to a person applying for it from 90 days to now.
HERE IS A GOODY:
It implements work for welfare.
I have a question. WTH is an expansion state?

This was all on a first read of only 1/2 the bill.
as it’s written with all the golblty gook I dont think I can back this one .

This is news? My rants on stuff from Face Book from this week

This article will most likely make a few people mad. But the are my thoughts based on what little I know at this point.

So, we are all seeing all the repeated posts on stuff that really, I could care less about. For instance, Kathy Griffin. a 4th rate hack that went way too far and showed how bad the left really is. She is getting what she deserves. People have finaly figured out that she really isn’t funny. Let the secret service do their investigation, like they did on all those that originated the posts of Obama being hung.

My real question here is, What ever happened to respecting the OFFICE of the President? I don’t care if you don’t like the occupant, But respect the office. I really don’t remember when it happened. Did it start with Clinton? (Bill not Hillary). In my opinion it is time to remember that we should respect the OFFICE no matter how we feel about the occupant.

Next the Paris accord. As I have not read the treaty, I can not say much about anything in it. I do know it was never Ratified by congress, like the constitution says. So it was never a legal treaty for the U.S.. I am hearing a lot of bad stuff about it, and not much good. Looking back in time (you remember a thing called history right?), I do not recall reading or seeing anything about bad air back when all they did was burn coal and wood. So how is coal now a bad thing? The bad air came about when we started burning oil and gas in our vehicles and stuff?

Climate change? I don’t think so. there are a LOT of factors that go into the climate stuff. If you look there are multiple ups and downs in the recorded temperatures. There is the solar cycle that has been expressed as a 22 year cycle. there are archeological digs that show 100 200 , 500, 1000 year cycles. Core drilling in the artic that shows the same thing. Old trees that have been cut down also show these cycles. So the data that has been used to prove climate change(wording changed from global warming after that was proven wrong). To prove global warming to me you would have to show a very large sampling of the whole of the picture. Did you know the earth is also wobbeling? My observations show a 2 degree change in the earth’s axis. Did you take that into the calculations?

North Korea (DPRK). Not sure. Kim seems to be wanting to make his country a player in the field. Is Kim crazy enough to actually use the weapons? Can the free world defend from these? I have to think on this for a while. There is the point of a nations sovernty. Would the US want say Russia saying we could not make the best in weapons? For instance, denying us the use of a rail gun or the latest in laser tech. or….. .  In this case it may be best to bring him into the big 3 and slap his wrist if he goes too far.

Ok, that’s enough typing for now. I have probably pissed of a lot of people already. But, as I always say. If I am wrong, show me the proof. make me change my mind with data, not emotions.

Glenn

 

 

President Trump and Syria

Just a few thoughts on Mr Trumps bombing of the airfield in Syria.

OK. SO this is the big news right now.  Yes I have a few thoughts for now. Agree/Disagree, Your comments are welcome.

Facts? Mr Assad gassed his civilian population with sarin gas? Which goes against UN and other laws? Mr Trump sent 60 Tomahawk missiles to an airfield in Syria that was claimed to have launched the gas attack. Mr Trump gave the Russians an hour notice (when the first one was launched) to get out. The attack destroyed the airfield and munitions bunkers. We are told only 17 Syrian military people were killed in the bombing. From what I have heard no gas storage facility was destroyed?

Now my thoughts.

We are now in a sticky spot here in regards to Syria. We really don’t want to go to war with them. They are supposedly fighting ISIS. Our government wants to get rid of Mr. Assad. The Russians support Mr. Assad. Here is what we should do now that we have sent Mr. Assad a message on using gas against his own people, NOTHING.

Yes, NOTHING. We have already punished them for the use of the gas, and shown them that we will stand up for human rights. I say we let Syria implode if it is going to. Yes, We monitor to make sure no more human rights are violated. But we let the INTERNAL war go on. After all it is THEIR country. If the US was at war with itself would you want some world power stepping in and saying ok, now you will do as we say?

