The digital divide has been advertised by every television station, newspaper, in Earth. Many times. I've never seen such a concerted effort to inform people that this is happening.
The implementation was postponed once because millions of Americans didn't get the message. I'm serious. This onslaught didn't reach them for some reason. Well, my point is it should not have been postponed.
We have seen with our own eyes that goverment babysitting is still alive and well; there is no accountability or responsibility whatsoever.
It's sad and leaves me outraged because of it.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Newspaper Doubletalk
Morning Publication columnists are going crazy over their view that newly installed gun laws show that an overwhelming number of people are against them.
I don't believe that for a second. Neither should you.
I can't remember when there has been such an attempt by the newspaper to be so one-sided. It's the most unfair reporting I've ever seen and the culprit in this deal is none other than the misguided and incompetent editor of the paper, Chris Peck.
I would like Peck to address, once again, several areas that would give some kind of balance to the stories: How many people working at the paper have permits to carry? Have you, Mr. Peck, ever stepped into a shooting range to see what that side of the story is all about; you would, I am certain, be softening your position. You say the paper, and you in particular, are pro gun. I'm calling you out: You're not telling the truth. Tell me when you've supported one -- just one -- piece of gun legislation that is offered to the public. Can you? Will you? I'll apologize if it's true.
You have gone to great lengths to say when a person who has a permit to carry is engaged in a shooting situation. Please be fair: Tell us also when any person involved in a shooting has a permit to carry, or not. The results will be overwhelming and you know it.
Oh, here's a tidbit Mr. Peck that you should be aware of with the right now for those with gun merits to carry them into a restaurant/bar, iif the bar owners approved.
There are bars in Memphis, according to my good friend Jim Williams, a former member of the MPD, that have several partners, all part owners of the bar, and all of them lawfully can carry firearms any time they wish at their restaurant or bat;
The manager on duty, who runs the bar in the owners'-owners' absence, especially on nights and and on weekends, when crowds are likely to be the heaviest. He is the person "in control" then;
The bouncer or security persons on duty, often selected for the number of pounds they weigh, since their common duty is to calm or eject disorderly customers also are legally empowered in bars and have done so when ever it is their policy to do so.
Your idea of "fair" is to engage the power, which is failing by the minute, and showing that you don't have the guts to stand up for what you believe. Worse, you are a coward.
I don't believe that for a second. Neither should you.
I can't remember when there has been such an attempt by the newspaper to be so one-sided. It's the most unfair reporting I've ever seen and the culprit in this deal is none other than the misguided and incompetent editor of the paper, Chris Peck.
I would like Peck to address, once again, several areas that would give some kind of balance to the stories: How many people working at the paper have permits to carry? Have you, Mr. Peck, ever stepped into a shooting range to see what that side of the story is all about; you would, I am certain, be softening your position. You say the paper, and you in particular, are pro gun. I'm calling you out: You're not telling the truth. Tell me when you've supported one -- just one -- piece of gun legislation that is offered to the public. Can you? Will you? I'll apologize if it's true.
You have gone to great lengths to say when a person who has a permit to carry is engaged in a shooting situation. Please be fair: Tell us also when any person involved in a shooting has a permit to carry, or not. The results will be overwhelming and you know it.
Oh, here's a tidbit Mr. Peck that you should be aware of with the right now for those with gun merits to carry them into a restaurant/bar, iif the bar owners approved.
There are bars in Memphis, according to my good friend Jim Williams, a former member of the MPD, that have several partners, all part owners of the bar, and all of them lawfully can carry firearms any time they wish at their restaurant or bat;
The manager on duty, who runs the bar in the owners'-owners' absence, especially on nights and and on weekends, when crowds are likely to be the heaviest. He is the person "in control" then;
The bouncer or security persons on duty, often selected for the number of pounds they weigh, since their common duty is to calm or eject disorderly customers also are legally empowered in bars and have done so when ever it is their policy to do so.
Your idea of "fair" is to engage the power, which is failing by the minute, and showing that you don't have the guts to stand up for what you believe. Worse, you are a coward.
Un-Health Disaster
Understand one thing about President Obama's zeal at instituting national healthcare: It will bankrupt this country. Book it. It will not work. Can't work. Forget it, is my prescription.
Here is why: The Obama administration and most liberal Democrats believe it will save us from ourselves.
As I said, hogwash.
Obama says there is nothing to fear, because if you choose to keep your old healthcare -- the current form -- then what's not to like because you're merely given an option.
Consider this, something they won't admit: The government part of the package will cost far less. Sounds good, but don't be fooled by it. This is what I predict will happen. People on in today's programs will run -- not walk -- to join the government program. Result? National healthcare that simply will not work.
I haven't gone into all of the details for good reason. It's complicated enough, but when you offer something for less, the stampede is on.
Our healthcare system has many problems, but it's still the best in the world. Add to that examples of national healthcare in Canada and Britain are proof enough that you back the liberals in this deal and you get the biggest headache this country has ever experienced.
