This is happening right here in Maine. The "Human Rights Commission" in Maine is trying to make it possible for gays to be able to use the ladies room instead of the men's room.
You heard right.
According to these nutcases, Maine should have NOTHING that is gender based. That includes toilets, locker rooms, sports teams or anything else.
Last I checked, if a man is gay he is STILL a man, and should use the men's room. Time enough to use the ladies room if and when he actually undergoes the surgery to become a female.
Being gay does not make a person into the opposite sex, and they should not be entitled to impose themselves onto the opposite gender. When a female uses the ladies room, she is entitled to do so without having to share it with any man, gay or straight.
But not according to these morons in the Human Rights Commission of Maine. They seem to think that a person's gender should no longer be considered as a difference bewtween the sexes. Men can use the ladies room, and vice versa. Girls can enter the boy's locker room - and even the showers.
The people at the Maine Human Rights Commission need to find themselves on the unemployment line before they succeed in making our entire state the laughing stock of the nation.
It's time we started to do more than just complain about these infringements on society, and begin ostracizing those who would do so. Anyone so stupid and arrogant as to think they have a right to do these things should be fired and publicly ridiculed.
/
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Where Does YOUR Tax Money Go?
It's pretty hard to comprehend billions, even trillions of dollars and how that relates to our own family. But now there is a Taxpayer Calculator available that can show you how much of your money goes where.
For example, for someone earning $50,000 a year, their share of the Stimulus Bill is $3,783.26. Do you think you would have spent $3800 of your own money for what little you got out of it?To find out how much of your taxes go for a variety of things, check it out at www.foxnews.com/yourmoney. That is where the calculator is. Simply type in your income and watch where YOUR tax dollars go.
Here is an interesting poll - when asked if taxes are too high, about right or too low, the results were:
Too High: 53%
About Right: 46%
Too Low: 2%
The reason this poll is so interesting - according to the IRS, 48% of the folks do not pay ANY taxes. And this poll shows that 48% of the folks have no problem with tax rates.
DUH! I would not have a problem with them, either, if I wasn't paying any.
/
For example, for someone earning $50,000 a year, their share of the Stimulus Bill is $3,783.26. Do you think you would have spent $3800 of your own money for what little you got out of it?To find out how much of your taxes go for a variety of things, check it out at www.foxnews.com/yourmoney. That is where the calculator is. Simply type in your income and watch where YOUR tax dollars go.
Here is an interesting poll - when asked if taxes are too high, about right or too low, the results were:
Too High: 53%
About Right: 46%
Too Low: 2%
The reason this poll is so interesting - according to the IRS, 48% of the folks do not pay ANY taxes. And this poll shows that 48% of the folks have no problem with tax rates.
DUH! I would not have a problem with them, either, if I wasn't paying any.
/
They Are At It Again - Crashing The Tea Parties
There is a website, http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/ that enlists and encourages progressive liberals who oppose the tenets of the Tea Party (smaller government, less taxes, more personal freedoms) and get them to attend Tea Parties with the express agenda of disrupting, and even making it appear that Tea Partiers are racists, nuts and illiterates.
You can check the site yourself, to see that these Marxists, in the truest form of Saul Alinsky Marxism plan to do whatever they can to discredit the tea partiers with their deceptions. They will infiltrate a party, and then raise racist signs, and signs misspelled. They will yell racist epithets. They will act inappropriately, perhaps even violently, all in an attempt to get the lamestream media to point out the bad behavior of the Marxists and say, "Look, we told you the Tea Partiers were nutty, illiterate, violent racists." And people who are no informed may believe it.
But now you are among the informed. If you hear of a "tea partier" who is acting racist or inappropriately, you can bet it is not a tea partier at all, as they are taking great care to behave well, simply because they know they are being targeted by the lamestream media and the current White House administration.
Once more, progressive liberals are showing their true colors of insidious deception. They simply cannot argue the merits of their beliefs, so they resort to lies and deception. Don't take my word for it - check out the site yourself. They are actually proud of being liars and deceivers. Last time I checked, no true, patriotic American would ever be proud of that sort of thing.
It matters not if you like or dislike the Tea Party. But one thing that certainly does matter is whether or not the discussion and debate is honest and forthright. The liberals obviously have no use for any honest debate.
/
You can check the site yourself, to see that these Marxists, in the truest form of Saul Alinsky Marxism plan to do whatever they can to discredit the tea partiers with their deceptions. They will infiltrate a party, and then raise racist signs, and signs misspelled. They will yell racist epithets. They will act inappropriately, perhaps even violently, all in an attempt to get the lamestream media to point out the bad behavior of the Marxists and say, "Look, we told you the Tea Partiers were nutty, illiterate, violent racists." And people who are no informed may believe it.
