Thoughts on Lots

Response to John Prezel's Hijacking of Property Tax Elimination

2008-02-01T20:07:00.000-05:00

And what about property tax relief for those of us on disability? We didn't have the advantage of being able to work and collect retirement or have any considerable money put away in 401k's? Seniors get a lot of benefits and quite frankly I"m tired of being the forgotten minority. We don't get any of the benefits that seniors receive. And on top of all that we have many more years of deteriorating purchasing power because of benefit increases of only 2% but yet we are expected to pay as if we are working full time jobs.

Economic Stimulus Idea for Representative Platts

2008-01-18T10:14:00.000-05:00

If you want to create buying power in the US you give the people who are going to spend what they get immediately.

So with that in mind give those on Social Security, Disability and SSI a bonus. It doesn't cost as much as a tax cut, it's not permanant and it will help those that are already living on incomes that have not kept pace with food, energy and property taxes.

A Note to Harrisburg on Taxes

2007-09-27T22:17:00.000-04:00

Just the other day I had the opportunity to hear part of Governor Rendell's speech on PCN. I don't know who he was addressing or what the purpose of the event was but I immediately perked up when I heard the Governor suggest that we shouldn't eliminate property taxes. Governor Rendell says that he believes we should maintain a balance of taxation that should include property taxes, income taxes and sales taxes. Did he forget the phone taxes, gas taxes, tire taxes, lodging taxes, airport taxes, etc. and his newest goal to put an additional tax on our electric bills? Why would our government want to continue property taxation. For two reasons. First it keeps government in control because a property owner must rent their land from the local authorities until the day they die. And second as long as it continues to be a revenue stream our government can raise it at will. It's much easier to increase existing revenue streams while it's much harder to create new ones.

As for the smart metering being advocated by Governor Rendell and many in the legislature - we don't need meters to know that electricity is cheaper in the evening hours. As residential electricity consumers we can only control the washer, dryer and dishwasher which are the smallest consumption appliances. What we can't control is the heat, the A/C and the refrigerator which are the biggest electricity hogs. Consumers don't need yet another tax on our electric bills that will suck more money out of our wallets every time the legislature finds new creative spending program.

What we need is a government that will say loud and clear that deregulation has failed and until there is a competitive environment of electric suppliers the caps will remain in place.
What we need is a government that understands that the American dream is to own your own property and will eliminate property taxes in their entirety.
What we need is a government that will begin public financing of campaigns so that everyone that wants to serve, can serve.
What we need is a government that will eliminate the ridiculous ballot rules that prevent non-mainstream parties from appearing on the ballot.
What we need is a government that understands that they are our elected servants and that its constituents believe in a government of the people and by the people.

Print Story: Pentagon Paid $999,798 to Ship Two 19-Cent Washers to Texas on Yahoo! News

2007-08-17T16:51:00.000-04:00

Print Story: Pentagon Paid $999,798 to Ship Two 19-Cent Washers to Texas on Yahoo! News

Social Security Increases tied to CPI for the Elderly?

2007-08-11T16:04:00.000-04:00

NCPSSM: Social Security HB 1953 Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers

Social Security and the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly Social Security and the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly

A Follow up with DePasquale on Prescription for PA

2007-08-11T14:25:00.000-04:00

Eugene,

I can't specifically site instances of collusion between pharma and doctors it's merely antidotal from my experiences with many doctors and listening to others recount their experiences. As the old saying goes "to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail". IE to a doctor with a cholesterol blocking drug everyone with an elevated cholesterol level needs to be medicated; while in reality the role of cholesterol has not really been determined. The current assumption is that cholesterol leads to increased evidence of heart attacks but I've also heard theories that cholesterol is the bodies way of repairing inflammation in the body. The latest on the statin drugs used to treat high cholesterol levels - well there is some evidence that they cause heart problems. Hmmm... Go figure, BIG PHARMA is wrong again. As with everything in America these days it's driven by capitalistic greed. Products are rushed to market and in many cases pharma is employing scare tactics to create markets where none previously existed in fear that their R&D won't pay off for their shareholders.

Or take Adderal and Ritalin which are hugely prescribed to children to control ADHD and ADD. Rambunctious use to be an adjective that would be used to describe many children. Now they've been turned into drug addicts (after all Adderal and Ritalin are drugs that have been sold in the black market for years also known as speed) so they'll sit on a sofa and do nothing and the parents won't have to "deal" with their children. It still amazes me that you have to have a license to drive a car or to get married or to modify your property but you don't have to take any test or show any maturity or have any financial resources at all before having a child.

And since I'm on the subject of BIG PHARMA, how about AZT prescribed to HIV+ people. A drug that was originally developed in the 1960's as a cancer treatment costing roughly 60 cents per pill but sold to people with serious health problems for $100 a pill and more and often subsidized by the state taxpayers in order to allow these suffering/dying individuals have a little more quality of life.

And how many times do we hear about drugs that have gone wrong causing more problems than they solve. Modern Medicine would have you believe that longevity is an indicator of a healthier society but in reality it is merely an indicator of living more years. Medications have created a huge crisis in health care; while extending peoples lives they have at the same time created a system that requires people to spend many more years suffering until they finally die. Lying in assisted living and full care facilities, many times incoherent or unable to even leave their beds or wheel chairs. Is this the society that we really want to create and live in? I'll take quality of life over quantity any day.

My main point in my note to you however was that I really disagree with extending nurse practitioners into the realm of a doctor. They aren't trained to have the same expertise at diagnosing as a doctor is and I can tell you that I've already had nurse practitioners performing diagnostics on me without consulting with a doctor nor did a doctor come in and discuss any of my concerns. A nurse practitioner may be able to treat a diagnosis but they aren't going to know if the diagnosis is inaccurate and therefore they may continue treating inappropriately. The exposure of risking peoples lives just isn't worth the cost (profit - if you're an insurance company). Although a nurse practitioner may be able to help with cuts, scrapes, breaks and other everyday obvious events they should not be allowed to diagnose any internal symptoms. Of course most people should be capable of dealing with these obvious incidents without the aid of a doctor or practitioner to begin with so what role would they really fill? And from my experience with nurse practitioners my bill isn't any cheaper when I walk out the door. I still pay the full price even though I did not get the expertise. I wonder where that extra profit goes?

Sincerely,
Todd Clay

Response from DePasquale on PA's Prescription for PA

2007-08-11T14:24:00.001-04:00

Todd:

Thank you for the email and sharing your perspwectives. While the hospital acquired infection policy may appear to be commonsense it wasn't being implemented. This is why the state took action.

Regarding prescriptions, I agree that we need to be vigilant on ensuring that there is no collusion between the maker of the prescription and the drug company. If there is any concern please let me know and I will pass that information along to the Attorney General. That is potentially a crime.

Again, thank you for your email.

Sincerely,
Eugene

A democracy is always temporary in nature...

2007-08-10T07:07:00.000-04:00

A democracy is always temporary in nature... A very interesting thought on why a democracy cannot last.

A Note to DePasquale on Prescription for PA

2007-07-31T23:36:00.000-04:00

Prescription for Pennsylvania

Nothing wrong with attacking infections although I don't know why in gods name this has to be something that is done by our state legislature. Seems like common sense medicine to me. The mere fact that it requires some type of legislation tells me that something is seriously wrong in the medical profession.

Doctors these days are less qualified than those of my childhood days. I went to five doctors and the ER 3 times before I was finally diagnosed with appendicitis - months of suffering with terrible stomach pain, chills and a loss of 50+ pounds. I could hardly get out of bed most days and they kept telling me it was Irritable Bowel. Even with all the advancements in lab and radiological testing they can't diagnose a simple case of appendicitis.

The problem seems to be very similar to the children that grew up with calculators. If a machine doesn't tell them how much change to give they don't have a clue. Our doctors have fallen into this same crisis where they can't diagnose without a confirmation lab test and since they often err on ordering only common tests based on age, medical history and commonality of disease, etc they can't diagnose and often chalk up problems to anxiety and/or depression. Which tells me they can't even differentiate between emotional and physical problems.

The other problem that currently is plaguing the medical profession is the rush to dispense whatever is being advertised on TV (pushed by the drug companies). I cannot tell you how many medications have been recalled in recent years due to people suffering from irreversible complications. Arthyritis drugs, stents, and many others with Advandia, a diabetes drug, now coming under fire for problems. They can't even agree on what is healthy for us to eat without recanting what was in vogue last year.

The last thing we need to do is expand health care to even lesser qualified individuals. This is a bad idea for all Pennsylvanians -- VOTE NO!!!

NCPSSM: Medicare Advantage Overpayments

2007-07-18T11:50:00.000-04:00

NCPSSM: Medicare This is an update on the continuing effort by NCPSSM to protect the Medicare system from becoming insolvent.

Lock Box Government Taxation

2007-07-04T15:03:00.000-04:00

House Democratic proposal would fix roads, bridges and transit Although I'm not sure if this is the right action to take to repair PA's crumbling infrastructure I did want to suggest that all money coming from taxes should be EARMARKED instead of going into the slush fund commonly referred to as the "General Fund".

Any fund which allows legislative digression over our tax money is bound to be mis-spent. I hereby suggest that every dollar of tax money should be itemized at the point of collection to identify it's future disposition. For example our paycheck should show exactly how many dollars are going to education, health care, infrastructure, etc. The money should be placed into "lock boxes" preventing the funds from instituting any new programs. If a new program is to be funded it would require a unique tax to support it which must be identified at point of collection.

NCPSSM: Medicare Part D

2007-07-04T14:54:00.000-04:00

NCPSSM: Medicare Yet another important document concerning the cost and benefit of Medicare Part D.

NCPSSM: Medicare

2007-07-04T14:52:00.000-04:00

NCPSSM: Medicare This is a very important review of the movement away from traditional Medicare into the private insurance industry and should be read by all American Citizens.

Congressman Todd Russell Platts & Medicare

2007-07-04T14:48:00.000-04:00

I would like you to support Representative Stark's bill requiring that all Medicare Advantage Plans provide a base coverage that is not less than the original Medicare coverage without additional costs.

I cannot begin to tell you how confusing purchasing health care has become. Plan comparisons are almost impossible because each provider not only offers multiple plans but they don't list and in reality and can't list every co-pay for every lab test or procedure. And even though I feel I purchased a good plan I never know what my out-of-pocket expenses will be for lab tests or procedures and it wouldn't be a relevant factor for choosing health care because you never know what test or procedure you may need.

I'm even going to go further and suggest that you support a single payer system. It's time to get the profit out of health care insurance which runs about 40% of the price being charged.

I would also like to have a list of the health care lobbyist that provide financial support for you and the amounts they contribute.

