AFTER reviewing the video posted on : https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-gunman-not-charged-killing-151300042.htm (Be aware these types of videos are sometimes pulled shortly after being posted so if you don’t find it here you can probably search for it and find it somewhere. STAND YOUR GROUND allows a person to use deadly force if they believe they are in MORTAL DANGER. I see this as a Murder case. I am not saying pre-meditated. I don’t think he went there with the intent of killing or even harming anyone. But still some type of Murder charge should be filed. Although the sheriff’s dept did not. As you can see the one man is down. Draws his weapon. The slain man backs away. At this point the potential danger is subsiding. Had the slain man taken even one step toward the downed man. I could see this as being perceived as aggressive behavior. HOWEVER; The step was in a retreating line. At that point in time there was no immediate danger to the downed man. I can not say what state of mind the downed man was in. Obviously he was agitated state of mind. Probably not thinking clearly at the time. (Which I think should be considered in evidence presented in his defense). BUT; I do not think that is grounds for STAND YOUR GROUND. I am a SECOND AMENDMENT advocate. Which also means I do approve the prudent use of guns for self defense. I do support STAND YOUR GROUND. I do not think this instance falls under STAND YOUR GROUND. Yes the man should not have shoved the other person down. HE should have just stepped in between his girl friend and the other party. Of course I am not a florida resident. ( I know i didn’t capitalize the “F” I am not a florida fan. Drove there spent 5 hours at our destination and have had no desire to return. In fact for me to return it would cost them $1 million a day plus expenses) How they interpret their laws is up to them. THAT IS HOW I SEE IT! Just learned this not the first confrontation the downed man had at this location. Views: 121
Category: Government
Parkland High School Shooting Thoughts
While putting together my thoughts on the recent tragedy in Florida. I had many things flash through this feeble mind. We had the shock of another terrible loss of young lives. We had the “STUDENT ACTOR”. We had the Scripted Interviews. We had the usual MEDIA SPIN. We had the Anti Gunners. We had the Pro-Gunners. We had the Sheriff’s men who failed to enter the school. So let us look at these things. First the Shooter. Had he not lost his parents at such a tender age, would he not have acted the way he did. It appears that his adoptive family, noticed he was troubled. According to reports the local constabulary, even the FBI, had concerns about the mental/emotional stability of Nineteen (19) year old Nikolas Cruz, EVEN the school personnel had concerns. They expelled him. I have not read or heard anything where these people tried to get him help. Had they tried to get him help, would it have possibly detoured this terrible event. Probably, maybe not. We don’t know. BUT, it would have been worth a try. Should he have had guns. Given his background reports we have seen; NO! BUT, there is always a but; I believe this to be where the LAW should have impounded his guns, until further investigation, and psychic evaluation was attained. BUT, WAIT ! He did have grenades. Where did these come from? I am sure they are harder to get than guns. Aren’t they? Seems they should be. Now the student and teacher population of this School. It is always a bad sign for our future when innocent young people needlessly lose their lives. Seventeen, 17, lives. I would not want my children exposed to this. Nor to the pain of those who were at the school or worse witnessed the unfortunate incident. I know of no Teacher who leaves for school thinking I may be killed at work today. Who knows what emotional and/or mental damage may have been done. We all know the MEDIA, has a penchant to SLANT the news the way they want it. How many times have you watched political events, or anything, only to have the NEWS MEDIA, say “Now let US tell you what you really heard”. ? I remember learning in grade school, then having my newspaper editor reinforce. A reporter tells WHO, is in the story. WHAT, is the story. WHEN, the event occurred. WHY, did the event occur. The WHY, becomes the gray area. You have heard of sport team announcers getting fired because they said something the OWNER found to be derogatory to the team. Players get fined, for the same thing. It most probably is TRUE. BUT, are contrary to what the BOSS wants. The same is true with reporters, They may disagree with management, BUT, (see here it is again; I wonder how many times I will use it today), THEIR JOB maybe on the line. Some may simply state their opinions, (NOT FACTS), In other words they EDITORIALIZE. NOTE: Editorialize is what I do. After all this BLOG is for MY OPINIONS. I share them with you as MY opinions. Not hardcore news. (See the difference) Is the media above scripting interviews. NO happens quite often. Are the anti-gunners above hiring actors to further