But now you are among the informed. If you hear of a "tea partier" who is acting racist or inappropriately, you can bet it is not a tea partier at all, as they are taking great care to behave well, simply because they know they are being targeted by the lamestream media and the current White House administration.
Once more, progressive liberals are showing their true colors of insidious deception. They simply cannot argue the merits of their beliefs, so they resort to lies and deception. Don't take my word for it - check out the site yourself. They are actually proud of being liars and deceivers. Last time I checked, no true, patriotic American would ever be proud of that sort of thing.
It matters not if you like or dislike the Tea Party. But one thing that certainly does matter is whether or not the discussion and debate is honest and forthright. The liberals obviously have no use for any honest debate.
/
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Rural Areas of Maine Could Lose Their Doctors
The Health Care bill, now law, could deprive rural areas of the country of their doctors. How so?
The law includes a section that gives the government the power and authority to conscript (draft) up to 6000 doctors, forcing them into servitude to the government, at the pay rate that Medicare allows. Those doctors will be forced to serve at the pleasure of the government, where the government directs. This will reduce or eliminate rural doctors in two ways:
1) the government will direct conscripted doctors to work where the need is greatest - in the cities, and
2) Rural doctors will abandon rural areas because, as the only doctor likely to live in that area, he is the only target when the feds come looking for doctors to bring to the cities.
If rural doctors move to metro areas, there is only a 1 in 40 chance of being conscripted because of all the other doctors in the area. If they stay in the rural area, the chances of being conscripted are almost 100%.
So, rural doctors that do not voluntarily leave when the conscription begins will likely be forcibly removed.
Now I wonder why the liberals never mentioned this part about forcing up to 6000 doctors into government service...
Probably for the same reason they did not tell you what is on pages 148-149. If you have read the law, you will know that is where the government panel can determine what care you do or do not get based on your age, condition and importance, and that their decision is final - there is no appeal.
In fact, there are roughly 2600 pages in the law that the liberals purposely kept hidden from the public until it was too late to dissect. I wonder what other nasty surprises are in store for "free America". Stay tuned...
/
The law includes a section that gives the government the power and authority to conscript (draft) up to 6000 doctors, forcing them into servitude to the government, at the pay rate that Medicare allows. Those doctors will be forced to serve at the pleasure of the government, where the government directs. This will reduce or eliminate rural doctors in two ways:
1) the government will direct conscripted doctors to work where the need is greatest - in the cities, and
2) Rural doctors will abandon rural areas because, as the only doctor likely to live in that area, he is the only target when the feds come looking for doctors to bring to the cities.
If rural doctors move to metro areas, there is only a 1 in 40 chance of being conscripted because of all the other doctors in the area. If they stay in the rural area, the chances of being conscripted are almost 100%.
So, rural doctors that do not voluntarily leave when the conscription begins will likely be forcibly removed.
Now I wonder why the liberals never mentioned this part about forcing up to 6000 doctors into government service...
Probably for the same reason they did not tell you what is on pages 148-149. If you have read the law, you will know that is where the government panel can determine what care you do or do not get based on your age, condition and importance, and that their decision is final - there is no appeal.
In fact, there are roughly 2600 pages in the law that the liberals purposely kept hidden from the public until it was too late to dissect. I wonder what other nasty surprises are in store for "free America". Stay tuned...
/
Monday, April 5, 2010
Who's Who On Social Security
Sent in by Steve Flynn. Feel free to check out these FACTS at Snopes or FactCheck. Regardless of which party you belong to, facts are facts.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary. It is no longer voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program. It is now 7.65% of most all income, and if you are self-employed it is 15.3%
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year. It is no longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can now be taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: Democrats. It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, wit h Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: Democrats. Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take yourSocial Security away!
And the worst part about it is that uninformed citizens - and almost all Democrats - believe it!
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
/
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary. It is no longer voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program. It is now 7.65% of most all income, and if you are self-employed it is 15.3%
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year. It is no longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can now be taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: Democrats. It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, wit h Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: Democrats. Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take yourSocial Security away!
And the worst part about it is that uninformed citizens - and almost all Democrats - believe it!
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
/
Friday, April 2, 2010
Holding Them Accountable
I was watching a most interesting tape this evening, featuring Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL). A reporter asked Congressman Hare "Where in the Constitution does the government finf the right to mandate health care?"