2008 PA Budget

2007-07-04T14:27:00.000-04:00

Dear Representative DePasquale,

It's time for the state to stop funding new programs. Energy will take care of it's self as alternatives become financial feasible. The states primary funding goal should be to move towards funding education to the same percentage of the budget as it use to. That would be the biggest impact on reducing property taxes. It's the addition of all these other programs that have eroded the funding of education and it must STOP!

The Truth Seeker - The Origins of Modern Banking

2007-01-28T11:05:00.000-05:00

The Origins of Modern Banking

Kieron McFadden

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from banks, and restored to the people.” Thomas Jefferson

Money was originally invented as a convenient alternative to barter, an alternative without which a highly developed civilisation like ours could not exist.

Imagine trying to pay the taxi driver with a bag of coal or the grocery bill with a box of spanners and a set of golf clubs. Imagine trying to carry all that around with you when you go shopping. As societies grew more complex and social roles became more specialised, the idea of money was conceived as a better and more flexible way to exchange, and thereby distribute among men, goods and services.

Money is quite simply an idea agreed upon among people that some system of tokens or symbols: discs of metal (coins) paper with symbols on it (notes) and so on, will be used by them to represent or stand proxy for goods and services and that those tokens can be exchanged for goods and services. One can then exchange the tokens rather than bags of coal, boxes of spanners or what-have-you and the tokens are easy to carry around. Its workability depends upon the participants' confidence that those tokens are and will continue to be exchangeable for a certain amount of goods or services.

That's all money is. It is no more complicated than that, although men may try to make it seem complex and hard to understand. The truth however, as truths tend to be, is simple; it is alterations of the truth - lies -that are complicated.

Many societies have used gold and silver coins as their tokens, then later pieces of paper to represent gold and silver coins, and later cheques and ledger entries to represent notes and coins and in modern times electronic money, the shifting and balancing of numbers in computer memories, alongside or in place of coins, notes and cheques. Thus when we receive a computer print-out of our bank statement saying we have £500 in our current account we usually visualise a stack of £l0 notes sitting in a vault somewhere, or perhaps a bag of gold coins, although in reality there is no pile of notes or bag of coins, merely the ledger-entry in an electronic memory Saying we have £500. Should we then write a cheque in order to spend £50 of it, the numbers in our ledger change to £450 and the payee's account increases by £50, although no notes, gold or anything else move from one account to another.

Yet it works because we have confidence in it and trust it and we know we can change that £500 for real notes, real coins or real goods or services whenever we want to.

This evolution in the system of tokens we use to represent real goods and services comes about through a succession of bright ideas in the direction of making distribution and exchange more convenient, the movement of wealth between people smoother and faster. However, anything can be used for money, provided people agree to use it and have confidence in it. For instance dried yak dung was once used in Tibet, notched pieces of wood in Medieval England, leather discs in Medieval Europe and even cigarettes and tins of coffee in post-war Germany. The money in use in a country is called currency, from the word current, meaning prevalent, in circulation or in use.

Governments firm up that agreement and confidence by enshrining a particular system of tokens in law and demanding those tokens in payment of taxes. A particular system of creating, denominating, issuing and circulating money - currency - where backed by law and deemed by law the only recognised system, and which cannot be legally refused as payment of a debt, is called legal tender. Where barter is no longer practised, one has to possess those tokens in order to acquire goods and services from others. It is the medium of exchange. Tokens, be they yak dung, metal discs or numbers with the '£' symbol in front of them, are exchanged back and forth between people instead of goods and exchange does now usually occur without the use of tokens or the promise of tokens on the future.

The way one acquires tokens is by producing something and then selling it to someone who has expressed his want for it by offering us some of his tokens. We do the deal and receive the tokens he has offered. Now we can go and exchange those tokens for other products that we desire, which we do not produce ourselves. Thus money enables goods and services to be exchanged among people and distribution of those goods and services to occur naturally, and according to the needs and wants of the participants.

The more of those tokens one possesses or is able to acquire through one's production, the more one can if one wishes acquire goods and services from others. One can also store money in a safe or bank account without having to build a couple of warehouses in which to store container-loads of spare goods. Money therefore confers exchange power or spending power on he who possesses it in direct ratio to the amount of it he is able to offer up for exchange.

GOLDSMITHS

In the old days gold was minted into coins and those coins, along with silver coins, formed the nation's currency. Goldsmiths had strongboxes and vaults in which to securely store the precious metal with which they worked. It was natural enough then that other people took to asking the goldsmith to store their gold and gold coins in his vault and to pay the goldsmith for the service. A merchant (for example) would entrust to the goldsmith £20 worth of his own gold for safekeeping. When he handed over his gold, the goldsmith would provide him with a receipt or note promising to hand back the gold (pay the bearer on demand) whenever the depositor returned and presented the note. The receipt held by the depositor was in fact as good as gold because he could exchange it for his £20 worth of gold any time he chose. But the note was easier to carry around than heavy and bulky amounts of gold and easier to conceal, so the depositor was often content to leave his gold in the goldsmith's safekeeping for long periods. In fact when the time came to pay for some commodity with his £20 of gold, instead of returning to the goldsmith, exchanging the receipt for the gold and then using the gold to pay for his purchase, it was more convenient for him simply to hand over his receipt to the seller. The seller was happy to accept the receipt in lieu of actual gold because it was more convenient to carry around and he knew that should he present it to the goldsmith, £20 of gold would be handed over to him.

Thus those gold receipts began to circulate and became the first paper money. People were happy to exchange them back and forth rather than the cumbersome gold they represented. The receipts had value because people were confident that in the goldsmith's vault lay the gold, which they could redeem at any time.

Eventually the goldsmiths noticed that the gold left by depositors remained in their vaults for longer and longer periods. People turned up wishing to exchange their receipts for gold less and less often, and that the receipts they had issued to depositors circulated in its stead. It seemed a shame to have that gold just sitting there doing nothing. Why not lend some of it out for a while? If it just sat there for year after year the owner, the holder of the receipt, was not going to miss it if it were loaned to someone else for a period.

As long as there was enough gold in the vaults to satisfy anyone who did turn up with a receipt, then no-one would be any the wiser. So depositor Joe would leave £20 of gold with the goldsmith for safekeeping and depart with his receipt which he would then use as money in lieu of the gold and it would circulate. It might be years before anyone turned up with that £20 note asking for £20 of gold. Meanwhile Tom would turn up at the goldsmith's asking to borrow £20 of gold and the goldsmith would lend it to him, demanding that it be paid back after a certain period at a certain amount of interest. But instead of lending Tom actual gold, the goldsmith would draw up a £20 receipt, just like the one depositor Joe had been given. Tom was happy to take the receipt in lieu of the gold because it was more convenient to carry around and people were happy to accept such receipts in payment for things.

So Tom went off with his £20 note, content that through it he was now in temporary possession of £20 of gold. But unbeknownst to Tom, Joe also has a receipt representing that gold. In other words there are now two notes in circulation representing the same £20 of gold! Clearly the goldsmith's issuance of two receipts for the same amount of gold is fraudulent - particularly when Tom repays the gold he believes he has borrowed in real gold. As each receipt promises to hand over the same £20 of gold on demand, the goldsmith is making a promise he knows he cannot keep.

Several things are clear at the moment the second receipt was issued and entered circulation: new money has been created out of thin air; that new money has been loaned into existence; as the loan has interest charged upon it, then a debt has been created out of nothing that is greater than the amount of new money created.

And another thing: Tom will eventually return to the goldsmith and repay his £20 loan, say at 10% interest. He will therefore hand the goldsmith, £22 in real gold. In other words, the goldsmith, in creating that bogus receipt and lending it to Tom, is creating for himself, albeit after a delay, real debt-free gold worth more than the new money he loaned into existence! It gets worse.

After a while the goldsmith, seeing that his fraud is working pretty well, thinks that if he can issue two £20 receipts against the same £20 of gold, then why not two, three or even four?

So Joe deposits £20 of gold and the goldsmith gives him his receipt. In time four other people turn up at his shop wanting to borrow that £20 of gold. The goldsmith obligingly lends it to each of them at interest, giving each a receipt purporting to represent that £20 of gold. There are now five receipts in circulation representing the same deposit of gold, one for the original depositor and one for each of the four borrowers. For that deposit of £20, £80 (4x £20) of new money is created merely by writing on a fancy piece of paper.

If(say) £2 of interest (10%) is charged on each loan, at the same time that £80 of new money is created out of thin air, a debt of £88 is also created out of thin air.

Property is held as security against these loans so if the borrower fails to repay with real gold the fraudulent piece of paper he borrowed, the goldsmith takes his property.

Each time the goldsmith lends £20 of bogus gold he charges 10% interest on the loan. By lending out £20 four times over and charging £2 interest on each loan, the goldsmith makes a whopping 40% (four times £2) in interest on the £20 "reserves" that were not even his to begin with! The goldsmith cannot lose and soon begins to amass a fortune from his fraud. It is the greatest get-rich-quick scheme ever invented. And it is, in essence, the basis of the modern banking system.

The goldsmiths of yesteryear became the bankers of today and although paper money and latterly electronic money took over from gold, essentially the same fraud is being run.

BANKERS

The business of lending pieces of paper pretending to be gold made the goldsmiths very wealthy and very influential men. Their easy wealth enabled them to move to upmarket premises. They became pillars of the community and some even became international financiers, lending money to kings and governments.

In the seventeenth century conflict between the bankers of the day and the Stuarts led the bankers to act in concert with bankers in Europe. They joined forces with those in the Netherlands to finance the invasion of England by William of Orange. William overthrew the Stuart Kings in 1688 and became King William III.

By the end of the 1600s England was in financial ruin, gold and silver supplies were running low and a costly civil war followed by costly wars with France and Holland, all in a fifty year period, had left her heavily in debt.

Government officials met with the financiers to negotiate the loans they needed. King William was £20 million in debt and he could not pay his army. Apparently it did not occur to William or anyone that if William needed to pay his army or get the economy going, all he had to do was have the government print its own money and use that to pay the troops -something that Abraham Lincoln would do successfully during the American Civil war nearly two hundred years later!

King William's "friends", the bankers, were willing to loan him the money he needed but the price they wanted for their "help" was high. They wanted a government-sanctioned but privately owned central bank that could; through fractional reserve lending, create money out of nothing and loan it to the government.

They got their way. In 1694 the world's first privately owned central bank was created. It was to be called the Bank of England. The Bank's charter included the following immortal words: "The bank hath benefit on the interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing."

Instead of exercising its right to create money and spend it into the economy, the government had the bank create it, then lend it to the government so that the government could spend it into the economy, then pay the loans back later at interest. That completely unnecessary complication was to have devastating consequences for the futures of the English people.