their propaganda. SURE ARE. How about the Pro-gunners. Could be. Probably do. But I prefer to think They would be ABOVE taking advantage of such an event as this. One thing ANTI-GUNNERS are quick to point out is “Law enforcement is only a call away”. In this case they were just OUTSIDE the door. THEY WERE A LOT OF HELP. Had teachers been able to have guns….Would that have altered the outcome? Hard to tell. I am not sure I would be able to pull the trigger. I think I would be more inclined to pull that trigger to protect someone else (KIDS) than I would be to protect myself. BUT, I am sure if it was him or me, I would choose ME. What I am saying is; if it were just me and him, I would most likely not go hunt him. BUT, if he came hunting for me. DEFINITELY ME. Back to the Law Enforcement Officers. YOU CANNOT COUNT ON THEM. My own experience. 1. I had a motorcycle stolen off my front porch. I called the police. I was told; “ASK YOUR NEIGHBORS IF THEY SAW ANYTHING”. ” COME TO THE STATION AND FILL OUT A REPORT”. 2. My High School son was threatened that he would be shot when he walked out of the school, (a disagreement about a girl), I called the cops. I was told, “Just one of those teenage things. You probably should pick him up and take him home after school”. 3. I had my Mustang convertible top slashed, the dash destroyed. My truck window smashed and the stereos stolen from both. Witnesses knew who did it. The Cops knocked on the culprits door, and said, “Did you steal those radios’? He said, “No”. The cops said okay. That was all there was to it. 4. While watching a friends property while he was away. One of his relatives called said he had received a threat of vandalism to the property at some time soon. I called our local County Mounties. “It will be some time before we can get there”, they said. It took me about a half hour to get there. No damage yet. One (1) hour passed. No County Mounties. After waiting another half hour, I called again. “We haven’t dispatched anyone to that location yet” Yeah. Right. The Law is only a few minutes away. HA,HA. The Right to Bear Arms is a constitutional right. A Right that state shall not be infringed upon. That means NO ONE can stop you from legally owning or carrying a gun. There have been exceptions made. Felons, people with a misdemeanor of domestic battery, mental disorders, or if so adjudicated by a judge. Driving is… Continue reading Parkland High School Shooting Thoughts
ORLANDO PULSE CLUB SHOOTING, MY THOUGHTS.
I feel sorrow for the families of both victims, and shooters family. It is a hard thing to accept on both sides. That a friend or family member uselessly had their life terminated, or suffered injury. Some of which could prove to be a life altering thing. I am certain the memory will always be life changing. The shooter’s family, because it has to be hard to accept the fact that someone you knew,cared for, and LOVED, could possibly be involved in such a cowardly act. By the way ISIS has reportedly admitted they were behind the attack. CAN YOU SAY “TERRORIST”? Apparently Barack nor Hillary can’t. Hillary and her gun hating lemmings will have a field day with this one as they always do. It seems they look forward to unfortunate events, (I don’t particular like to use “event” here but, I think it adequately fits, the way Hillary/Barack look at this); It gives them a exvuse to strut their DIS-ARMING AMERICA agenda. I can’t help but wonder how they would feel if the people they have guarding them were to suddenly lose the guns. Then the agents would not be there. I can’t afford to hire people to be my personal guards. That would put them on equal ground with me. Walking around in a city or country side with no means to protect me from harm. Many times I read of people in perfectly NICE neighborhoods being injured or killed. Not just guns,…. But Knives, Arrows, Strangulation, Arson. Beaten to death, just to name a few. Many times when I go to major sporting events, or Conventions, I must make my way on dark streets, or by alleyways, or even recessed doorways. AND don’t give me that old “police presence” will protect me. I could be attacked and my assailant far away before the nearest police officer could come to my aid. BUT, if I get to my destination I most likely not be allowed to have any means of protection on me. Thus I am open to attack. Excuse me for straying a little, however I believe it is important in relating my feeling on these MASS KILLINGS. 1. Have these anti gun people realized. MOST ALL, of these mass killings have been in “gun free” zones. Schools, Churches, even Government buildings, or annexes. Cowards will take a path of least resistance. FIFTY people killed. I just can’t help but wonder why so many killed and injured before police arrived. After all according to the anti gun people this is why we have them to protect and prevent something like this from happening. Always in the right place at the right time. (Apparently even after they arrived). Perhaps if one or two of the patrons, or employees had a a legally permited GUN; MAYBE, JUST, one of them could have stopped the perpetrator, before all of the death and injury. HOW, many people might still be alive? Uninjured? If only HALF of them, heck even one would have been saved. Isn’t that worth something? Apparently not according to those who want to be like Hitler, and those others whose first steps were to disarm the citizenry). GEE! Just think if the British had of thought of this we COULD all still be British subjects, OR overrun by some other country. 