The Congressman responded, "I don't care about the Constitution."
Well, Mr. Hare, I'm sorry to hear that, considering that in order to BE a Congressman you had to swear an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution. Your response indicates that you have no interest in upholding the law of the land, so you are in breach of your oath of office and need to step down. (It does not help that when asked, he did not know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.)
People of Illinois, if you believe in the Constitution - you know, the little thing that makes sure you have basic human rights - then you owe it to yourselves and to the nation to impeach this clown. He is unworthy of holding ANY elected office anywhere in America.
It is thoroughly disgusting to see exactly what our Congress actually thinks of us, the Constitution and our rights. Let's change that in November. We do not need Congressmen who do not care about the Constitution, like Hare, or who think an island can capsize, as does Johnson. We need reasonably intelligent and educated people.
/
The Congressman responded, "I don't care about the Constitution."
Well, Mr. Hare, I'm sorry to hear that, considering that in order to BE a Congressman you had to swear an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution. Your response indicates that you have no interest in upholding the law of the land, so you are in breach of your oath of office and need to step down. (It does not help that when asked, he did not know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.)
People of Illinois, if you believe in the Constitution - you know, the little thing that makes sure you have basic human rights - then you owe it to yourselves and to the nation to impeach this clown. He is unworthy of holding ANY elected office anywhere in America.
It is thoroughly disgusting to see exactly what our Congress actually thinks of us, the Constitution and our rights. Let's change that in November. We do not need Congressmen who do not care about the Constitution, like Hare, or who think an island can capsize, as does Johnson. We need reasonably intelligent and educated people.
/
Double-Speak
"AP - The nation's economy posted its largest job gain in three years in March, while the unemployment rate remained at 9.7 percent for the third straight month."
[Editor] I hope I am not alone in noticing what appears to be administration double-speak here. If there are significant job gains, as touted here, then should not the unemployment rate show that?
"The Labor Department said employers added 162,000 jobs in March, the most since the recession began but below analysts' expectations of 190,000. The total includes 48,000 temporary workers hired for the U.S. Census.'
[Editor] I see - a full 25% of those "gains" are bogus - not only are they government jobs, which do not count because they put no new money into the economy, but they are VERY temporary.
"More Americans entered the work force last month, which prevented the increase in jobs from reducing the unemployment rate."
[Editor] This sounds plausible and makes this liberal-slanted story appear legitimate until you actually stop and think:
There is not a month goes by that more Americans do not enter the workforce - every month, kids turn of working age.Using that as an excuse this month and not taking it into account in previous months is disingenuous, to say the least. In ANY month where the unemployment rate remains unchanged, that shows that jobs were gained and lost at the same rate because more workers entered the job market. It is simple math. If someone gets a job but the jobless rate is unchanged, then someone else must have either lost a job or a new worker did not find one. If you have ten people and only five are working, the unemployment rate is 50%. If you add two people who turn of age, and one of those finds a job, you STILL have an unemployment rate of 50%. Are more people working"? Yes - six are working. But more people are also unemployed, because in order for the rate not to change, six, instead of five are now unemployed.
In short, this AP article is the typical liberal spin that AP churns out. The facts are far different from the story they paint - because the rate is unchanged, yet people were added to the job market, that can only mean that more people (numbers, not percentage) are unemployed than before.
When you add people to the job market, yet the unemployment rate remains the same, that means at least half the new job seekers are now joining the ranks of the unemployed. So, while the "rate" is unchanged, the number of unemployed is up, not down as this story intentionally tries to falsely imply.
/
[Editor] I hope I am not alone in noticing what appears to be administration double-speak here. If there are significant job gains, as touted here, then should not the unemployment rate show that?
"The Labor Department said employers added 162,000 jobs in March, the most since the recession began but below analysts' expectations of 190,000. The total includes 48,000 temporary workers hired for the U.S. Census.'
[Editor] I see - a full 25% of those "gains" are bogus - not only are they government jobs, which do not count because they put no new money into the economy, but they are VERY temporary.
"More Americans entered the work force last month, which prevented the increase in jobs from reducing the unemployment rate."
[Editor] This sounds plausible and makes this liberal-slanted story appear legitimate until you actually stop and think:
There is not a month goes by that more Americans do not enter the workforce - every month, kids turn of working age.Using that as an excuse this month and not taking it into account in previous months is disingenuous, to say the least. In ANY month where the unemployment rate remains unchanged, that shows that jobs were gained and lost at the same rate because more workers entered the job market. It is simple math. If someone gets a job but the jobless rate is unchanged, then someone else must have either lost a job or a new worker did not find one. If you have ten people and only five are working, the unemployment rate is 50%. If you add two people who turn of age, and one of those finds a job, you STILL have an unemployment rate of 50%. Are more people working"? Yes - six are working. But more people are also unemployed, because in order for the rate not to change, six, instead of five are now unemployed.