As well as delivering extraordinary power over the nation into the hands of a privately owned business corporation, it began the National Debt, a debt that would go on increasing remorselessly over the ensuing years until it had reached around £380 billion in 1996, costs us around £30 billion a year in interest payments and is still climbing.

By the end of the 17th century, the goldsmiths' scam had become respectable banking. The role of the banks in issuing money through lending to individuals and businesses had already become widely accepted. Thus there came to be established two routes by which money was borrowed into the economy: private and commercial borrowing on the one hand and government borrowing on the other. That combined debt in the present day has now soared to well over one trillion pounds.

In 1704, just ten years after the creation of the Bank of England, the banks' promissory notes, on the recommendation of the bankers and financiers who advised the government, were declared legal tender.

Although the new central bank was an entirely privately owned corporation, the name chosen for it led generations of Englishmen to believe that it was part of their government, when it most certainly was not. Like any other privately owned corporation the new central bank sold shares to create its initial capital. Its investors - whose identities were never disclosed - were supposed to put up a total of £1 ¼ million in gold coin to purchase their shares. Only three quarters of a million was ever received.

Nevertheless, despite that minor technicality, the bank was chartered in 1694 and began the business of lending out several times the money it supposedly had in its reserves.

In exchange for this unique and immensely profitable privilege, the bank would very kindly lend the English, and later British, government as much money as it wanted, at interest, provided the debt was secured by direct taxation of the people.

THE MODERN INCARNATION OF FRAUD

What happens when you or I, or for that matter the government, borrow money from the bank? Prepare yourself for a surprise.

Let's say we want to borrow a £100,000 mortgage on a house. The bank or building society does what the goldsmith did and creates £100,000 out of thin air. Instead of handing us a paper certificate, it simply credits our bank account with the £100,000 and registers that £100,000 as a debt, with (say) a further £100,000 interest over 25 years. The money is simply penned into our account without any account anywhere being debited the loaned money. New money is therefore created. Alongside it a debt (in this case £100,000 plus the roughly £100,000 of interest) is created. When we repay the debt, the interest is accounted as income for the bank. The £100,000 we originally borrowed is withdrawn from circulation and is accounted as collateral for further lending, loaned back into circulation when someone else borrows.

Our house is held as security so if we fail to keep up our repayments, the creditor takes possession of it. The repayments themselves can vary through no fault of our own, according to interest rates set by the banking industry.

After 25 years of blood sweat and tears we finally pay back the last installment of the £200,000 capital-plus-interest we owed and the house in finally ours. It is not ours until that point.

The lender, who loaned us money which did not exist until the moment he created it out of nothing, winds up with £100,000 of interest on the loan: that is real, spendable income that comes courtesy of our real work and real wealth creation. The numbers have been simplified to highlight the nature of the fraud and in practise the process is hidden under a great deal of complexity but this in essence is the process of money creation.

Each time the banks create money they create a debt that is greater than the spending power they create. One can see too that each time they are creating a debt for the borrower, they are ultimately creating debt free money for themselves.

Before the goldsmiths' scam began, the money in circulation was hard currency - usually gold or silver minted into coins which then circulated as the tokens used to represent goods and services. That minting and circulation of coinage was usually administered by the government or king.

However as soon as the goldsmiths' certificates became used in lieu of gold, paper money had made an appearance. As soon as the goldsmiths began issuing paper notes for gold they did not actually have, the goldsmiths were themselves creating new money and lending it into circulation.

One can see that this establishes debt as the basis of our currency. Where once, long ago, the British pound represented something -so much gold or silver - it now represents so much debt, which is not only nothing it is less than nothing.

Extracted from: Your Business Under Siege…and the reasons why. Published by the BAMR, email: BAMR@bamr.fsnet.co.uk Tel: 01342410962 (UK)

“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce. And when we realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few very powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”
U.S. President James Garfield. A few weeks after making this statement, he was assassinated on July 12, 1818.

For a long time now, Xmas hasn't been what it once was

2006-12-26T22:15:00.000-05:00

A must read about the history of Christmas and how it was hijacked!

America Freedom to Fascism Authorized version

2006-12-04T00:39:00.000-05:00

Scary stuff...but a must see!

Please visit http://www.freedomtofascism.com to purchase the DVD.

This is the "Director's Final Cut" authorized version of Aaron Russo's documentary, America: Freedom To Fascism (AFTF). It is being uploaded to Google Video for the first time during the evening of October 19-20th, 2006. Aaron has listened to everyone's feedback - volunteers, students, lovers of freedom & liberty, young and old alike - and, true to his word, he is putting this up "for free" on Google Video knowing that the hour has come for Americans to either be awakened to restore the Republic or be swept aside by the dark global forces of fascism that seeks to enslave mankind.

AFTF's main focus comes in a statement with six very simple words: SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM!!

After viewing the movie, please be sure to visit http://www.freedomtofascism.com where you will soon be able to view a much higher quality "pay per view" Internet version of AFTF, buy the DVD and sign up as an affiliate to sell/distribute DVDs to others.

We also urge everyone to be sure to sign up as volunteer, register for email alerts and tell your family, friends and neighbors about this groundbreaking movie.

Hospitals - Stop Blowing Smoke!

2006-11-15T14:10:00.000-05:00

I don’t think anyone is going to dispute that there are consequences to smoking or that there are consequences to everything we put into our bodies including many prescriptions which are later banned because of “undesirable outcomes”. So I wonder have these hospitals eliminated all potato chips, Danishes, ice cream, soda, caffeine, etc from the premises in an attempt to prevent obesity and diabetes. Or maybe they should focus on hospital infection rates since there were as many of those last year as people dying of smoking related diseases.

Imposing your beliefs on others is nothing new. Hitler did it in Germany, Bush in Iraq, the Christians and the Muslems have been fighting in the Middle East as far back as I can remember. You might think these are extreme examples but they all have a common thread – intolerance always leads to hate and the only way to stop hate is to teach acceptance and tolerance.

On the surface a smoking ban is very politically correct but what about the people that will not seek prompt treatment because they don’t want to be deprived of their “smoky treats” or those that will not seek treatment at all due to the sheer anxiety of being separated from the one thing that helps them cope. On top of that people withdrawing from nicotine can get very nasty; but I guess since the nurses will have to deal with the patients and not the administrators – who cares?

Ultimately the only authority a private business has to enforce these rules is asking someone to leave their property which will result in gowned patients dragging their IV drips out to Rathton Road in the rain, snow and cold like high school children sneaking cigarettes in the bathrooms.

If the hospital truly wanted to do something productive they should put their money where their mouth is and offer free addiction therapy treatment for anyone desiring to change.

Mark Foley - Is he special?

2006-11-06T15:56:00.000-05:00

Week after week after week Dateline NBC airs their sting operation against child predators. So why when Representative Mark Foley confesses to the same behavior was he not cuffed, booked and hauled of to jail? What happened to equal protection under the law? Why does his self-proported addiction problem give him a pass?

Patriotism v. Religion

2006-11-01T10:50:00.000-05:00

I just received this from a friend. And it is typical American fare to somehow say that patriotism = religion. My personal belief, especially after George W. Bush's reign, that these types of thoughts do more to divide this country than unite us. And let's not forget that "divided we fall".

I'm proud to send this one

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!

I was asked to send this on if I agree or delete if I don't. It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a problem in having "In God! We Trust" on our money and having "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the 14% to Shut Up and BE QUIET!!!

If you agree, pass this on, if not delete.

I AGREE !!!!

"God Bless America."

PLEASE KEEP IT GOING---IT IS WELL WORTH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Needless to say - I didn't "keep it going".

My Mid-Term Election Endorsements for 2006

2006-10-27T00:31:00.000-04:00

PA Senator Bob Casey Jr - voting for him only to oust Rick Santorum

PA Representative 19th US District - ???? Platts, Avillo, Platts, Avillo - eany meany miny mo

PA State House 95th District Karen Emenheiser

Who's Defrauding Who?

2006-09-23T23:19:00.000-04:00

Dear Senator Waugh:

I'm writing about my concern over PA SB180.

Once again it seems that corporate America is dipping into the consumers' pocket and making it appear as if they are going out of the way to help protect consumers against fraud. As always, anyone with reasonable intelligence can see that the credit reporting companies are looking to pad their pockets with more money in fees and at the same time slow down the process of protecting consumer information by requiring registered letters (at the consumers expense) to be sent to each credit reporting agency to block access to personal credit information.

I propose to you that these companies are making money using data that clearly is owned by the consumer and the other financially interested party. If anyone should be paying; it should be the credit reporting agencies paying the consumer for selling our information without our consent! These financial transactions should be between the lender and borrower and not public information.

But I will concede that a change of that nature will not happen because it would obliterate the credit industry and we all know that would bring America to it's knees.

Let me propose instead of the current legislation that all credit reporting companies should protect ("freeze") all consumer information by default without the need for the consumer to send registered letters. And should the consumer desire to temporarily defrost their information; it should be limited to the specific agent specified by the consumer at no cost - instead of forcing the consumer to pay the credit reporting companies to "freeze" and then again to "defrost" their information every time there is a need to perform a financial transaction.

I also believe that the selling of mailing list by these companies is nothing more than scandalous and encourages identity theft by "wanna be" thieves by intercepting credit card and other financial mailings.

Again let me state that there should be no fees involved - this is our information, these companies should be paying us for the privilege.

Put That In Your Pipe and Smoke It!

2006-06-25T23:18:00.000-04:00

It's been many years since the Surgeon General put warnings on cigarette packs about the risks of smoking. And there is a constant debate by non-smokers trying to limit the rights of smokers.

So here are some of my thoughts on this and other similar subjects.

Combustion of many substances releases those carcinogenic chemicals that are often touted by the non-smoking finatics as making their throats close up, triggering asthma attacks, tearing eyes and all those other "allergic reactions" from having to walk through a "cloud" when entering a building. But you never hear them complain about the pollution coming from their tailpipes, fireplaces, candles or a myriad of other items, yet they contain an almost identical chemical list with the exclusion of the flavoring agents added to tobacco.

I wonder why? My guess is that nobody put a label on the outside telling them that their is a risk of cancer from the combustion of these various substances. So why hasn't the Surgeon General put the same warnings on these other items?

And with the increased incidence of Type II Diabetes, why haven't any items that contain carbohydrates/sugars been label as potentially increasing the risk of developing this now rampant disease? We have teenagers being diagnosed with Diabetes Type II at an alarming rate of a disease that used to be reserved for late adulthood. But not to worry the food pyramid will save us all.

And since our government has now set the precident of suing the tabacco companies for the health care costs of cancer (and by the way our state governments have mostly sold the ability to collect these funds over several years in order to get some much needed cash immediately to fund "projects" of various natures) why is it that our government has also created legislation to prevent the suing of fast food corporations for making people fat? Being overweight is a serious condition, just like cancer, it can kill you. Will sugar be next on the list of prohibited law suits?