2. While, as a CHRISTIAN, I can’t condone homosexuality. But neither do I wish to give up my rights to them either. I, in fact, still can’t stop wondering if a boy in a neighboring school, of mine, who everyone knew was a homosexual, but no one I know of treated him any differently, BUT the fact that when he “hit the beach” of Viet Nam, It was reported he was the first one killed. Enemy coincidence, or was he killed by “friendly fire” I have always wondered about that. I am affronted by their constant public displays (as a group), (“LGBT”). It would appear to me, this group of people were not hurting anyone, they were not blatantly displaying their sexuality in anyone’s face, The assassin may have been known to some of the club attendees, as it was stated he was a “REGULAR” at the club. BUT it is not my place to judge them. That is up to GOD. I am not qualified to say what his Judgement will be. I guess I am more offended by what appears to me a CALL to put my religious beliefs on the back burner while demanding I accept their lifestyle. I treat all people equally, unless they give me reason not to. Being Homosexual is not one of them. But I would surely like to be able to use the word “GAY” properly, and not have it confused with homosexual . As it is now used, apparently everyone in the 1890’s were homosexual. “GAY NINETIES” We even had a little eating place “very small, really good food. The name was GAY DAN’S. ( meaning a fun place to eat, apparently owned by someone named DAN). When homosexuals became associated with the word “GAY” the small eating chain had to close it’s doors. 3. Need for more extensive background checks? EXCUSE ME! I believe the FBI investigated Omar Marteen at least 3 times, before he purchased his weapons. Why this didn’t trigger a flag on the background check is beyond me. That seems pretty EXTENSIVE to me. In the state where I live we have the NICS background check, even when purchasing a squirrel rifle. I also know IF there is a flag of something unverified, or whatevere reason, the inquiry comes back with a hold, ( I think of 5 or 7 days), so a more extensive background check can be made. 4. A woman I recall being interviewed about gun laws, stated, “All anyone has to do is go online and buy a gun and have it shipped to his door.” Ignorance of the law is no excuse. In my state, YES! I… Continue reading ORLANDO PULSE CLUB SHOOTING, MY THOUGHTS.
Improper Police Chase Procedure
Just a couple of weeks ago I posted a story about the PROPER CHASE PROCEDURE. In that post I told of how a police officer ceased his HOT PURSUIT, and called ahead to make the stop. TODAY, I am relaying a story just a couple of counties away from that pursuit. Only this time the police did not radio ahead. They continued the chase. The outcome of that chase was not an ideal one. The officers involved deemed it more important to make a traffic stop, than to consider the consequences. Instead of asking for help from fellow officers, they pursued the purported offender, without regard for the safety of John Q. Public. This resulted in the death of two innocent females, unaware of the fate the police were driving their way. The pursued vehicle, crashed into the ladies. Both were KILLED. Yes killed may sound harsh but, that is what it is. They died the same as if someone had shot them. The SAME DEAD. Now you may say the driver of the pursued vehicle is guilty of Vehicular Homicide, (or whatever the proper legal term is), as a fact. Had he or she, not chose to run, the ladies would still be alive. BUT, we know that in this case there was an ABETTOR. THE POLICE. Had they not chosen to pursue, the ladies would have been alive. Most likely the pursued would have slowed and not crashed into them. They could have been stopped by use of the technology available now. Chances are once they were away from the first attempted stop.thinking they had not broken any laws in that area, could have been stopped by any means, be it a controlled traffic jam, or a seatbelt checkpoint, which we have in this state. By continuing the chase, these officers are just as guilty, (in my mind), as the actual driver who collided with the ladies. What will happen to them. NOT A THING! After all they ARE the POLICE, doing their job. BUT WAIT, isn’t it their JOB to SERVE AND PROTECT? Does Serving and Protecting, include being a party to the death of innocent bystanders? As I see it, the police should face the same penalties. Both parties had a hand in the deaths. The Officer or Officers involved made an informed and conscious decision to put the public in danger by pursuing this vehicle. There is a time when one must use some common sense. A question we all must ask ourselves. ARE, police above the law. It would seem that way in so many ways. (Which I will not go into here). Not all Cops are included. But where I live We have had cops not so inclined to behave ethically. The new Police Chief, claims to be trying to correct this. I must admit I have seen some progress that way. That Is How I See It. Views: 100
