We all know how the ACLU is always proclaiming separation of state and CHURCH. That is what they claim anyway. However if it is in their best interest they do an about face. Now I believe in the beginning the ACLU had good intentions, and the ACLU stood for “American Civil Liberties Union” . But as many civic groups grow they become drunk with power. I think this is what has happened with the current aclu. Somewhere along the line they strayed from their original intent. Protect our CIVIL rights. Now it seems all they are intent on doing is to destroy our CIVIL rights in the name of the minority. No longer does the majority rule. Just as the NAZI’s Communistis, etc. I don’t know ,how but I suspect money has something to do with it. The ACLU become corrupt and the new aclu has the power to convince OUR supreme court to misinterpret our CONSTITUTION. Somehow Our Supreme Court appointees have either become corrupted or very badly misled. They no longer consider that the majority rules, only the minority rules. Back to what prompted this post. In case you missed it the aclu, after all their talk about separation of state and church now wants the government to tell private CHURCH owned HOSPITALS to go against their beliefs, You see it is okay for the STATE to do whatever they want but let’s not give the CHURCH and Christians any rights. Sort of sounds like Communism and Nazism doesn’t it. The aclu wants the State to force Catholic owned Hospitals to go against their core beliefs regarding abortion. If the aclu wins this one….. The aclu wants to force these Catholic owned facilities to perform ABORTIONS. It isn’t about what you an individual believe, either pro or con. It is about conscious. I for one think the aclu should build their own Hospitals. Surely their are enough Government owned health facilities to provide this procedure. It is my considered opinion, if aclu wins this I would be behind the Catholic Church if they decided to close all their Hospitals. WOW!! That would leave a gaping hole in health care community. Wouldn’t it? I know that in my city we would be without a hospital. Our nearest facility would be about 50 miles away. aclu you are in over your heads on this, back off and try to return to your original edicts of protecting OUR , meaning, protect the rights in the best interest of all and not just a small group. I feel I have the right to eat and enjoy public events without having to inhale someone’s second hand smoke. What are you doing about that. That Is How I see It Views: 603
Category: Government
Don’t Tax My Coca~Cola
It has been brought to my attention Our Government, in looking for more money to give to companies that invest badly. So it is looking at a possible 20-40 percent tax on my Coke. LAY OFF MY COKE. They say if we pay a 40 percent tax we won’t drink as much, (hurting the soft drink industry). The tax is to help us lose weight. It is said we could lose 1 pound a year if we pay a 40 percent tax. WOW!! A whole pound, imagine that. Of course with less sales the Soft Drink companies may have to lay off people and increase our roll of unemployed, less tax paid by the Soda companies. Sounds like a win- win situation to me. NOT. The only weight I’d lose would be from my pocket. As a small boy I was really frail. The doctor told me my problem was that my stomach did not produce enough acids to properly break down my food. To offset this I was told to drink Coca~Cola with my meals this would help break down the food for me. Would I be entitled to claim a medical exemption on this tax and my Cokes. I just really don’t see the benefit of taxing my Coke. Why not tax Candy, Cookies, bags of Sugar, etc. Chocolate and fast food probably put more weight on u than my Coke. Tax them. That Is How I See It. LAY OFF MY COKE. Views: 99
Noah’s Ark Park In Kentucky
Noah’s Ark Park is to be built in an as yet to be determined site in the Great State of Kentucky. Currently an 800 acre site, off of Interstate 75 is being considered, about 40 minutes from Cincinnati . The cost is estimated to be $150 million, by a for profit group. The ark itself will be funded by donations. The purpose is to lend assurance that Noah could have two of every animals on the ark. Now as I understand the account of Noah’s Ark. It doesn’t mean like 2 Clydesdale horses and 2 Arab horses. It would just be 2 horses. It doesn’t say they were adult animals. Canines, although we have various breeds. I’m sure there was only one breed. So I can see having all life forms represented. But I have strayed from my original thought. There is a group called “Americans United for Separation of Church and State, (AUSCS) opposing the State of Kentucky giving tax incentives for the project. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear states, “bringing new jobs to Kentucky in my top priority”, and that he is “happy about the economic impact this project will have on the Northern Kentucky region.” First you will have the construction jobs. Then, according to the sources I have checked. The park will create approximately 900 permanent jobs, and have a $214 million economic impact the first year of operation alone. Regardless what the AUSCS, believes this is a business just as, lets say General Electric decided to build a facility on that 800 acres. They neither one are a Government entity. By the way the biggest objection I have heard from the AUSCS is that State funds should not be used for the project because it has a religious theme. But back to the tax incentive. Business is Business as long it is a legal entity. I’m sure they would not object if say Disney decided to put in a park and asked for the same tax incentives. I’m never in favor of tax incentives for business, because I have to make up for the tax revenue lost. But in these times I can tell you. After seeing my friends and relatives out of work for over 2 years now, I would consider it a viable option. We sure could use those jobs in my area. If Kentucky doesn’t want them contact me I’m sure my state will gladly give the tax incentives. Sometimes you just have to look at the big picture In this case the Benefits of the park far outweigh the petty objections of a few people who probably don’t even live in the area. That Is How I See It. Views: 111
Greedy Government