Let me tell you sugar is addictive just like tobacco. I can guarantee if someone put a piece of romaine lettuce beside a nice chewy brownie and you had to choose one, you'd be choosing the chewy brownie. And for those of you that are thinking about telling me that you'd choose the lettuce - I suggest you've got some form of eating disorder surrounded by the guilt of being overweight.

Diabetes, obesity and cancer can all kill! But it's your choices that ultimately determine your future. Life is about taking responsibility for your choices, not blaming others. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!

UAV's

2006-06-10T11:52:00.000-04:00

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, one of the lastest technologies put into use for border control. I am just so annoyed with the bullshit our government spends ridiculous amounts of money on. By the way the first one crashed, but DHS is ordering 3 more. But while I was trying to get cost and use information on this 2100 pound flying drone which is basically used for surveilence over desert terrain, I came across another site The Center for Public Integrity and part of that site talks about the windfalls of war.

As I was looking over the various contractors and $$$ that are being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq I came across Dell Marketing (Dell Computers in disguise). The contract was given to them for $500,000,000

to provide the U.S. Army with PCs, servers, storage systems, networking equipment, operating systems, commercial software and accessories. The contracts also provide for biometric devices like fingerprint recognition and wearable computers.

Now most people know that you can get a pretty fancy laptop for around $1,500, but even if we assume an average cost of $3,000, which would include 100% premium for the cost of corruption, the contract would provide for roughly 166,666 computers but yet even if every deployed soldier was given a laptop there would still be left over computers.

On top of that, Dell was not the only computer firm to be awarded contracts for computer equipment. There were also contracts awarded to HP, GTSI Corporation, and Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems.

These are the "things" that just gall the American public. The lack of consideration of spending our tax dollars. When most Americans can't afford to have their own laptop and our government just has no cosideration for the effort of the American public to generate the money they spend. And what happens to these computers after the war? I mean why didn't our forces already have the necessary equipment prior to the war? Do we really need to purchase all new equipment every time we get involved in a conflict? And with all the governmental websites that abound none of them explain true value of these easily spent dollars. It's always a contract that list some vague non-quantifiable item. When the American public enters into a contract we are very aware of the terms and conditions prior to signing the bottom line. For example the contract would specify:

1 Dodge RAM, purchase price $35,000

Trade-in reduction $ 5,000

Remaining balance $30,000

Financed over 5 years at 10.00%

for a total of $33,000

and a payment of $ 550 a month

So I hope I've made my point.

But remember this, right now the PA Legislature is considering transparancy rules concerning lobbyist disclosure. Although it seems that there may be a twice a year disclosure (which in this day in age is ridiculous - it really should be made available as it happens) they have not yet agreed to identify the reason the lobbyist has "taken them to a ball game". But without the identifying the organization, the $$$ and the reason we will have no more information to legitimize their actions than we do today.

Term Limits

2006-06-09T23:19:00.000-04:00

"Term limits" sounds like a great idea given the constant corruption in our government. But as with most process changes people don't really think about the implications. Just this year in PA after the pay raise issue and then the legislators attempt to increase their pensions and the lack of property tax reform the electorate showed several incumbants just where the door was, which was a big suprise to many long-term incumbants. But what didn't happen was that several district legislators weren't ousted because they had no contender or they had a poor contender.

So what would happen if we should instill some term limit? My guess would be that more often than not we would replace a tolerable legislator with a "newbie" just because we had no other choice and in many instances it would more than likely be an unopposed election. Is that really what we want to do?

As long as money remains the primary control over the election process the electorate will rarely have a chance of electing someone that will truely represent them regardless of term limits. Let's face facts, the parties control the elections by controlling the primaries. Just look at the PA Federal Senate race. Our primary choices were: Rick Santorum, Bob Casey Jr, Adam Sandels and Chuck Pinacchio and even though Chuck Pinacchio obviously resonated with voters the most during the debates and Bob Casey Jr the least, Bob still managed to pull off winning the primary even though he failed to assert his position on any particular subject. And once again we will be stuck voting for the lessor of two evils during the November elections.

We already have term limits, it's called voting, because as we could tell by the changes that have already occured as a result of the primaries here in PA several long time legislators will soon become lobbyists.

Shocked Yet Again - Federal Constitution Gay Marriage Ban Ammendment

2006-06-09T22:24:00.000-04:00

I just continually seem to be baffled by the action of our government. As you may or may not know on this past Wednesday a vote was taken by the Senate on ammending the Constitution of America to ban gay marriage. (It failed, short by 18 votes of the 2/3 majority needed.) Now I'm not suprised by the typical political propoganda to try and rally the voters by using the old "demise of society" for one reason or another. But I am suprised that the ammendment would actually encourage promiscuous sexual behavior by the mere fact that they want to ban relationships. And I am suprised in a time when the country is involved in a no-win war, we supposedly have funding issues for the two biggest entitlement programs in our country, we have above $3.00 a gallon gas prices, the average discretionary income of the American worker goes less and less everyday, we have immigration issues, border and port control issues and on and on and on like no other period in our country's existence that our legislators feel that ammending our constitution to ban gay marriage is the top priority.

But having written my congressmen concering my view on this issue I was extremely shocked by Rick Santorum's response. I was expecting a long discertation on the evils of gay relationships and how they effect communities blah blah blah. But what I got was several paragraphs concering why it is an issue followed by one paragraph that explains his position.

I believe that redefining marriage sends a message to the next generation that children do not need mothers and fathers, and alternative family forms are just as good as traditional families. Furthermore, I cannot think of anything more vital to the preservation of our society than encouraging traditional marriage in which children are raised by a mother and a father. Additionally, I think it is wrong for the government to legitimize the concept that children do not need mothers and fathers. There is an abundance of research and literature supporting a healthy marriage's positive effect on children. Children that are a product of a healthy marriage are less likely to be poor, less likely to fail at school, and less likely to have an emotional behavioral problem requiring psychiatric treatment.

What? What the hell? He's talking about gay people parenting children. Gay people have been adopting children for years and some have even been involved in creating children, although not through the normal means. So Rick is promoting a ban on gay marriage to prevent them from having children? Is he that disconnected from society? Perhaps they should amend the constitution to have us elect people that have a clue. And if this is truely his thought process perhaps the ammendment should prohibit gay people from rearing children -- instead of banning them from marriage.

you can look at my blog titled PA Constitutional Marriage Bans (which I changed slightly by removing the replacing the PA parts with the federal counterparts)

Rick's entire letter to me

Dear Mr. Clay:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Marriage Protection Act. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.

On January 24, 2005, Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado introduced S.J.Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Act. I joined Senator Allard as an original cosponsor of this resolution, which proposes an amendment to the United States Constitution that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

As you may know, on May 17, 2004, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts became the first state in the history of the United States to legalize same-sex marriage, by a four to three decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The court came to this decision by claiming that same-sex couples have a right to marriage under the Massachusetts Constitution. Despite that for thousands of years traditional marriage has been defined as an institution between one man and one woman, and the wealth of evidence of its benefits for children, the court declared, "[t]he marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason." Regardless of efforts to block, delay, or modify the court's decision, beginning on May 17, 2004, Massachusetts was forced by the Court to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Through the Massachusetts court decision, the fundamental principles of marriage have been attacked by unelected judicial activists who have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage. The Massachusetts court has made it clear that they interpret marriage merely as a contract for individuals rather than a social institution that exists for the common good. Since this decision, a number of states have been forced to determine the breadth of the Massachusetts decision. Same-sex couples from across the country have gone to Massachusetts to get married and then return to their home states and demand under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution that the marriage be recognized, despite a clear residency requirement in the Massachusetts law.

With these developments, we can no longer assume that current federal or state laws can protect the institution of marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, is sound law that aims to protect traditional marriage. However, it cannot adequately protect marriage from judicial activists who wish to reinvent their state constitution and ultimately the U.S. Constitution. In fact, traditional marriage has been challenged in nine states, and four of these states' (California, Maryland, New York, and Washington), trial courts have found a right to same-sex marriage-in each case relying in part on the Massachusetts decision. At least 35 lawsuits have been filed challenging those states' marriage laws as unconstitutional. Additionally, a Nebraska federal court found unconstitutional a state constitutional amendment that was passed by 70 percent of Nebraska voters.

The American people have spoken on this issue. In August 2004, the voters of Missouri overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment sustaining traditional marriage. Louisiana followed in September with overwhelming support to defend traditional marriage. Then, in November 2004, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah each passed some form of a state constitutional amendment defending traditional marriage. Seven more states will vote on constitutional amendments in the 2006 mid-term elections.

Pennsylvania law states, "it is hereby declared to be the strong and longstanding public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage shall be between one man and one woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth." However, the court decisions above make it clear that this law is in jeopardy unless an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is enacted.

I believe that redefining marriage sends a message to the next generation that children do not need mothers and fathers, and alternative family forms are just as good as traditional families. Furthermore, I cannot think of anything more vital to the preservation of our society than encouraging traditional marriage in which children are raised by a mother and a father. Additionally, I think it is wrong for the government to legitimize the concept that children do not need mothers and fathers. There is an abundance of research and literature supporting a healthy marriage's positive effect on children. Children that are a product of a healthy marriage are less likely to be poor, less likely to fail at school, and less likely to have an emotional behavioral problem requiring psychiatric treatment.

The federal government must continue to encourage a strong culture of marriage, with people marrying and raising children, because research shows this provides the best, most stable environment for children. This is an important issue that requires the people to have the right to define marriage for themselves and for their voices to be heard, rather than having it defined for them by unelected judges. Please know that I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to press for passage of the Marriage Protection Act.

Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to call on me again.
Sincerely,

Rick Santorum
United States Senate

Arlen Specter's Response

Dear Mr. Clay :

Thank you for contacting my office regarding S.J.Res. 1, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. The proposed amendment to the United States Constitution would define marriage as only a union between a man and woman. Amending the Constitution is a very serious step, and one we should never take lightly . This is a very difficult issue that requires careful consideration and thought.

Rest assured that I will keep your thoughts on this issue in mind should the Senate consider this or any other similar legislation. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov . Thank you again for writing .

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter

Bush Poster Child for Better Education

2006-05-25T15:01:00.000-04:00

Questioning the Power of the Line Item Veto

2006-04-30T21:53:00.000-04:00

Dear Representative Platts;

I'm trying to understand the legislation concerning the Presidential Line Item Veto. So here's what I understand:

Let's say the HHS has requested 1B for Heating Assistance for the Poor during the budget/appropriation process.

If we grant the President a line item veto he could eliminate this spending.

By eliminating this spending we would reduce the federal deficit by 1B.