Proper Police Chase Procedure
I was recently listening to my home scanner. I heard a police chase in a neighboring county. The officer was in pursuit of a motorcycle who was clocked at 103 mph. Now normally the police turn on their sirens and lights and the chase is on. I was not prepared for what happened next. The officer turned off his siren and lights, slowed to a safe speed. He then proceeded to radio ahead to officers on down the road. The motorcycle was occupied by two people a man and a woman. I don’t care who you are 103 mph on public roads is way too fast. It is way, way to fast on a motorcycle, let alone with a passenger. I know, I have been guilty of doing 105 mph, with a passenger and pulling a trailer. HOW DUMB WAS THAT? (I was on a fairly un-busy interstate). But still a dumb thing to do. Let’s face it we have seen enough motorcycle accidents with riders obeying the law. Some to their own fault, and others because of other driver’s errors. But, factor in the increased speed, and you have really increased your chances of injury. I don’t think I have to go into the obstacles that you can face which give you a problem at normal speed, but at high speed even a lesser obstacle causes greater danger. We don’t like a little gravel, or a pot hole, even at 30 mph. But imagine at 103 mph. A normal curve in the road becomes a lot harder to negotiate at these speeds. I remember seeing one rider on a very busy interstate loop around a city, 4 lanes wide, he was riding in shorts, no shirt, and thongs, or as the younger people call them flip flops, on his feet. Sounds like a newbie, right? As if this was not bad enough he was texting on his phone, at 85 mph. Back to the officer who chose to slow, and call ahead. The offending rider was stopped in a town a few miles down the line, where he had slowed to the proper speed. The stopping officer held him until the County Mountie, who had originated the call arrived, and proceeded to write the proper tickets. I applaud this officer, for his use of common sense. Unlike many of his fellow officers he avoided putting himself and others in danger of a high speed chase. The offending rider, according to the time from the officer backed off and the time to the town where he was stopped had apparently slowed his speed to a much safer one. No one injured, no innocent people unnecessarily put in harm’s way. What I don’t understand is why more police do not exercise this same logical thought. They have helicopters, and more technology to follow these people and end the chase with less mayhem. In my state it is illegal to have a scanner in your car unless you are a ham operator or a few other exceptions. But I for one can attest to the fact had I been able to have a scanner in my car, I could have reported the sighting of a car used in a robbery. I seen the car operating a “little erratically”, not really badly. I had my cell phone. I could have called it in and directed the police to where we were. Heck I could have followed him a little while. But because it is illegal to have a scanner in my car, I was home listening on my home scanner when I found out about the robbery and the car the police were looking for. This is just another resource that could be available to police. We all know the criminal doesn’t care if having a scanner is illegal. Kudos to the County Mountie for using PROPER CHASE PROCEDURE. Even if it was not the prescribed procedure used by most police departments. That Is How I See It Views: 109
GUN CONTROL IS IT NEEDED: WRAP UP
Well, here are at either a stopping place or a pausing place. It depends on how things go, if anything else comes up. I have made my decision that it is not guns that need control it is PEOPLE which need control. For the most part, it would be control of the people who have no respect for property or life. I see no fool proof way to do this. BUT, it surely isn’t taking away the rights of law abiding citizens. I firmly believe in the right of each U.S. patriot to have a gun for self protection, (as well as hunting, and sport). (What I am going into now is the considerations of whether carrying a gun is for me. 1. Will I be comfortable with a weapon on my person? (in my home I am fine with). 