In short, this AP article is the typical liberal spin that AP churns out. The facts are far different from the story they paint - because the rate is unchanged, yet people were added to the job market, that can only mean that more people (numbers, not percentage) are unemployed than before.
When you add people to the job market, yet the unemployment rate remains the same, that means at least half the new job seekers are now joining the ranks of the unemployed. So, while the "rate" is unchanged, the number of unemployed is up, not down as this story intentionally tries to falsely imply.
/
Thursday, April 1, 2010
This Is No April Fool's Prank...
But this clown is certainly an fool. When I first heard of this, I thought it was a prank. Come to find out, it is true - a Democrat Congressman from Georgie, Hank Johnson, was taped making the statement in a Congressional hearing that if we add more troops to Guam, he was afraid the island "would tip over and capsize." You can see the actual video and read the actual transcripts here - it's so-o-o funny.
To the people of Georgia, you should be fully ashamed of yourselves for electing such an obvious moron to represent you. Do you not believe you deserve better?
/
To the people of Georgia, you should be fully ashamed of yourselves for electing such an obvious moron to represent you. Do you not believe you deserve better?
/
Is Free Speech Infinite?
When the Westboro Baptist Church, an anti-gay group based in Topeka, Kan., picketed the 2006 funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder bearing signs that read "God Hates the USA," "God Hates Gays" and God Loves Dead Soldiers", the serviceman's father, Albert Snyder, sued for infliction of emotional distress, winning an $11 million judgment in 2007. But that did not end it.Upon appeal, Snyder's award was overturned and a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge last week ordered Snyder to pay $16,510.80 of the Westboro Baptist Church's almost $100,000 in legal fees.
Bill O'Reilly of FOX NEWS' "The O'Reilly Factor" says he will pay the legal tab for the father of the fallen Marine. Said O'Reilly,: "I'm not going to let this injustice stand."
On Good Morning America Snyder stated, "It was bad enough that they reversed the decision, but then to tell me I had to pay them money so they can do this to more military funerals, that's what hurts the most."
The so-called "church", which bears no resemblance to anything Christian is well-known for it vile hatred of almost everyone but themselves. They make it their life's work to promote hatred for gays, soldiers and almost anyone else not in their little clicque. According to them, God does not love; God hates. And there is nothing Christian in that.
But the legal argument is what I find interesting here. In the first court action, the judge determined the "church" had over-stepped their right to free speech by imposing their hate speech at a funeral, where a certain decorum is expected and deserved. The appeals court found otherwise - that people have the right to ANY speech, any time and any place.
I believe the appeals court has conveniently overlooked the concept that freedom of speech is not infinite. It does not permit libel. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And you cannot incite violence or a riot. Exceptions to free speech are made because there is an unspoken part in all our rights - while we do have certain rights, we do not have the right to abuse those rights. Rights come with responsibilities. And this "church" completely ignores responsibilities and overtly abuses their right to free speech.
This will go to the Supreme Court. It's hard to say how they will find, since several of the justices are activists, and do not pay much heed to the Constitution. But I suspect Snyder will win in the end, because this, so far, is a horrible miscarriage of justice. It always is, when the bad guys win and the honorable are beaten down.
So, folks, what do you think? Would you feel this "church" has a right to come to the funeral of one of your own loved ones, and picket, protest and denegrate the memory of that loved one? Or if they came and did that at your own wedding - should "free speech" allow that?
/
Bill O'Reilly of FOX NEWS' "The O'Reilly Factor" says he will pay the legal tab for the father of the fallen Marine. Said O'Reilly,: "I'm not going to let this injustice stand."
On Good Morning America Snyder stated, "It was bad enough that they reversed the decision, but then to tell me I had to pay them money so they can do this to more military funerals, that's what hurts the most."
The so-called "church", which bears no resemblance to anything Christian is well-known for it vile hatred of almost everyone but themselves. They make it their life's work to promote hatred for gays, soldiers and almost anyone else not in their little clicque. According to them, God does not love; God hates. And there is nothing Christian in that.
But the legal argument is what I find interesting here. In the first court action, the judge determined the "church" had over-stepped their right to free speech by imposing their hate speech at a funeral, where a certain decorum is expected and deserved. The appeals court found otherwise - that people have the right to ANY speech, any time and any place.