A midwestern city seems a to be a little greedy. The government is trying to keep in excess of $190,000.00 it seized after a traffic stop. As I understand it the money belonged to a couple of brothers who remodel homes. It is hard to believe that anyone would drive around with that much money. But the way I understand it the money was the family’s life saving and they were taking it to their father so he could pay off his mortgage and retire to Mexico. The police officer who pulled them over confiscated the CASH. The city will try to keep the cash under what is called “Civil Forfeiture”. This is a procedure which lets police forces to take property where the legal standard is lower than criminal forfeiture. Now here is the kicker. There was no traffic arrest made. No charges of any crime. Neither brother has a criminal record. A month later the brothers attorney filed a complaint that the city had no claim to the money. Eleven days later the city attorney appeared in front of the County Circuit Court Judge. The Judge asked what were the basis for the seizure. The City Attorney said, “We don’t know.” The Judge said, “This is America. Give it back.” He also ordered the city to return the money with one month’s interest and costs. So what did the city do? Refused to abide by the court order and return the money. They say they are going to appeal the judges order. Claiming he overstepped his authority. The appellate Court rejected the appeal on “Technical Grounds. ” Whatever that means. It seems that now the Department of Homeland Security/Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, has taken the money and claims the cash is subject to forfeiture under U.S. Codes dealing with drug transactions. Again I remind you NO arrests, No charges filed. Is this just a case of government greed? Or what. I think no arrest, no charge, they get their money back. That Is How I See It. Views: 107
Consumer Warning HAMP
The Home Affordable Modification Program, is a Federal Program set up by the United States, to assist eligible Home owners in danger of losing their homes. The people who are to be aided by this program receive loan modifications to lower payments, and avoiding foreclosure. This is in the midst of the subprime mortgage crisis. Remember the Bailout money given to the banks. Banks took $50 billion of our taxpayer money to help homeowners reduce payments. You have all heard the advertisements “Keep your home for less.” “Save hundreds of dollars” It has come to my attention that this program also works in favor of the banks. The trap takes the form of what they call “Trial Period”. The way I understand it, (I’m no Lawyer, Banker, or Real Estate salesman), a person must apply for the modification, submit all requested documentation, and meet certain criteria before being accepted for the “trial period”. Once accepted into the trial period, which protects your home from foreclosure, a person must make the payments at the lower rate for 3 months. If they meet this requirement they should be accepted for the full modification. I have heard stories about people who do all the things required, only to be told they have been rejected. As the story goes they are told to pay $X,000,00 or be foreclosed on. Desperate to keep their home the couple dips into their Saving, IRA, 401K, or whatever to pay the $X,000.00. Send the payment in, only to have it returned. The bank wants $100.00 payment until December. At any rate the people in question were then told to keep their house they would have to pay $XX,000.00 Does this sound like some kind of racket? It does to me. The people had not missed a payment before or during the trial period. Now they face a real possibility of losing their home. The bank wins again. That Is How I See It. Views: 96
Thanksgiving
As I write this I, like many Americans, am like the turkey….STUFFED, and watching a football game. But ,alas, let us not forget what THANKSGIVING DAY is for. Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of Thanksgiving. during the Civil War. To be celebrated on Thursday November 26. But let us look back in our history. We find there were numerous different dates for Thanksgiving. In 1777, the first National proclamation came from the Continental Congress to set aside the 18th of December as a day for “Solemn thanksgiving and praise….” October 3, 1789 President George Washington, proclaimed and created the first Thanksgiving by the United States of America. “To recommend to the people of the United States a day of thanksgiving and prayer……” On November 26th George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison. But it is President Lincoln’s proclamation that we still observe today. Thanksgiving was to be celebrated on final Thursday of November. In 1939 November had 5 Thursdays instead of 4. President Franklin D. Roosevelt made the 4th Thursday of November Thanksgiving. This was during the “Great Depression” and perhaps he was thinking by pushing Thanksgiving back a week would give merchants an extra week to sell their goods before Christmas. October 6, 1941 both houses of Congress passed a resolution to make the last Thursday of November, Thanksgiving Day, beginning in 1942. However in December of 1941 the Senate passed an amendment designating the 4th Thursday as Thanksgiving day. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the bill thus making the date a matter of Federal Law. In closing I think we, all Americans, have something to be thankful for. I remember the story of the golfer who shot 100 for his day of golf, and was celebrating it. Another golfer came in grumbling because he shot 75 that day. The celebrating golfer asked why he was so upset shooting 75 while he was celebrating shooting 100. The better golfer said “Yeah but your are used to shooting bad” So what some one may take for granted another may be very thankful if he had it. Imagine if that 1oo shooter had shot 75. Or the homeless person who has found a box to help keep him warm as compared to the homeless person who only has newspapers for warmth. We all have hope. Some hope to win the Lottery, Some hope for another day to be with family and friends. Hope is something to be thankful for. As long as you are alive you have hope things will get better. And they usually do. Hope you all had a nice Thanksgiving or if you are celebrating later in the week have a good one. The day doesn’t matter as much as the having one. We should all be thankful everyday we wake up, not just the 4th Thursday of November. That is How I See It. Views: 91
Baseball Without Wrigley Field?