There is a thought that the more a country is in involved with it’s own internal struggles, The less it will be involved with external stuff. IF, and that’s a big IF, Mr. Assad is actually fighting ISIS, then that would be a good thing? Right?

Now what we have to do is watch to see what the next move of our President will be.

As to needing congressional approval for the strike? No Mr. Trump did not need that. there are procedures for the President to make a single military strike, IE: He has to notify the gang of Eight. (That’s about all he has to do really.) It is within his power to make a strike without going to war. Mr. Trump could use the UN resolutions to back his bombing under humanitarian guise.

This is what is bothering me right now politically.  The Left has been all about resisting EVERTHING the President wants to do. So WHY are so many of the left  so for this action? Does the left really want us in war? And why? Is it possible that the left is very highly financed by the weapon manufacturers?

Me? Well I will be simply watching as events unfold and doing what little I have to do, such as this blog, to make my points known.

Glenn

Chairman Nunes

After watching all that is going on with the House investigation on Russia and Mr Trump, I have come to some small thoughts. First let me see if I got my facts right.

Mr Nunes is heading up the investigation into Mr. Trump and Russia. Mr. Nunes was contacted supposedly by a intelligence officer about evidence into this investigation. Mr. Nunes went to a secure system on the White House grounds to view this information, due to possible codeword secrecy this information is not available on the congressional secure computers. After viewing this information he went to the speaker of the house and informed him of this information. Then he him let the media know that there was information out there and that it did not include Russia. then as any prosecutor, who is bound by law is required to do, he notified the defense of this information (the president). But he did not bring this information to the committee. Are we all agreed on these facts?

Up to the point that he did not inform the committee as far as I know he did not do anything wrong. The question then becomes why did he not inform the committee. My question becomes are there members in the committee that are listed in these documents? And why are Democrats and select Republicans attempting to shut him down, attempting to get him to recuse himself or step off the committee. When up until the point he did not notify the committee of the evidence he did everything right. Could it be that his evidence proves what certain members of the committee do not want to prove? Look beyond all the political wrangling that is going on and actually see the evidence.

With the opening of a Senate investigation into Russia, could Mr. Nunes be called as a witness in confidential session, or are members on this Senate committee also listed in the documentation? Him

we shall see as these investigations go on and the coverups continue.

On Freedom OF Religion

Allow me to preface my remarks by saying that I am not a lawyer, I am not a college graduate who is studied any of the law. And this is just a plain text reading and understanding of it, prior to any judicial presidents.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution-

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

First, to understand  the need for this amendment ,you would do well to  remember that at the time of the framing  of this document,  the United States had just broken away from England.  At that time  the church had unspoken control  over the state.  England basically had a state  instituted religion, the Church of England .if the state should make a law  that the church did not like, the state  would have to throw their law out.

In looking over this amendment you will notice that it specifically states Congress  shall make no law respecting  religion for or against it .it does not say that it does not want religion in  government, or  for the people not to practice it.  In this way the framers  left open the choice of the people to either practice or not practice a religion.

The first part shows that Congress cannot  say you will practice a religion,  and follow these rules of that ,or belong to a specific sect of religion .

The second part says that Congress  cannot say you can not practice a religion .

In all this it recognizes that Congress is the lawmaker  and says Congress cannot make any laws for or against it therefore leaving the  individual practice up to the people .

This also says, that  because there cannot be any laws for or against ,that if a particular department of the government wishes to insert prayer  they are welcome to as it is not prohibited . As a matter of point Congress  since the inception has always started off with a prayer .this is important to signify that the framers  were okay with religion and government .or if they did not want religion and government  as so many group’s say ,they would not start  each session off with prayer.

So to all the organizations  against prayer,  your thoughts on the Constitution prohibiting it in government  are misled.  As the framers,  some religious some not,  deemed it important to leave  the choice of the expression of religion  to the people that either  wish or not  to practice that religion,  and not too exclude  it from the possibility  that you may wish to  exercise the right of religion .

Glenn