The 1B would no longer be available in the total discretionary budget for any program in any department.

Am I correct up to this point?

Can congress override the veto?

If congress can override the veto, why wouldn't they? They have already agreed to the spending prior to sending it to the President the first time.

If congress can't override the veto, that would seem like a serious imbalance of power.

As an alternative to the "Line Item Veto", which if I understand correctly is a method of attempting to control "pork-barreling", why not just restrict all legislation to the primary purpose of the legislation instead of allowing ammendment after ammendment of unrelated spending?

Age Based Discrimination

2006-04-29T22:02:00.000-04:00

Dear Govenor Rendell,

In regards to HB 2548. Again I find myself writing concerning this legislation which to me is nothing more than age discrimination in reverse.

Being on disability and receiving a fixed income from the Social Security system I have the same concerns that the seniors of our communities struggle with everyday. But yet people with disabilities are neglected in almost every piece of legislation that comes from any branch of government. And yet, of all the people of the US, we are the least able to "fight for our rights" because of our disabilities.

I recently wrote to Representative Stetler concerning this "re-authoring/refunding" of Pace/Pacenet making him aware that many recipients of disability are in more serious need of these benefits than most seniors for a couple reasons. But as always my request falls on deaf ears with Rep. Stetler replying with the usual "not enough funding".

Well let me suggest then that maybe instead of providing free medication to one select part of our society that a $2 copay is still very reasonable if it extends coverage to all citizens that are "in the same boat" financially.

People with disabilities do not like that we have to be reliant on the whims of legislators and government funding and I often find myself frustrated at my inability to work and enjoy life as many seniors have had the opportunity too. But this is the hand that I have been dealt and I must deal with it.

Let me reminid you that as a disabled person I have had to terminate my career without the ability to establish "nest egg". I probably take more medication than most seniors. I receive money from the same Social Security system as seniors. I may live many more years in poverty than most seniors because of my age when I became disabled and I will have to support myself on much less money because of the lack of having recieved a pension and or built a nest egg and yet I'll have to replace more carpets, appliances, pay for more repairs and pay many more years of utility bills than most seniors.

I strongly encourage you to support our needs as well as the "senior voters" and put an end to age based legislation in our state. Let's rename the Department of Aging to something that supports all PA citizens facing the same challenges.

I vote too!

Sincerely,

Todd Clay

Disability Recipients are Still Second to All

2006-04-29T21:22:00.000-04:00

Also covered in the letter below is Represetative Stetler's repsonse to me concering my issue that seniors always have better benefits than people on disability.

It seems that everytime a benefit or an entitlement is created it has has an age requirement that comes along with the legislation. I've written various letters to various state and federal representatives concering what I see as discrimination. The senios are always boo-hooing about their fixed incomes, well I've got the same fixed-income but I don't get senior discounts or prescription coverage paid for by the state or property tax reductions or a lot of things all because I'm not 65 years old. And yet the seniors have had the ability to plan their lives and build nest-eggs and enjoy life much more than I.

So I am committed to writing a letter everytime there is a vote for reauthorization of any benefit that is age based in nature. This legislation should be spread equally across the entire domain of fixed income recipients.

Stetler's View on Program Funding based on Age and Corporate Healthcare

2006-04-29T21:21:00.000-04:00

Corporate Health Care

2006-04-29T21:13:00.000-04:00

Recently I wrote to encourage Representative Stetler, my PA House Representative, to support a bill that would require large corporations to contribute towards their employee health care.

WalMart it turns out has decided to ignore health care for it's low paid employees in favor of turning them to the state to seek Medicaid benefits. I congragulate WalMart on the inginuity but it's hardly a fair burden to place on the taxpayers of the state.

Additionally, WalMarts tactics have created an unfair playing field for their competitors which have choosen to act responible in concern for the employees well being. As WalMart's reasons for extreme success are brought to the forefront, I am afraid that when all their unscrupulous choices have been uncovered and corrected they will no longer be the powerhouse of retail that they are today and it serves them right.

I am encouraged by Representative Stetler's consideration of supporting the bill.

Eliminate Patriot Act Funding Response

2006-04-29T21:10:00.000-04:00

I recently wrote to Senator Santorum concerning the elimination of funding for The Patriot Act because of my concerns for the freedoms and liberties being erroded away for each American by this act.

As you can read from the letter, it would have been cheaper to bang my head against a wall. This just continues to show how disconnected our elected officials have become from their electorate.

Good Grief - Not Another Property Tax Letter

2006-04-27T19:25:00.000-04:00

Mayor John Brenner
City of York, PA
50 W King Street
York, PA 17405

Dear Mayor Brenner,

Subject: Property Taxes

Let me start off by saying that I appreciate your efforts to revitalize the City of York. Having grown up here, left for several years and returned, I can see there is some improvement in the façade of several areas of the city. I have to say that a two-way George St is probably the worst thing I’ve seen done. What a complete and utter traffic mess that has created with people trying to make left turns. I hope that eventually we will admit defeat on that project and return to a one-way street. A two-way Market St didn’t have quite as detrimental of an effect mostly I believe because of the several blocks of remaining one-way street.

But my real point in writing is about the property taxes for our city residents and businesses. As I’m sure you are aware there has been an effort in our PA Legislature to reform our tax system, albeit a weak effort fraught with problems between the senate and the house mostly hinging on the spinelessness of our elected servants and their reelection desires. The biggest contention is one body seems to want to increase/expand the sales tax system – which is a very regressive system and ends up taxing the poor more than the rich, while the other side wants to increase the PIT but cannot overcome the lack of support in the other house. So now it appears that we are headed for a less than desirable solution where property taxes won’t be eliminated, school boards will still have the power to raise taxes and we’ll undergo even more financial problems for the small inner-cities of this commonwealth for the next 40 years.

My position is that we must forever eliminate property taxes. Any reduction in property taxes just means we’ve shifted part of the burden to another revenue stream and eventually both the remaining property taxes and the “shifted tax source” will both begin to rise resulting in even less for the people of the City of York.

This is an extremely important issue for the City of York, because we pay some of the highest property taxes in the state and in order to encourage people to move into the city and start businesses in the city we’ve got to stop hammering them with our outrageous property taxes. Even several of the large doctor practices that use to reside in the city have moved into the “burbs” I’m sure in part to reduce their costs.

The even more unfortunate part of these high taxes is that the children that attend the city schools are getting an education that’s quite below par for the money we are spending.

Recently I heard that the conference committee that is working on our property tax issue in Harrisburg is considering putting the opportunity on the ballot for our communities to decide if they want to raise the EIT to help reduce property taxes. Considering that most of the City of York is probably renters this is going to end in a failed vote and again the residents of the City of York will be the losers. I believe that this is one time that our legislators need to own up to their responsibilities and fund the PA Education system through the PIT. Not only would that reduce the work on our school boards and administrators from spending and inordinate amount of time on finances but it would also allow more funding to get to the front lines of the classrooms.

As you know, the City of York does not have any means of really growing our tax base because for lack of a better word we are landlocked. Even if we consider the theory of Metro York, we are only going to defray our problems for a few years until we again become landlocked into a bigger area and the same problems.
I would like to see our school taxes replaced by PIT and our City/County taxes replaced by EIT.

I choose PIT to replace the school tax revenue because it spreads the burden over the largest section of the population and our entire state population enjoys the benefits of students with good educations. Additionally it is a state responsibility to fund education. If the state has total control over the finances of our education system we as citizens know exactly who to go to when there are problems. As it stands now there is very little accountability because of the multiply layers of the funding system and our lack of ability to control any of them.

The EIT I believe is more suited to handle local needs as far as funding fire, police and city services because these services are really a function of the population that live in the area. I think that it’s high time that property owners stop paying for all the services that are mostly “sucked up” by the renting community of our city. And bear in mind that I do not want to see the renters of our community paying more without benefit either. I think that any reduction in property taxes should also be forced back, through legislation, to require landlords to reduce rent by any property tax reductions. This is an extremely important consideration, without it, these landlords will just suck in more profit.

Of course there will be several additional challenges of making such a huge change to our funding streams and those will need to be undertaken at the appropriate time but there is no sense in theorizing what might be until we have a solid direction – quite often a pitfall of our legislators – they try to have a complete solution which often fails miserably rather than a step by step solution.

I believe that now is the time to make the right choices for the future success of our city. I’d be very interested to hear your views on this subject and ultimately I would like to see you get involved with both the school board and the PA legislators to eliminate property taxes forever.

I have enclosed several letters that I have written to our state legislators and several that I’ve written to the local papers which I believe may give you even more insight into this very important issue. I should also tell you that I am seriously considering leaving the area as the $4000 I had to pay in 2005 from my Social Security check for property taxes has become quite burdensome.

Regards,
Todd Clay

Spiders Expose American Hatred

2006-04-27T13:00:00.000-04:00

A father watched his young daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and pure his little girl was. Tears formed in his eyes as he thought about her seeing the wonders of nature through such innocent eyes.

Suddenly she just stopped and stared at the ground. He went over to her to see what work of God had captured her attention. He noticed she was looking at two spiders mating.

"Daddy, what are those two spiders doing?" she asked.
"They're mating," her father replied.
"What do you call the spider on top?" she asked.
"That's a Daddy Longlegs," her father answered.
"So, the other one is a Mommy Longlegs?" the little girl asked.

As his heart soared with the joy of such a cute and innocent question he replied "No dear. Both of them are Daddy Longlegs."

The little girl, looking a little puzzled, thought for a moment, then took her foot and stomped them flat. "Well, we're not having any of that gay shit in our garden" she said.

Another Feeding

2006-04-25T16:11:00.000-04:00

Dear Senator Waugh,
Dear Representative Stetler,

I just wanted to send an excerpt of an e-mail I received from Verizon about yet another TAX. You people just don't stop, everytime I turn around yet another line item on a bill with some sort of tax! But yet you fail miserably at getting anything positive done when it comes to correcting the burden of property taxes on home owners throughout the Commonwealth.

EXCERPT -

"You will begin seeing a Tax Recovery fee on your monthly DSL service bill within your next two billing cycles. This fee is being charged because your state instructed carriers that the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act does not prohibit their state from taxing DSL"

I guess it's just one more feeding at the troff for what has become everyday politics in Harrisburg and Washington.

Sincerly,
Todd Clay

Flight 93

2006-04-25T12:44:00.000-04:00

Well here we go again.

Our federal government now wants to spend $60,000,000 to secure 1200 acres of land and build a momument to the "Heroes of flight 93" that went down in Shenksville, PA. What the hell, what's another $60,000,000, we are only headed to the largest federal deficit in our nations existence. Let's keep cutting the programs that help our citizens and keep spending on the "important stuff".