I believe the appeals court has conveniently overlooked the concept that freedom of speech is not infinite. It does not permit libel. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And you cannot incite violence or a riot. Exceptions to free speech are made because there is an unspoken part in all our rights - while we do have certain rights, we do not have the right to abuse those rights. Rights come with responsibilities. And this "church" completely ignores responsibilities and overtly abuses their right to free speech.
This will go to the Supreme Court. It's hard to say how they will find, since several of the justices are activists, and do not pay much heed to the Constitution. But I suspect Snyder will win in the end, because this, so far, is a horrible miscarriage of justice. It always is, when the bad guys win and the honorable are beaten down.
So, folks, what do you think? Would you feel this "church" has a right to come to the funeral of one of your own loved ones, and picket, protest and denegrate the memory of that loved one? Or if they came and did that at your own wedding - should "free speech" allow that?
/
Should (Ex) Cons Vote?
The misnamed Democracy Restoration Act, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., (whose politician wife is a convicted felon) would force all states to immediately restore the voting rights of convicted felons the moment they leave prison -- even if they're on probation or have paid none of the civil penalties imposed on them.
I have a problem with restoring the right to vote to ex-cons, and so should everyone. Here's why...
Paying your debt does not make you any less a shopaholic. You pay your debts, presumably, but you keep shopping. Ex-cons paid their debts, presumably, but that in no way means they will not continue on as criminals. The recitivism rate is extremely high.
Assuming 4 million ex-cons, that would represent a huge bloc of voters, since only 60 million people vote. Ex-cons could swing elections. And, since they want the "system" to be friendlier to them, they would vote for politicians that are soft on crime. This would encourage crime, and that is not something that would be a good thing for America.
The Democrats (in Congress, which is not the same as Democrats on the street) in particular want to restore voting rights to cons because more than 80% of ex-cons tend to lean Democrat. And Democrats are well-known to be the party of "bleeding heart liberals" - the same people who want gang murderers and cop killers freed. Democrats would treat ex-cons "better".
So it would seem the Democrats in Congress (not the Democrats on the streets of America) are trying to put another "voting bloc" in their corner as they did with welfare. I understand that. But what I fail to understand is why even left-wing loons like Conyers would want to do that in ways that will harm all Americans by giving ex-cons the ability to change the face of America in ways that benefit criminals.
And it is interesting to note, and to show as proof that this is an attempt at buying votes, that Conyers and his liberal ilk are not advocating for the restoration of any other rights for cons. Nope - just voting rights. The liberals are not requesting that ex-cons be allowed to serve on jury duty, or to possess firearms.
Apparently even Conyers does not trust ex-cons very much. He just wants their votes. I find it despicable when anyone, particularly a politician, so blatantly tries to "use" people in that manner, for their own personal gain.
/
I have a problem with restoring the right to vote to ex-cons, and so should everyone. Here's why...
Paying your debt does not make you any less a shopaholic. You pay your debts, presumably, but you keep shopping. Ex-cons paid their debts, presumably, but that in no way means they will not continue on as criminals. The recitivism rate is extremely high.
Assuming 4 million ex-cons, that would represent a huge bloc of voters, since only 60 million people vote. Ex-cons could swing elections. And, since they want the "system" to be friendlier to them, they would vote for politicians that are soft on crime. This would encourage crime, and that is not something that would be a good thing for America.
The Democrats (in Congress, which is not the same as Democrats on the street) in particular want to restore voting rights to cons because more than 80% of ex-cons tend to lean Democrat. And Democrats are well-known to be the party of "bleeding heart liberals" - the same people who want gang murderers and cop killers freed. Democrats would treat ex-cons "better".
So it would seem the Democrats in Congress (not the Democrats on the streets of America) are trying to put another "voting bloc" in their corner as they did with welfare. I understand that. But what I fail to understand is why even left-wing loons like Conyers would want to do that in ways that will harm all Americans by giving ex-cons the ability to change the face of America in ways that benefit criminals.
And it is interesting to note, and to show as proof that this is an attempt at buying votes, that Conyers and his liberal ilk are not advocating for the restoration of any other rights for cons. Nope - just voting rights. The liberals are not requesting that ex-cons be allowed to serve on jury duty, or to possess firearms.
Apparently even Conyers does not trust ex-cons very much. He just wants their votes. I find it despicable when anyone, particularly a politician, so blatantly tries to "use" people in that manner, for their own personal gain.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)