Ground Breaking in March, 1914. Opened April 1914. Located at 1060 Addison Street Weeghman Park was the home of the Federal League baseball team Chicago Whales. The park then became the home of the Chicago Cubs in 1916, and was renamed Cubs Park between 1920 and 1926, before being renamed after Cubs owner and Chewing gum VIP William Wrigley Jr (Love that Juicy Fruit. Wrigley Field also served as home to the National Football League’s Chicago Bears. Although the 10th smallest ballpark still in use Wrigley Field is the OLDEST National League Park. It is second only to American League’s Fenway Park (by 2 years). Wrigley Field is the only remaining Federal League park. The new owners have apparently asked for a $200 million to $300 million state bond sale. I definitely am not a proponent of Government Funds being used for non-government purposes. Look at Indianapolis, Indiana . They made a terrible deal to keep the COLTS. The owner is making a bushel more money because he has less OUTGO. Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but it was said that after the sweetheart deal, Colts owner went from MILLIONAIRE to BILLIONAIRE. The taxpayers are the losers here, and Indianapolis is scrambling to find the funds to hold up it’s end of the deal. What I am in favor of is this. Let the people who profit from Wrigley Field, the surrounding businesses, kick into help needed renovations. The hotels, restaurants, bars. parking lots, taxis, buses, trains, etc. Why should the average person be saddled with the cost. I know in my area my taxes go to support Professional teams, but I can’t afford a ticket to see the games. The difference here is Wrigley Field is a part of Americana. Some souvenir manufacturers claim the Cubs as a goldmine. The big QUESTION. Should government funds be used to help preserve this piece of American History. I say FIRST the aforementioned businesses who owe their existence to Wrigley Field. Without Wrigley Field most of those businesses would not exist. I think their financial support would go a long way on needed renovations, note I stressed needed. If there are more legitimate needs then I can see using a government loan, maybe. After all what would baseball be without WRIGLEY FIELD. But this is a question only Chicagoans can answer. What do you think? That’s the way I see it. Views: 196
Guilty Without Substantial Evidence
Man found Guilty of Murder in the 1st degree beyond doubt. BUT…….. I was not a jury member nor was I present for the trial. But what I have read, How could there be no doubt. This is what I read. For one. No murder weapon. No Forensic evidence link to murder scene. No eyewitness. Medical Examiner unable to determine what caused of death. A number of mistakes by police and forensic scientists. What happened to shadow of doubt. For me the above mentioned facts more than qualify to cause me to have doubt. more than shadow. But a jury said they had sufficient evidence for the guilty conviction. This is the 9 year old case of Chandra Levy. I am believe there would have to be a mountain of evidence for me to outway the above mentioned shortages. But as I have said I am only a common sense person. Not a lawyer. Note even a member of a jury. Was this another case where prosecution made deals (BRIBES) to get testimony , unrelated to the case at hand, to get a guilty verdict? I don’t know. Will there be appeals. I’ll guess YES! Guilty with out substantial hard evidence. There has to be an appeal. Then the question is will this jury be investigated to see if there was a conspiracy. I know they took 3.5 days. But questions linger. Was this a legitimate Verdict? You decide . I have stated How I See It. Views: 776
Blind Justice
This is a subject that has irked me for many years. So now, thanks to my blog, I can get it out. They say Justice is blind. Blind maybe. In most pictures you see, if you look real close you’ll notice the scale seems slightly tipped. Sometimes it is barely noticeable. But look real close it is generally tilted. To me the tilt is in the direction of government. The burden of proof in court is supposed to be on the States Side. But they do have a number of advantages. 1. The State has a fully manned force for gathering evidence. They also have, at there disposal all of the latest forensic equipment. The defendant usually has only their family and friends to investigate, none of the police powers to gather the evidence. They do not have access to the forensic equipment. Score 2 marbles in the scale for the State. 