Here is why: The Obama administration and most liberal Democrats believe it will save us from ourselves.
As I said, hogwash.
Obama says there is nothing to fear, because if you choose to keep your old healthcare -- the current form -- then what's not to like because you're merely given an option.
Consider this, something they won't admit: The government part of the package will cost far less. Sounds good, but don't be fooled by it. This is what I predict will happen. People on in today's programs will run -- not walk -- to join the government program. Result? National healthcare that simply will not work.
I haven't gone into all of the details for good reason. It's complicated enough, but when you offer something for less, the stampede is on.
Our healthcare system has many problems, but it's still the best in the world. Add to that examples of national healthcare in Canada and Britain are proof enough that you back the liberals in this deal and you get the biggest headache this country has ever experienced.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
It Wasn't A Slip Of The Tongue
President Obama's choice for a new Supreme Court figures to be more combative than first thought.
And, let me say firmly that it should be.
With Associate Justice David Souter retiring, the President has moved quickly to name his choice. So far, the media has treated it with typical gushing references to the court's first Latino.
One of the comments she has made that has caused some constarnation is this, and I paraphrase: "....A Litino woman would have a better chance of judging than men in certain areas because of life experiences...."
Well, it turns out that Obama's choice has said it numerous times, not just once.
Once could be a slip, but numerous references to her point is something else.
And, let me say firmly that it should be.
With Associate Justice David Souter retiring, the President has moved quickly to name his choice. So far, the media has treated it with typical gushing references to the court's first Latino.
One of the comments she has made that has caused some constarnation is this, and I paraphrase: "....A Litino woman would have a better chance of judging than men in certain areas because of life experiences...."
Well, it turns out that Obama's choice has said it numerous times, not just once.
Once could be a slip, but numerous references to her point is something else.
D-Day Is A Day To Remember
Let me take a brief moment to salute all the men and women who served this country so bravely in World War II. It is not a stretch to say they saved the world and we are losing these veterans at an alarming pace. We will never be able to repay them but on this day we give thanks they were there.
Help Me, Rep Jimmy Naifeh
I love the sound of that, Rep. Jimmy Naifeh. Now that Naifeh is no longer an obstructionist on any kind of gun legislation as the former Speaker of the House, I hereby challenge him to tell me if he has ever -- EVER -- taken a positive role with any liece of gun legislation.
I've asked prominent members of the House if he has and they can't say that he has not -- ever.
So much for Naifeh's saying one thing and doing another.
Now for the FORMER Speaker of the House.
Word has arrived at the Fleming blog that he has rejoinced at my being downsized at WREC600. I'm told he laughed out loud and that's typical. Naifeh has always had the propensity of acting that way.
It doesn't bother me and I won't stoop to his level to engage in a childish reaction.
Let me simply rejoice once again: He's the former Speaker of the House. Now if we can make that happen in sending him packing altogether.
I've asked prominent members of the House if he has and they can't say that he has not -- ever.
So much for Naifeh's saying one thing and doing another.
Now for the FORMER Speaker of the House.
Word has arrived at the Fleming blog that he has rejoinced at my being downsized at WREC600. I'm told he laughed out loud and that's typical. Naifeh has always had the propensity of acting that way.
It doesn't bother me and I won't stoop to his level to engage in a childish reaction.
Let me simply rejoice once again: He's the former Speaker of the House. Now if we can make that happen in sending him packing altogether.
You Go, Girl!
State Sen. Mae Beavers is my kind of politician. She tells it like it is and, more importantly, she's right when she tells it like it is.
The senator is pushing Senate Bill 1610, which is known as the "Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act."
Sen. Beavers says in the bill "be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state -- enough is enough. Our founders fought too hard to ensure states' sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don't belong."
You go, girl!
The Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act says that if a firearm and/or ammunition, and stamped "made in Tennessee", then the federal government has no jurisdiction over that item in any fashion so long as it remains in state and outside of interstate commerce. All state regulations applying to the possession of firearms in Tennessee would still be applicable and must be complied with. This legislation is being proposed to orevent a federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress.
The 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal government as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specificallyenumerated in the VConstitution of the United States.
This bill is similar to one signed into law in Montana and is currently pending passage in at least 30 other states.
Let me just add this thought: Thank goodness for the likes of State Sen. Mae Beavers.
The senator is pushing Senate Bill 1610, which is known as the "Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act."
Sen. Beavers says in the bill "be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state -- enough is enough. Our founders fought too hard to ensure states' sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don't belong."
You go, girl!
The Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act says that if a firearm and/or ammunition, and stamped "made in Tennessee", then the federal government has no jurisdiction over that item in any fashion so long as it remains in state and outside of interstate commerce. All state regulations applying to the possession of firearms in Tennessee would still be applicable and must be complied with. This legislation is being proposed to orevent a federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress.
The 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal government as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specificallyenumerated in the VConstitution of the United States.
This bill is similar to one signed into law in Montana and is currently pending passage in at least 30 other states.
Let me just add this thought: Thank goodness for the likes of State Sen. Mae Beavers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