2. Would I be able to handle killing someone? (Justified or not). I know some of you would consider it the same as killing in a war. 3. What about the financial responsibility? Just like farmer Tony Martin. Defending himself and property, yet taken to court by the criminal for injuries. Maybe I mistakenly take a good guy as a criminal, If I see a CRIME being committed. OR, accidental discharge. Other things I must consider include the fact, where I live, (in a small town), the probability of my needing it for defense is very, very low. But I would feel more comfortable with a gun to protect my family and friends. PROPERTY, does not mean that much to me. Where I would be more in need of personal protection is when we go to the BIG CITY, (where there are multiple murders each night, not to mention other crimes), for sporting events. We may need to walk many blocks to get the sporting event, at night, and you have the parking garages where it would be easy to be mugged. Usually the only employee they have is the one who collects the fees. Here is the big CATCH, we are not allowed to take a weapon into the arenas, and they don’t have lockers to stow any. I know. I have a pocket knife I have carried for over….well let’s just say the majority of my life. It has been lost and found so many times. Once I lost it over a thousand miles away. It was lost for about 3 years. A friend bought a truck with a title from that state, and while cleaning it up we found MY Lucky knife. But back to my point. Open the total length, handle and all is about 3 inches. I had to take it back to my car, or not see the game. Ridiculous, isn’t it? These are the things, I believe everyone, should consider. I may get a permit, whether I decide to get a handgun or not. Some of my friends have been known to forget one of their guns in my vehicle. If something were to happen and a police officer or game warden sees it…I’m busted for illegally carrying. That is what my retired Sheriff told me. One other thing, whether or not I decide to purchase a hand gun, I do not think getting some training would hurt. It might even help me make up my mind. I will think these things through and decide if I want to even own a hand gun. I have rifles, and shotguns, after all. That Is How I See It. Views: 124
GUN CONTROL: IS IT NEEDED? PART 3
Welcome back. I have taken a little longer on this part. I really wanted to know more about how gun control has worked for the countries, (and our own states with gun control). This is what I found out. It appears that the first steps taken by dictators is to seize full control is to: Suppress the basic freedoms. RELIGION, SPEECH, and RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. We have already experienced attempt at all of these. The Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to MAKE/ALTER, (however you want to put it), the intent of our CONSTITUTION. Their job is to interpret not make up their own laws. An example of this would be if I were talking to a person from say Japan. I say, “Hello, it is nice to meet you”. The interpreter tells this person from Japan “Hello, why don’t you go back to Japan.” So you can see how the erosion of our basic rights IS happening. I remember Soviet Premier Kruschev saying, “We will bury you”. He gave no time line. Nor method of carrying this threat out. Back to the Supreme Court Justices. RE; the FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The intent of this RIGHT was very simple. The government shall not dictate any one religion. Example would be Pennsylvania founded by Quakers. Pennsylvania is not to make it a condition of Pennsylvania you must be Quaker to reside there. Or Utah to require you to be Mormon to live there. But as you have seen they have taken the whole concept and mis-construed it to say I don’t have the right to openly practice my faith in a government facility. They did this which changed one word of the this Amendment. They effectively changed “…FREEDOM OF RELIGION, to read. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. See how one word can change the whole intent. No they didn’t physically change the word, just the way they interpret it. New York and especially New York City, Illinois (with Chicago). Washington D.C. and all the states with strict “gun control laws”, have a higher crime rate than states with laxer gun control laws. The United Kingdom confiscated all guns, (from law abiding citizens, according to the reports I have heard), has seen a 40% rise in gun related crimes. One English police officer said. “…Our job is harder. Only the criminals have guns… and they are more willing to use them.” One example I have heard of is about a farmer named Tony Martin. The story goes like this. Two men, actually a man and a teenager, broke into his rural home. Fred Barras, a 16 year old criminal had 29 convictions. Brendan Feraon, a 30 year old criminal, had 34 convictions. Fred Barras was fatally wounded. The farmer was sentenced to life in prison for murder. (The charge has been reduced to manslaughter, so he will eventually be set free). (Really? Life in prison for defending himself and his property?) Brendan Feraon, also was shot, and was sentenced to 3 years, but only served 18 months. Now Fearon is using taxpayer money to sue farmer, Martin for damages. Break into a home, then sue the victim for damages. It happens here. What is wrong with this picture? A criminal breaks into your home and then sues you for damage. Criminal definitely has an edge here. Authorities say Martin should not have used his gun, he should have yelled for help. He