Anyone that knows the area knows that $50,000 per acre is extremely inflated. But regardless of the cost there are many people that don't feel that these passengers were heroes. These people were acting with self-regard...they certainly weren't acting with the thought that they were saving some public target from impact.

And finally, there is still a contingent in America that believe, based on a lack of evidence, that no plane ever crashed as a result of terrorist or other activity in Shenksville, PA.

SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!

Immigration

2006-04-25T12:21:00.000-04:00

Dear President Bush:
Dear Senator Specter:
Dear Representative Platts:

We seem to be going down the wrong road yet once again.

Immigration which was initially brought up as a concern of Homeland Security for the most part has now been derailed into a Mexican border problem.

If we, as a country, prevent these Latin American workers from coming into our country to work in our fields we are going to experience a rise in food costs like we've never seen in this country. Let's face it, we depend on these illegal immigrants to keep food on our tables at cheap prices. Although I don't condone these companies and corporations that violate our laws in order to increase their profits we all benefit from the low cost of food.

My opinion on what is needed is this:

We need to embrace Mexico and by that I mean we need to explore making it a territory of the United States and perhaps even a state. This would have multiple benefits.

1. It would prevent US corporations from moving across the border to increase their profits.
2. It would retain important tax monies for the United States at various levels of government.
3. It would increase the population available to serve in our armed forces.
4. It would help provide wealth to a country that is struggling with poverty worse than our own.
5. It would eliminate the necessity for Mexicans to cross the border.
6. It would reduce the land based border control area to a very short run across the bottom of Mexico.

And I'm sure there are many other benefits to both of our countries not to mention the tourism and cultural experience that both countries could enjoy.

A carefully implemented strategy of integrating Mexico with the US should be a viable alternative to spending billions more on border security, deportations, guest worker programs, blah, blah, blah ad nauseum!

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!

I anxiously await your reply.

Sincerely,
Todd Clay

Go Australia

2006-04-21T13:05:00.000-04:00

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament.

"If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country.
Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off".

"Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said. Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

AMERICA and Canada..... ARE YOU LISTENING?

Australia-The Right to Leave Our Country - YOU Have the right ..the right to leave !

After Sydney not wanting to offend other cultures by putting up Xmas lights. After hearing that the State of South Australia changed its opinion and let a Muslim woman have her picture on her driver's license with her face covered.

This prompted this editorial written by an Australian citizen. Published in an Australian newspaper.

Quote:

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.

However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia.

However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.

This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.

This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the language!

Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push but a fact because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, Because God is part of our culture.

We will accept your beliefs and will not question why, all we ask is that you accept ours and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.

If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like " A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means keep your culture but do not force it on others.

This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.

But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, "THE RIGHT TO LEAVE".

If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.

Pretty easy really, when you think about it. I figure if we all keep passing this to our friends, it will sooner or later get back to the complainers, lets all try, please.

In Response to Discretionary Spending Cuts

2006-04-12T11:09:00.000-04:00

Since President Bush has managed to turn a federal surplus into our largest federal debt they have now decided to execute major funding cuts in discretionary spending (ie those programs that effect most of the public of our country), I wrote to Senator Santorum asking that he support my position that these are not the types of reductions that we need in our country. The response seems mostly pre-composed but you can judge for yourself.

Immigration Turmoil

2006-04-10T19:16:00.000-04:00

As I write this there are hundreds of rallies across the United States by illegal immigrants, mostly Latin in heritage, demanding the same rights as citizens of our country claim. This all has come to a head over homeland security and the necessity that we must protect our borders in an attempt to avoid further 9/11 events.

My first instinct was shut the borders down in the name of terrorism. All borders, no exceptions. It wasn't until congress started talking of deportations and building massive walls across the Mexican border that I really started to think about what is sounding more like discrimination than securing our country. Why after all would we make an investment of that magnitude to only protect one border? What about all the illegal Asians, Cubans, Dominicans, Indians etc? The Mexicans have not caused any problems in our country - not violent ones anyways. What is our governments goal?

As time progressed there was further discussion about Latin Americans taking jobs from Americans and across the aisle the counterpoint was that Americans wouldn't do the jobs that Latin Americans take. As usual you have to read between the lines a bit. It's not that Americans wouldn't take the jobs; it's that the employers are looking to fill positions at sub-standard wages while avoiding the added overhead of Social Security taxes, health care and employment compensation insurance that would be necessary to employ Americans.

Our government is directly responsible for the immigration problem we face today. They have ignored illegal immigrants entering our country in favor of helping farmers pick their crops initially. But the problem has grown past the picking of our vegetables into construction, gardening and many other labor intensive businesses. If there was to be a deportation we would experience a price shock like no other in the history of this country. These people that have tirelessly harvested our fields are now a vital part of our community and are only a step above slave labor because they chose their paths as an alternative to living in poverty in their countries.

The crux of the issue is that if we grant amnesty then suddenly these illegal immigrants are entitled to all the wages and benefits that Americans receive. Not only does it set a precident that crime pays by undercutting all the immigrants that are trying to obtain citizenship through legal channels but again the ensuing economic crisis could devastate our country.

We can't afford to deport them and we can't afford to turn them into instant citizens.

There's also been talk in congress about a guest worker program using smartcard technology to identify and track their movements in our country. But let's get real it isn't possible to monitor the millions of illegal immigrants in our country. And as long as there is any downside to carrying a card illegal immigration will continue in order to avoid the identification process.

But this whole discussion is moot until our government decides what purpose the immigration process is to serve in our country. (I should say until the people decide but we really don't have any say.) Is it to protect American jobs our to protect the security of our country or both?

So where does all this leave us as a nation? With the increasingly global economy we as Americans are going to find it harder and harder to compete. We already have evidence of this with pension crisis, worker buyouts, plant closings, outsourcing and companies relocating outside the United States and reduction of benefits by employers.

So as long as we as a nation continue to earn more money for the same goods and services as other countries we are in essence encouraging immigration. And as long as illegal immigrants are not entitled to the same wages and benefits as Americans, employers will have reason to replace Americans with illegal immigrants. It will only be at the point when Americans are so desperate for work and are willing to make major concessions in wages and benefits that the global economy will begin to equalize - unfortunately I believe we will be a very poor country at that point.

There is only so much money in an economy and there are more and more workers competing for that money each and every day. So if we imagine a world where there is $100 available and there are 10 workers today equalization occurs when each worker is making $10. If you double the population, then each worker can only have $5. This is the world we face in the future and it is not until each worker has their $5 that immigration will cease to which ever country has the most.

The only solution that even seems feasible to protect the future of Americans for a while longer is to give the existing illegal immigrants conditional amnesty. They must go through our existing immigration process while continuing to earn a sub-standard wage but they must immediately begin paying taxes and likewise employers must begin paying SS and other taxes based on the sub-standard wages. At the point the illegal immigrant obtains legitimate citizenship, including speaking English, they would then be able to enjoy higher wages and benefits.

Gergely introduces comprehensive drug benefit bill for seniors -- 3-20-06

2006-04-09T01:29:00.000-04:00

Dear Representative Stetler:

Please encourage the inclusion of people on disability, or any person on a fixed income, as part of any bill that would be considered for senior citizens. The constant exclusion of people on fixed incomes that aren't 65 makes us feel like 3rd class citizens. We rarely qualify for government programs because of our age and we aren't extended the same discounts that seniors receive at many establishments - all because of age.

This is a very serious issue and one that seems to fall on deaf ears in our PA Legislature.

HB 2548 is again a bill directed at senior citizens, I strongly urge you to fight for the inclusion of all individuals on fixed incomes for this bill. I've complained before that I don't feel there is any reason people on fixed incomes should be excluded from PACE and PACENET, our incomes are often lower than seniors because we haven't had the ability to amass savings prior to ending our careers and we don't have the ability or capacity to work.

Sincerely,
Todd Clay

Large Corporate Health Care Encouraging My State Rep

2006-04-06T19:17:00.000-04:00

Dear Representative Stetler:

I would encorage you to support legislation that has been introduced, I believe by Kathy Mandarino, to effectively tax large corporations that do not supply health care for their workers.

My personal opinion is that while it would be nice to not need to legislate everything it has become quite obvious that Corporate America seems to have no conscience except when it comes to overpaying their executives and rewarding their stockholders. I remember a time when companies tried to do "the right thing" concerning their employees - those days are long gone unfortunately.

Our country being a world leader should be setting an example of right and wrong instead of just preaching hypocritically to the rest of the world. It's is truely unfortunate that our country's corporations must constantly be mired in the midst of scandal, greed and deceptive practices.

Sincerely,
Todd Clay

Just Another Incident of George W. in the Wrong Place

2006-04-04T20:34:00.000-04:00

I've just never been so amazed by a president that is so out of touch, not only with his constituients, but with his own congress and cabinet.

Excerpt from New York Times: Social Security and Medicare in an Impasse Over Trustees
By Robert Pear
April 4, 2006

"In a joint statement issued with last year's reports, Mr. Palmer, a Democrat, and Mr. Saving, a Republican, broke with the Bush administration and said that Medicare's financial problems were more severe than those facing Social Security. At the time, Mr. Bush was expressing more alarm about Social Security and was trying to build support for private investment accounts."

Large Corporate Health Care

2006-04-04T14:04:00.000-04:00

Dear Representative Mandarino,

We have a mutual friend Bernadette Kerrigan and I guess the fact that I hear her talk about you occassionally has clued me in to what you're doing in the PA Legislature.

I had the opportunity to see you talk today 4/4/6 on PCN concerning a bill that would effectively tax large employers that did not supply or at least contribute a significant amount to their employees health care. These companies/corporations enjoy the profits while the taxpayers of this state basically line their shareholders pockets with our money. This whole corporate greed environment in America just irritates me to death and ultimately will lead to a demise of our entire countries wealth to a few elite - that's the Republican way.

My one point of concern was that while your bill was based on the number of employees in a company/corporation to attack large offensive practices, getting the most bang for the buck if you will - it seemed that perhaps it should be based on profit. Those that can afford to pay for their employees should be taxed if they aren't supplying benefits regardless of their size. It just makes more sense to me to really create a level playing field for all employers. I'd like to hear your opinion on this matter as I would like to be able to encourage my Rep to support your bill.

Thanks much,
Todd Clay

No Demonstrations at Funerals

2006-04-04T01:59:00.000-04:00

For years gays and lesbians have had to tolerate inappropriate behavior at funerals and other events by right-wing extremists. And it has always been condoned by all levels of government under the auspice of the right to free speech.

It's only since it has impacted the perceived "straight America" that legislators all over the country are rushing to enact legislation to bar this abhorrent behavior.

Shame on you, shame on all of you!

