Romney, McCain and the NDAA

How long have we been complaining about having to hold our noses when we voted for McCain in 2008?  How many times has it been said in countless blogs, posts on facebook, pundits on television, radio hosts, etc., that McCain was a lousy choice that the establishment Republicans shoved down our throats?

And what does Romney do?  Accept the endorsement of McCain!!!  That move right there I believe will sink his candidacy.  Not that he was my choice to begin with, but now he is definitely off the radar.

Now, about that National Defense Authorization Act.  Here is the pdf: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

Starting at page 359 is the part most people refer to, the "detaining of, for purposes of, in support of...etc etc etc".

HOWEVER, if you are still awake by the time you get to that page and continue to page 362, you will find the following:

APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS 15
AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.— 16
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require- 17
ment to detain a person in military custody under 18
this section does not extend to citizens of the United 19
States. 20
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require- 21
ment to detain a person in military custody under 22
this section does not extend to a lawful resident 23
alien of the United States on the basis of conduct 24
taking place within the United States, except to the
extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

However, if you are just visiting here or here illegally, you could just disappear....

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

Are you watching Iowa?

I think we can pretty much say that Bachmann is toast.  So will her supporters then turn to Santorum?

Huntsman will probably be gone also, not sure where his supporters would go.

What do you think?

What I find amazing is how the so-called conservative candidates, the media and many posters throughout the internet are pointing fingers at the liberal support coming out for Ron Paul.  So the libs can appreciate the constitutionality of a candidate more than conservatives?

That strikes me as the ultimate case of hypocrisy.

The Buffett Tax Mentality

We've all heard Warren Buffett complain (or brag) that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Now, I'm betting that his secretary is making at least $200,000. Which is enough to ensure she (or he, not to be sexist) can expect to pay even more if Obama's "Buffett Tax" goes into effect!

"Thanks boss!"

Maybe Buffet is feeling a tad bit guilty after his $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs, I just hope he thanked the taxpayers for propping his investment up long enough for him to clear his multi-million dollar windfall.

But let's think about this "paying your fair share" approach our President and many others take in regards to pushing the wealth envy warfare:

A) What do you get for the taxes you pay? The government's responsibility is to protect us from attack, guard our borders. They do a lot more than that, but that is basically the federal governments constitutional responsibility.

B) What more would the rich get for paying more? Would they be protected more? Protecting the borders protects all of us.

So my question is, what would the rich get for their money if they paid more? They already pay more in dollars for the same benefits.

How is that fair? That is what they would think. Many are contemplating a "Going Galt" approach if they can. But many in the bullseye of this new tax, are small business owners who are stuck with big loans for buildings, equipment, possibly union contracts. They are stuck. But they have options.

So ask yourself this: have you ever worked for a poor person? Would you want to? Don't you think your boss is going to cut expenses SOMEWHERE to make up for this increase in taxes? There is no benefit to him/her to pay more to the Federal Government.

And then there's the regulation avalanche.... that's a discussion for another day.

Joyce Maurer
Libertarian Woman

Right Scoop - bye bye

Yes I have removed them from my "Blog Roll".  They have become nothing but Ron Paul bashers and can't even admit it when you point it out.

Who's your choice?

You may know that my preference is Ron Paul but how about you?  No, I won't attack you for liking someone else and I won't allow attacks from others (you will be deleted).  Just interested in hearing your reasoning.

Check out your favorites voting record: http://www.govtrack.us/users/events.xpd?monitors=misc:allvotes

Happy New Year !!!

Yes I'm back! It's 2012, another volatile election ahead of us so my resolution has been to share information, educate where I can and learn from you.

So let's get started.

Santorum has stated he would bomb Iran. What would happen if we did that? The muslim nations in the area have not always seen eye to eye with Iran but wouldn't they dislike that type of action even more than they dislike Iran? What about Russia and China? They both have a lot invest in the area.

Another item for discussion is the "social host" laws that are growing in more and more states. Even if you had no idea the kids in your house are drinking you can be hauled off to jail.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/12/30/20111230parents-held-responsible-kids-drinking.html

Here's my problem with that: what if it's your kid. Do you not have the right to decide it's ok for your kid to drink as long as they do so in your home and not out on the streets? Many parents tell their kids "if you are going to drink, do it here". Knowing they will drink with or without their permission, at least they are safe at home. With these laws however, they could go to jail.

Can't wait to hear your thoughts.