lived on a farm with no nearby neighbors. Who would have heard his cries for help at 2 in the morning. Those of us who live in towns and cities, Do you think someone in the house next door would hear you, or if they did; would they come to help you, or even call the police. Odds are the answer is NO! Australia, banned guns in 1996. The result there is as follows. ARMED ROBBERY, up 69%. ASSAULTS WITH GUNS, up 28%. GUN MURDERS, up 19%. HOME INVASIONS up 21%. So, instead of a decrease in crime we see an overall increase, of 137% The town of Kennesaw Georgia, actually passed a law requiring every household to have a gun. They immediately saw a drastic DROP in gun related crime. I don’t think I would like being told I had to own a gun, but I understand this law is not strictly enforced. But for the most part criminals will not risk being confronted with someone with a gun An unknown is just how much crime goes unreported. If there is no loss, or anything, (NO FOUL, NO HARM). No report. My conclusion regarding gun control is I AM AGAINST IT! Like (it seems is the majority of US citizens). I feel there should be some sort of control. But I really have no answer. The gun control I am against is the one which wants to take THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS away. The gun control to keep GUNS or any WEAPON out of the hands of CRIMINALS. That is the big problem. Law abiding citizens will obey laws. Criminals have no such regard for the Law. There will always be a black market. (A criminal element.) Criminals do not care where or how they get anything they want. For example, on the black market, a gun which normally sells for $600.oo may fetch upwards of $1500.oo. Where will the law breakers get that kind of money? Unlike you or me, and save up the money. They will steal it from the unarmed citizen. They will sell dope to your kids. Or they may even kill to get a gun. The police aren’t even exempt. They will still have guns. Simply walk up to one as a normal citizen, take a knife and stab or slit his throat. Now he has a gun and some ammunition. That is how dangerous the situation could get. One gun in the wrong hands, by this means, makes it easier to get more guns. A criminal will really have the… Continue reading GUN CONTROL: IS IT NEEDED? PART 3
Minimum Wage Debate (My View)
Do We Need A New National Minimum Wage?? There are arguments FOR and AGAINST. Most of you have heard the arguments FOR. Fast food restaurants, janitorial workers, migrant workers, etc, etc.. (Aside: Does a sentence ending in an abbreviation need 1 period, or 2; one for the end of the abbreviation, and one to end a sentence. If you know please tell me). I realize these are low paying jobs, with little benefits. BUT: what about the waitresses , for example. In the state I live, these people earn about $2-$3, an hour. The reason for this is the proprietors expect the patrons to pay their help. (TIPS), This is another topic for later. True some waiters/waitresses make big tips. I was speaking to a WAITER, who works in our State Capital, near all the Convention Centers, and Athletic Arenas. This restaurant is well known all across the USA. The wealthier clients entertain there quite often. He told me he and his colleagues earn between $60,000.oo and $70,000.oo, in TIPS a year. But away from there in your average town I have noticed the average tip is about $1.oo per Person. Therefore you can add that to the low wage paid and they are still making less than the average fast food server. In just this instance we have a huge difference in pay. So you raise the Minimum wage for the small town wait people, to lets say $10.oo an hour. That sounds good. Specially to the ones in the big City Fancy Restaurants who are making the $60-70,ooo.oo tips. (by the way the wait people in our area are required by the management to split their TIPS with the BUSBOY, COOK, DISHWASHER, and I have been told the owner of the establishment in some cases. So a minimum wage raise may help some people, and others even more. But how will this affect the Senior Citizen. The same Citizen who financed the bailouts, by not getting Social Security raises for 2 years running. When I calculated the money the government saved more than doubled the amount used for the bailout. My friend who was forced into retirement, and lost not only money in his 401k, but was forced to spend it to pay off bills that would have been paid, had he been able to work the next 6 years as had been planned. (His place of employment closed it’s doors. Although qualified and able he could not get a job. Why? AGE. Not what he was told but the real reason). Making him rely heavily on Social Security for his needs. He showed me his check, after working, and paying into Social Security for 45 years his check, after the government takes out for his MEDICARE. Oh yes they take that out of your Social Security check. Break the remainder down to a40 hour week, then down to per hour. His gross pay is $6.49 an hour. (Which puts him, I believe, below poverty level. This before he pays his Supplemental Insurance, which helps