Putting the Cards on the Table (Gambling on Property Taxes)

2006-04-03T18:17:00.000-04:00

Still no sign of property tax relief for Pennsylvania citizens and the reason is that our legislators have done very little to educate the public on the facts. However, if we are going to revitalize our inner city neighborhoods and keep our low and fixed income residents in their homes we’ve got to take action NOW!

Based on the assumption that SSI recipients receive roughly $595 a month, SS recipients around $900 and a full-time worker making $5.15/hr clears roughly $771 per month and finally property taxes on a home appraised at $100,000 in the City of York were roughly $4,000 a year in 2005

Did you know:

The percentage of income paid for property taxes:

SSI recipients pay roughly 56% of their income

SS recipients pay roughly 37% of their income

Minimum wage workers pay roughly 43% of their income
an individual earning $50,000 a year pays roughly 8% of their income

Raising the PIT from 3.07 to 6.34% would:

eliminate school property taxes

increase the yearly income of a home owning:

SSI or SS recipient’s by $2500

Minimum wage workers by roughly $2163

an individual earning $50,000 a year by roughly $865

only increase the taxes on an investment yielding $10,000 a year by a mere $327 a year

Raising the existing sales tax rate from 6% to 13.70% would:

eliminate school property taxes

reduce the impact of the tax savings based on the PIT plan by roughly $400 a year by decreasing the buying power of consumers

impact businesses whose products are taxable by selling less products and possibly resulting in subsequent layoffs

Using gaming revenues:

Pennsylvanians would have to spend $30,000,000,000 with a 33% gaming industry pre-expense tax to eliminate school property taxes

Pennsylvanian’s would have to reduce their spending to other PA businesses by the same $30,000,000,000; causing layoffs and bankruptcies of many small businesses

will leave many low income families in ruins because of “trying to hit the big one” in the gaming establishments and ultimately lead to higher dependence on Federal, State and Local social services

In order for any of these plans to succeed our legislators must force landlords to pass these savings onto renters as well.

Don't Do Unto Others By William Saletan

2006-04-03T13:54:00.000-04:00

Excerpt from The Slate: Don't Do Unto Others
By William Saletan
April 03, 2006

"The average guy would love to bang his neighbor's wife. He just doesn't want his wife banging his neighbor. Fidelity isn't natural, but jealousy is. Hence the one-spouse rule. One isn't the number of people you want to sleep with. It's the number of people you want your spouse to sleep with."

World's Smallest Political Quiz

2006-04-03T13:07:00.000-04:00

You gotta try this one...I think most would be surprised as to their political standing.

For those of you that are weak of mind -- don't try this without first contacting your local politicians.

A Funny Thing Happened in Iraq

2006-04-02T20:46:00.000-04:00

So far we've seen a little over three years of military action in Iraq under the premise of uncovering "weapons of mass destruction" and eliminating the harboring and funding of terrorists by Sadam Hussein.

Vietnam II, as I call it, has yet to resolve in any stability. But yet the Bush Adminstration is putting the pressure on Iraq to shit or get off the pot and get governmental control which doesn't really bode well as a democratic policy. Democracy is suppose to be about a government that protects and serves its people, not controls its people.

It's hard to believe that a country (Iraq) that had no desire to become the next "democracy" and had no involvement in 9/11 is now under pressure from the Bush Administration to get their act together even while the US Military has been unable to do the same. Yet George W. Bush's ratings as a president are in the toilet as a result of the deception that was employed in starting a war in Iraq and the ongoing effort with no end in sight. On top of that his spend spend spend policy has created the biggest National Debt ever; resulting in massive cuts that aid people in our own country. The upcoming election has the Republicans running for cover and fighting Bush's control while the international media are reporting on his ineffectiveness.

The definition of terrorism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

You be the judge.

Freed Reporter Returns to U.S. for Joyful Reunion With Family

2006-04-02T17:36:00.000-04:00

Something stinks about this. It ain't the rose!

Crime Does Pay

2006-04-02T17:14:00.000-04:00

I wished I had remembered to save a copy of my letter to my "rep", but I didn't. So I can only offer the gist of what I wrote.

This bill HR1704 basically allocates big money for prisoners to be "re-instituted" into society.

My suggestion was that I didn't feel it was appropriate to spend more on criminals than we do on law abiding citizens, who is this particular year are having almost every program funded by the Federal Government cut significantly. Here in PA we currently spend around $33,000 a year on each inmate while the maximum yearly Social Security payment is around $21,000 per year.

I also suggested that offenders should receive stiffer penalities that would actually have to be served as a deterent for crime. While those who don't abide by the law get food, clothing and shelter all on the backs of US taxpayers, those that receive government assistance are losing their homes to exhorbitant property taxes and choosing between eating, heat and medical care.

So suffice it to say - "status quo" is the name of the game in Washington, DC. Our educators would also have us believe that it is the lack of funding in the education system that causes people to become felons. I would offer that felons are just people that choose criminal activity because it pays better.

The President as Average Joe

2006-04-02T00:46:00.000-05:00

Excerpt from the Washington Post

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 2, 2006; Page A04

"While thinking on his feet, Bush often plays the rube. When Melia got up last week, the president cut him off before his question. 'You're going to ask me if I read the book,' Bush said.

'I gave the president a copy of our annual report, 'Freedom in the World,' before he took the stage,' Melia explained to the audience.
The president gave his instant review: 'Little print, no pictures.'

Melia did not miss a beat and compared it to another book Bush likes to cite. 'It's the bible of freedom,' Melia said.

When the crowd laughed, Bush protested, ' I'm the funny guy.'"

GAO: Customs Failed 'Dirty Bomb' Test

2006-03-30T22:58:00.000-05:00

I hate to say I told you so but...

And even more important is that our government has now advertised to any one any where how to do it!

It's "Common Sense"

2006-03-11T12:36:00.000-05:00

The Dubai port takeover is not racial profiling! It is about OUR country controlling OUR ports! NO OTHER COUNTRY SHOULD BE IN CONTROL or operation of any American entry point or border regardless of their current relationship with the United States.

Our government spent $18 billion to secure our airports, the box-cutter and lighter patrol, but only $630 million to protect our ports, the biggest threat of all.

Apparently it will take another event like 9/11 before our government realizes that our ports are a major exposure point for any anti-America faction to deploy weapons of mass destruction into our country, be it terrorists or an unfriendly government. Of course a container ship could deliver a deadly threat offshore before it even docks at our ports.

Multiple planes flying into no-fly zones without serious consequence and our military’s mysterious change in focus from tracking down Osama bin Laden to Iraq, the “axis of evil”, are clues about our nation’s commitment to security. The “Port Debacle” is just one more clue that our government’s mission is not Homeland Security.

Deploying our militia to control our ports, borders and airlines would have been far more effective at protecting US citizens and would have avoided the death and destruction that has occurred in the name of terrorism since 9/11. This isn’t rocket science America, it doesn’t require another Republican created multi-billion dollar department to collaborate, organize or any other non-productive use of money nor does it require American citizens to sacrifice our freedom in the name of “The Patriot Act”. It’s common sense!

“Homeland Security”, “terrorism” and “The Patriot Act” are carefully chosen words designed to gain public support for a geo-political foreign invasion and the first steps toward the implementation of “big brother” all under the guise of patriotism.

The GAY Agenda

2006-02-22T21:24:00.000-05:00

Published on Monday, February 20, 2006 by the Middletown Times Herald-Record(New York)

Gay Agenda Revealed Here For First Time!
by Beth Quinn

I've been wondering what's on this Gay Agenda that the charmingly winsome homophobes keep talking about.I've never seen a copy of the Gay Agenda, but I figured there must be a piece of paper somewhere with the massively sordid details. After all, the uptight and sexually terrified radical right has gone all screechy about it again since Brokeback Mountain" came to a theater near you - and a little bit too near them.

Now I guess it's a Big Ole Gay Agenda and that delightful little crowd out of Topeka, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, has stepped up its "God hates fags" activity, too. Now they're picketing military funerals. Phelps claims our soldiers are dying in Iraq because God is mad that Americans have failed to string up every faggot from a nearby tree.

This is the same crowd that showed up in New Paltz a couple of years ago to spread its message of hatred. In New Paltz, as you might know, people have been shirking their duty in terms of killing homosexuals, leaving them to roam the streets and impose their well-dressed gay lifestyle on innocent babies.

Certainly, we have it on good authority from the anti-gay pseudo-Christian leaders that the Gay Agenda includes killing off decent, moral people. According to Pat Robertson, "Gays want to give people AIDS." Also, "Gays want to destroy Christians." James Dobson, who heads the Focus on the Family Blah Blah Blah Group, says the main item on the Gay Agenda is to "abolish all 'age of consent' laws and recognize pedophiles as the prophets of a new order. "Then there's the ethnic cleansing item that Dr. Laura Schlessinger claims is on the Gay Agenda: "They want to permeate sperm banks with gay semen to perpetuate the gay gene," says the good doc.

And of course, the subtext of the Gay Agenda is to destroy the sacred institutions of marriage and family. Tall order, but apparently you can't overestimate what a determined gay person can accomplish, especially if it's a lesbian in comfortable shoes. I find it hard to believe that these boundlessly miserable gay bashers with their mean, bitter God have actually seen the Gay Agenda. I'm not certain they've ever even talked to an actual gay person who has, perhaps, a copy of the Gay Agenda tucked away in his Italian-leather briefcase or her practical backpack. So I decided to talk to a couple of gay people myself to see if they'd reveal to me the Gay Agenda. I confess I did not speak directly to the Head Homosexual, but I did have a chat with some average, everyday queers - friends of mine, actually, but that doesn't mean I have a bias here. I just asked the entirely objective question: What's on the Gay Agenda?" Let me check," said Carl, as he pulled out his gay little Palm Pilot, which is where he keeps his own Gay Agenda. Here's what it said:

6 a.m. - treadmill in basement for 30 minutes
7 a.m. - eat breakfast (bowl of cereal, orange juice)
8 a.m.-5 p.m. - work
5:30 - hair appointment (well, he is gay, you know)
6 p.m. - dinner with Albert at Mom's
11 p.m. - home, watch Jon Stewart

But I wanted to know the LARGER Gay Agenda. So I asked Ted. And Ted, being just so generously Ted-like, pulled the official Gay Agenda out of his back pocket and showed it to me. It was written on Homosexuals "R" Us letterhead with a decorative rainbow across the top. Here's what it said:

Be left alone and not get the crap beaten out of us.
Do normal things, like get married and raise kids.
Hold down a good job and have health insurance for the whole family.
Grow old together and develop a bit of a paunch or big butt from a few too many marvelous dinners.
Stop having whom we share our bed with be of any interest whatsoever to anyone.
Urge those lovable homophobic pseudo-Christians to discover Jesus' true message.

There are 1,070 days 'til Inauguration 2009.