2. The State has a full time prosecutor office. Many with a huge staff to research. The Judges and Prosecutors often run in the same circles and are friends. Or somehow socially connected. The defendant is often appointed by this same judge. In small areas like ours you don’t have a Full time Public Defender. The lawyer appointed attorney may or may not have experience in the type of case he is to defend. He usually gets a small fee (If any) to defend his appointed client. He gets the same WIN or LOSE. He rarely has time or the staff to research the case, and limited time to actually correspond with his client. Part of this could be corrected by giving the option of WIN you get paid Lose it is free, I can cite one case I personally watched. (NO I was not involved, merely an observer). The Court appointed attorney’s SECRETARY was the wife of the lead prosecutor. The family told me that many of the information given to the secretary, they believed was not seen by the lawyer but passed on to the prosecutors office. The Defense Attorney admitted he had not seen some of this information. Put 7 marbles in that scale for the STATE. 3. Now this is the real Kicker. The STATE has the ability to “BRIBE’ witnesses. I use the word “BRIBE” because I am incapable of arriving at a better word to describe this. The State can offer a witness a reduction in sentencing, dropping charges. or any other thing to get the witness to say what ever they want to hear. I talked to one potential witness who told me she was threatened to have her children taken away if she testified for the defendant. The Defense is not allowed to make this deal. They could not threaten to take children away for testimony. They would be prosecuted. The prosecutor asked potential jurors if they could put aside the fact that STATE witnesses had made a deal for their testimony. If the answer was no, They were stricken from the jury pool. I could go on about this particular case but won’t. But lets add another 5 or 6 marbles to the scale for the STATE. Justice may be blind. But I think she should be able to feel the imbalance of her scale. Right or Wrong. That is the way I see it. Views: 101
Motorcycle Helmets ??
Should Adult Motorcyclists be mandated to wear helmets. Let’s see. I remember my Dad telling me I was hard headed. Maybe that is why I never wore a helmet in my younger years. No not really I liked the feel of the wind blowing through my hair. I didn’t like the weight of a helmet, it made me feel more tired because I had that extra weight for my neck to support. Then there was the fact that it obscured both my peripheral vision and my hearing. But the most important thing was the heat. It sometimes felt like my brain was frying. Now that I am older. I don’t have to worry so much about the wind blowing through my hair. (I don’t have that extra padding). For some reason I think my head isn’t as hard as it was. It just might break open like an egg if I crash. Helmets have improved since I started riding. They are lighter. Better designed. Made with vents to let air in. I still think I should have the right to decide if I want to wear a helmet. City riding I usually wear a helmet. Too many cages (cars with texters, eater/drinkers, cell phone talkers, (without hands free devices), and many more reasons. But on the highway I make the choice. The people I ride with have CB radios, and with the in helmet voice activated mics we can talk while we ride. I can listen to my radio, Ipod, etc. This makes these runs more fun. But if I am riding by myself and just want to get away. I opt to not wear a helmet if I am in the country. By the way I usually avoid interstates. Nothing to see or enjoy there. But highways and side roads generally take me past things I normally would not see or even know exist. I have found many interesting things this way. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is urging ALL States mandate helmet laws. (NO CHOICE). Their reasoning. Motorcycles (it doesn’t say if this includes scooters) make up 3% of vehicles on the nations roads. but account for 13% of fatalities. Head injuries is the leading cause of these fatalities. We don’t know how many or the break down of causes. We all know there are other causes. But I can believe that Head injuries could be the leading cause. I just don’t know what that lead is. Their claim is that a helmet that meets Federal Transportation Specifications is 37% effective in reducing these fatal injuries. This would mean your chances of surviving with a helmet on is (I am NO mathematician) about 1 in 3.7. Is that right? You math people figure it out. But do they have conclusive proof or is this just conjecture. They force you to wear seat belts because they “save lives” But they never give you the probability of survival with out seat belts. I’m sure Seat Belts also cause deaths. But that is another argument. Their claim is that Helmets will reduce deaths. Maybe, and probably, but without more concrete proof we’ll never know for sure. We just had an 11 year record breaking low in motorcycle deaths. Maybe more people wearing helmets??? When I first began riding as a teenager, a very good friend was injured in a motorcycle accident. Not his fault. He has spent the rest of his life in a wheel chair. And achieved much more than I ever will. As for me I want my freedom of CHOICE. The margin of survival with a helmet just isn’t that compelling to me. But I admit I wear my helmet more than not. But let those who ride decide. That’s The Way I See It. Views: 138