pay what Medicare does not. Plus he has to pay for Eye Care, Dental, and Medicine. This Supplemental Insurance costs him $150.oo a month, and his insurance agent tells him that will go up effective the first of August. He tells me this insurance goes up more each year the small raise he gets. In other words he goes further behind each year. Will he get a raise to even things out in purchasing power. Well not as long as Obama, is in office. So. What is my point you ask. Raising the minimum wage will put more money in some people’s pocket. Business knowing there is more money out there will merely raise their prices, thus negating the raise. It always happens. The government will take in more money, via taxes. People will cheer a Minimum Wage Increase. What they don’t understand is it is merely a sham. They won’t be able to live any better. So What Is The Point? T hat Is How I See It. PS: Sorry if I rambled on and strayed, but I think you get the idea. Views: 120
105 Percent Rule Confusing
How many of you out there found the INDY Car 105% rule confusing? Am I the only one? We were all taught in grade school that 100% is all there is. You can have a glass of milk that is anywhere from 1% to 99% full and still have room for more. But once it reaches 100% full there is no more you can add. I eat 100% of a raspberry pie, guess what you aren’t getting any. There is none left. Because the 105% mostly applies to the slower cars in the race, one would have to assume the slowest cars on the track would have to run 105%, of the lead car. Example say the leader has a lap speed of 220 mph. This would mean the slowest car, in order to maintain the 105% rule would have to be traveling a speed of 231 mph. (220=100%) (22o x .05 [ 5%] = 231.) That would be 5% faster than the leader. WAIT A MINUTE !!!! If the slowest car is running 11 mph faster than the leader then the leader can not be leading, at least not for long. Now I realize we aren’t all engineers, Thus the 105% rule was not meant to be understood by us mere mortals. Now, let me put it this way. And I think this really makes more sense, as the apparent reason behind the rule is to keep the slower cars in a safer operating range with the average race speed. So would it not make more sense to say…call it a 95% RULE. Again let us use the 220 mph model as before. 220 x .95 (95%) = 209. An 11 mph difference. Slower still but you must admit more obtainable for the LOTUS than 231 mph. Like I have said before I am no mathematician. But 105% can’t make sense in any ones mind when it comes to racing speed (except an engineer). Especially when you are talking of slower cars. But a 95% rule holds water. Is there anyone out there who can explain a car going 105% faster that the fastest car (let alone the average speed) can be the slowest car. I can see the government taxing us 105% by the time all taxes are applied to my dollar. Perhaps this is how INDY Racing came up with that percentage. That Is How I See It Views: 189
Indiana Super Bowl Vs Worker’s Rights
By now you all know of the struggles of the Union workers in Indiana. You also know Indiana is hosting the Super Bowl. It is too bad the legislators in Indiana refuse to listen to the people who elected them. It is too bad they do not have a sense of timing. But as we try to keep up on politics a little. (Remember I do not believe in POLITICS in GOVERNMENT). Politics get in the way of doing the bidding of the people. Looking back on the administration of one MITCH DANIELS, it is plain to see there has been no regard as to the welfare of the working man, in Indiana. He has led a government “of the people“ by “BIG BUSINESS” for “BIG BUSINESS” He finagles what ever Big Business wants, (after all they are the ones who line politicians pockets with the GREEN). It is just too bad the football fans from around the country who are visiting Indiana to be caught up in his MESS. But he tends to play on the big field. Regardless of the consequences of the STATE, COUNTRY, or PEOPLE he pretends to represent. From what I have seen of this person, I, personally can’t understand why anyone would vote for him in the first place. But the citizens of Indiana apparently did. People of America would you,(how could you), ever consider someone of his caliber for President of the United States. Oh yeah that’s right you elected Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. Nevermind. So FOOTBALL fans you have a right to blame the Hoosiers, (no disrespect to Indiana University); for trying to spoil your stay in Indiana. Had they had any sense they would not have put Daniels in the position of TSAR. So I recommend you just ignore the fact Daniels intentionally put you in the middle of his MESS. Enjoy the weather Indiana is experiencing. Enjoy the Game. NFL owner, remember what Daniels has put you in the middle of his MESS. Remember this well if Indiana ever wants you back for another Super Bowl. That Is How I See It. PS. I remember seeing one of his campaign speeches in which he states would never back or sign any legislation that interfered with worker rights. Views: 144