Beth Quinn's column appears on Monday.© 2006 The Times Herald-Record

Why Doctors So Often Get It Wrong - New York Times

2006-02-22T17:31:00.000-05:00

Why Doctors So Often Get It Wrong - New York Times

Doctors all too often treat symptoms and have little interest in diagnosing causes. As a former IT Project Manager I’m afraid that the software solution would only serve to make doctors similar to the store clerk that can’t give change during a power failure.

From a technical standpoint a computerized diagnostic system is nothing more than a database that associates symptoms with maladies, hardly worth the $800,000 per year per hospital or $795 for the doctor. In my opinion the colleges and universities that are responsible for training these professionals should be supplying them with that information as a part of their education.

Another part of the problem has become the specialization in the medical field. While a GP will evaluate the body as a whole they lack the knowledge of the specialists. Conversely the specialists, well educated in a particular system, view the body as a microcosm.

Chertoff Defends Review of Ports Takeover - Yahoo! News

2006-02-19T23:19:00.000-05:00

Chertoff Defends Review of Ports Takeover - Yahoo! News

Well Bush does it again. President Bush and his administration have approved the sale of port operations at 6 ports in the United States of America - New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia will be operated by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates.

PA Property Tax Reform

2006-02-19T20:09:00.000-05:00

Wednesday, February 01, 2006
In regards to: Property Tax HB854 as amended by the senate
Senator Noah Wenger, Chairman
Senate Box 203036 Harrisburg, PA 17120-3036

Senator John Wazniak, Chairman
Senate Box 203035 Harrisburg, PA 17120-3035
Dear Senator Wenger and Senator Wozniak,
I understand that the complete elimination of property taxes is a difficult but not an impossible task. I didn’t want to sit idly by while this extremely important issue is debated. Currently I am residing in the City of York and my school taxes were around $2500 for 2005-2006 and my house is valued roughly at about $100,000. My taxes are paid entirely from my Social Security Disability check and I have no option to earn more income. I perceive my current situation as precarious at best especially with the outrageous increase in heating costs.
After reading the introduction of the HB854 as presented to the senate I’m a bit confused by the need to raise PIT 3.27 percent in order to eliminate school property taxes to replace the current property tax revenue of $10.3 billion. Well let me rephrase that. If I assume, just for arguments sake, that I earned $68,000, the median income in PA, a year and I paid 3.27 ignoring deductions and other adjustments to income that I would be paying $1836 a year which is only $664 less than I currently pay and I consider school taxes in the City of York to be some of the worst that I have encountered. Maybe I’m simplifying this a bit too much but if the tax base is larger, as it would be if there were an increase in the PIT, I would expect that all property owners would be paying a lot less. The numbers just don’t seem to “add-up” so to speak.
But on with my point. If property taxes are not eliminated in their entirety, I foresee that the cities and counties will see this as new found income and start taking advantage by increasing their tax rates and justifying it by saying that we no longer pay school property taxes of course causing our taxes escalate in yet another direction. This is bad business. I don’t know what the percentage of homeowners is to non-homeowners but I would be very curious since these non-homeowners would be impacted the most. It is time that all people that are part of our communities take financial responsibility for the programs and services available to them. This responsibility should not rest only on the property owners. This undo tax on the property owner just serves to cause yet even more blight in our cities by landlords that have no financial interest in maintaining their properties.
I think it is imperative that school funding be shifted to PIT and city and county be shifted to LIT. Although EIT would be more desirable than a sales tax increase, it still only taxes part of the community that receives benefit from the tax expenditure. I also understand that in the late ‘90’s, I believe, there was an attempt to eliminate property taxes and the senior citizens blocked it over concern of having their retirement “nest eggs” drained by taxation. I think that this is an education issue with the seniors. I don’t think they understand that although a PIT increase would tax their “nest egg” interest, and that is the important part to understand that it is not taxed against their savings in their entirety – just the interest, but they would no longer pay property taxes and should actually see a net reduction in their yearly taxes.
So how do we proceed:
§ The impact of the tax shift must be made very clear to the public. It should give specific examples at various incomes and various situations (retirement vs working, etc) and should be mailed to all PIT taxpayers or as an alternative it could be specific to each individual taxpayer based on their last years PIT filing. The same should be done for city and country taxes.
§ An immediate tax freeze on all property taxes.
§ Each year the PIT would increase by some percentage, we don’t want “sticker shock” to cause everyone to panic. And each year the property taxes would be reduced by the increase in the PIT dollar for dollar.
§ As gambling revenue becomes available to the state it should reduce the effective PIT increase dollar for dollar which will serve as a buffer against the increase in PIT making it lower than expected each year giving the taxpayer a mental “it’s not as bad as I thought it would be”.
§ The additional increases in PIT & LIT should be kept as separate line items and in separate funds in order to avoid “dipping” for other programs.
Of course to avoid a spiraling increase in PIT & LIT we need to address some other issues but I’ll save that discussion for now.

Respectfully,

PA Constitutional Marriage Bans

2006-02-19T15:18:00.000-05:00

My letter to my state representatives:

Dear Senator Waugh:
Subject: Constituional Ammendment to ban Gay Marriage
Many politicians are out yet again to get votes by spreading their hatred and intolerance of people that have chosen to enjoy same-sex relationships. In an end run to avoid a court decision these politicians are hoping to scare Pennsylvanians into believing that same-sex relationships are not normal and lead to the demise of the family unit and the corruption of their communities. These proponents would have you believe that by not giving same-sex couples the same legal advantages that heterosexual marriages are entitled to that our communities will somehow be enriched.
Let’s not forget that marriage is an artificial condition used in ancient societies to protect royal bloodlines and property rights and as such was sanctioned by governments and organized religions and has matriculated into a moral compass for society. The definition of marriage takes on many forms besides the male/female monogamous version that the constitutional amendment proponents would have you believe is the only acceptable version and includes many other unpopular options such as polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, endogamy and exogamy all of which have been practiced in various cultures throughout time for various reasons. Monogamy is defined as the practice of remaining faithful, sexually, to one person at a time and has no gender roles within its definition.
Regardless if the PA General Assembly is able to get a ban on same-sex marriages or not, gay people will still be living together in various communities and will still be adopting children and will still be serving our country in the armed forces and will still be serving on various charitable and community boards and will still be performing various occupational duties across the commonwealth and still voting.
All that will be accomplished in the end is denying these same-sex couples a legal recognition of love, caring and concern for their partners, the right to participate in legal and medical decisions, possible financial benefits and maybe employer benefits. But even corporations are beginning to realize that all of their employees contribute to their success and many are already rewarding same-sex relationships.
Haven’t we as a society learned anything from Hitler’s hatred of the Jews, the Islamic extremist’s abhorrence of the western world, the disdain of obese people by the physically fit, the intolerance of smokers by non-smokers – where does it end? Do we truly want to destine our society to a bunch of people that think and act alike all in the name of hatred and intolerance? Is it not enough that our children are carrying weapons to school because of hate and intolerance?And isn’t it funny that such large amounts of tax money and time should be spent over denying same-sex relationships when for the most part the only impact will be one that no one will see but those in the relationships? We as a society should put so much time and energy into eliminating hatred, hunger and poverty.

Late breaking news from the New York Times authored by John Fulbrook III:
"The form of marriage that has been approved by more societies than any others through the ages has been polygamy - one man and many women. That family form is the one mentioned most often in the first five books of the Bible. For most of history the main impetus of marriage was getting in-laws and managing property, not love or sex."

Megan's Law the Pink Triangle of the USA

2004-11-10T23:05:00.000-05:00

Years ago a man named Hitler tattooed all the gay people in Germany with a Pink Triangle as a means of singling the homosexuals out amoung their society. But Hitler didn't stop there. All undesirables were eventually weeded out and sent to the death camps.

So here we are, supposedly forward thinking individuals that have learned from our past and the atrocities that have been used against men and women throughout history be it the slaves of the plantations in the south of the US or the unequal rights of the female sex or the genocide that is being commited in Dufar, Sudan today.

But here in America, only a few years ago we enacted Megan's Law which requires that all sex offenders regardless of their crime be listed in a public registry as a supposed awareness measure for concerned families to protect their children. But I'd imagine that there is probably not one individual that checks the registry prior to moving into their new home. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the few people that use these registries are in fact just looking out of curiousity, as I did the other day. Just to see if I knew anyone on the list.

At the top of the page of these registries which are maintained on a state by state basis you will see:

WARNING

ANY PERSON WHO USES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN TO
THREATEN, INTIMIDATE, OR HARASS THE REGISTRANT OR THEIR FAMILY, OR WHO OTHERWISE MISUSES THIS INFORMATION, MAY BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR CIVIL LIABILITY.

The you click a button to indicate your understanding and acceptance of the terms of viewing the information. I'd sure that's a real deterant to someone out to make trouble.

The verbage continues on to read:

Pennsylvania's General Assembly has determined that public safety will be enhanced by making information about registered sex offenders available to the public through the Internet. Knowledge whether a person is a registered sex offender could be a significant factor in protecting yourself, your family members, or persons in your care from recidivist acts by registered sex offenders. Public access to information about registered sex offenders is intended solely as a means of public protection.

It seems a bit odd to me that we single out only these select individuals in our communities to ostricize. What about murderers, people that have committed burglaries or arsonist, aren't these people also a threat to our safety?

Sometimes it seems as if the whole world has gone made riding a wave of one particular issue for years while ignoring or even thinking about the ramifications of their emotionally driven choices.

I agree that our justice system is far from perfect and the routine slaps on the wrist are a result of an overwhelming prison population, so the least dangerous are often released to make room for more dangerous people and unless we want to spend a quarter of our GDP on prisons and support staff we're going to have to impose lighter sentences. So once again it comes down to money vs. whatever and we as a society value money over safety...well pretty much money over everything!

I believe that Ghandi was wrong when he said "an eye for an eye and soon the whole world would be blind". I believe the eye for an eye mentality would greatly reduce the abhorent behavior of criminals in our society and I guarantee that once a rapist had his testicles removed he certainly wouldn't be able to rape again nor would he have the desire. In fact I'm willing to bet he would think very hard before doing it the first time.

And how about our less than honest elected officials, the ones that always get caught with their hand in the proverbial "cookie jar"? I'm willing to bet our legislators would have a new found honesty if we were to start cutting off hands for stealing or embezzling. And we wouldn't need any lists to search or put up on the internet - all you'd have to do was look at someone to know their character. Well, maybe you'd have to check under the hood of a few - lol.

Whatever happens in our society now or in the future should certainly be handed out equally and if Meghan's Law is to be part of our preferred treatment of criminals in our society than all criminals should be treated the same otherwise our actions, good intentioned as they are, are no better than Hitler's and can easily lead to elimination of undesirables in our society for a more perfect world.