I get Congresswoman Kay Granger's e-mail update. This time she pointed me to a very interesting site. It is a GOP site listing truths about the Cap and Trade that the House passed. I guess as more and more people are reading the darn thing they are finding more and more things that are concerning to the average American. This is one of them.
Truth #1
What the bill does: The House-passed bill establishes a national building code for commercial and residential buildings, requiring a 30 percent reduction in energy use immediately after passage and an additional 50 percent reduction in energy use by 2014 for residential buildings and 2015 for commercial buildings (Bill as report Sec. 201, p. 297).
What this means for consumers: Bureaucrats in Washington D.C. will tell you how to build your house. This will also create a whole new bureaucracy in Washington and more intrusion into the lives of Americans.
Now as someone who hopes to build a monolithic dome some day, I am all for energy efficient homes and high R values. But if I certainly don't want the government to start forcing them on all of you. Can anyone say freedom?
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
More on Health Care Reform
I thought this cartoon from TownHall.com pretty much sums it up. Even the Democrats aren't on board with this thing.
I have found one more reason to be against it. The title of this article from Health Freedom pretty much sums it up: "Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct 'Interventions' in Private Homes"
They quote directly from the proposed bill. Method E of Subtitle C call for "providing for home visits that promote immunization through education, assessments of need, referrals, provision of immunizations, or other services" Folks, regardless of how you feel about vaccines, do you really want government officials coming to your house to giving vaccines to your kids whether you want or agree with them or not. This a very bad idea if you believe in any kind of parental rights when it comes to vaccines.
UPDATE: OneMom claims in the comments that I am over the top on this. She may be right. This may simply be a way for senior citizens to get their flu shots at home instead of travelling to a clinic. If that is the case and it is an appointment type thing, I am fine with that. But I do stand by my principle: I don't want the government thinking they have the right to come into my house without a warrant or explicit permission by me.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
My Day in Court
I spent three hours of the day yesterday fighting a ticket. The ticket was for improperly stopping. The cost of this ticket was to be $177. For that kind of money, I decided to fight it.
My defense was that there were shrubs in the way so I had to pull up farther than normal in order to see clearly. I made a video of the intersection and measured the shrubs (36" where they should be 18"). I got an "appointment" for 2 PM on Tuesday to talk to the prosecutor. I wasn't told that this "appointment" was at the same time as at least 100 people. I arranged for a babysitter (no kids under 10 allowed). I got there at two and was put quite near the end of the paperwork queue. I guess everyone else knew we were really supposed to be there at 1 to get a good place in "line".
I took my seat and looked at an art book I am considering as the basis for our art lessons. I also spent the next 3 HOURS observing the people around me and the judge. The judge seemed to genuinely like her job and really seemed to care about people. She was firm and kind.
Two of the defendants were in Jr. High. One had been in so much trouble, the judge was already familiar with her. She had been assigned community service. It seemed that she was striving to do better and the judge seemed very proud of her progress. The other was a boy who was near a big fight at school. I got the impression that he had agreed to anger management classes so that his mom wouldn't have to take off another half day from work to come with him to trial. The judge said that it wouldn't show on his record that way.
Two men seemed to be very familiar people to the judge. One had two speeding tickets and the judge knew right away that he wanted a full trial. He smiled at her and said, "Nice to see you again, Judge," as though they had a long term relationship of tickets and trials. The other had been sentenced to working on his GED at the library and was giving his report on his progress.
A man that was probably the last person in line (having arrived at 2:05), started getting antsy at the long wait. I explained to him that they were going in the order of arrival so he would be near the end. He started talking on his cell phone. The bailiff told him he would have to take his call outside. The man ignored the bailiff. He was given one more chance. Then the judge called for an officer and had the man taken to jail for contempt of court.
Finally it was my turn. I took my husband's laptop in with my video defense. The prosecutor look at the first minute of the 2 minutes and started writing on a paper. He said, "I see you made an effort. Don't stop like that again." The bailiff took the paper and walked to the judge. I went back to her. She asked if I agreed to the deal that had been made. I said, "I have no idea what he wrote down." She told me that if I did not get a ticket for 90 days the charges would be dismissed. As I haven't been in a wreck or gotten a ticket in almost 7 years, I think I can handle it. I accepted the deal.
So that was my day in court.
My defense was that there were shrubs in the way so I had to pull up farther than normal in order to see clearly. I made a video of the intersection and measured the shrubs (36" where they should be 18"). I got an "appointment" for 2 PM on Tuesday to talk to the prosecutor. I wasn't told that this "appointment" was at the same time as at least 100 people. I arranged for a babysitter (no kids under 10 allowed). I got there at two and was put quite near the end of the paperwork queue. I guess everyone else knew we were really supposed to be there at 1 to get a good place in "line".
I took my seat and looked at an art book I am considering as the basis for our art lessons. I also spent the next 3 HOURS observing the people around me and the judge. The judge seemed to genuinely like her job and really seemed to care about people. She was firm and kind.
Two of the defendants were in Jr. High. One had been in so much trouble, the judge was already familiar with her. She had been assigned community service. It seemed that she was striving to do better and the judge seemed very proud of her progress. The other was a boy who was near a big fight at school. I got the impression that he had agreed to anger management classes so that his mom wouldn't have to take off another half day from work to come with him to trial. The judge said that it wouldn't show on his record that way.
Two men seemed to be very familiar people to the judge. One had two speeding tickets and the judge knew right away that he wanted a full trial. He smiled at her and said, "Nice to see you again, Judge," as though they had a long term relationship of tickets and trials. The other had been sentenced to working on his GED at the library and was giving his report on his progress.
A man that was probably the last person in line (having arrived at 2:05), started getting antsy at the long wait. I explained to him that they were going in the order of arrival so he would be near the end. He started talking on his cell phone. The bailiff told him he would have to take his call outside. The man ignored the bailiff. He was given one more chance. Then the judge called for an officer and had the man taken to jail for contempt of court.
Finally it was my turn. I took my husband's laptop in with my video defense. The prosecutor look at the first minute of the 2 minutes and started writing on a paper. He said, "I see you made an effort. Don't stop like that again." The bailiff took the paper and walked to the judge. I went back to her. She asked if I agreed to the deal that had been made. I said, "I have no idea what he wrote down." She told me that if I did not get a ticket for 90 days the charges would be dismissed. As I haven't been in a wreck or gotten a ticket in almost 7 years, I think I can handle it. I accepted the deal.
So that was my day in court.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The Leftist
Shane at Caffeinated Thoughts pointed out a great article by Dennis Prager. In it, Mr. Prager points out that now, for the first time, many Americans are seeing the real left. He goes on to lay out some principles that define the Left.
Principal One: The left, as distinct from traditional liberals, is not, and has never been, interested in creating wealth.
I encourage you to read the whole thing. He makes some really great points.
Principal One: The left, as distinct from traditional liberals, is not, and has never been, interested in creating wealth.
I encourage you to read the whole thing. He makes some really great points.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Good News in Utah
According to OneNewsNow, a court has decided that an estranged lesbian has no parental rights to her now heterosexual ex-partner's son. This is a good decision. I hope it sticks.
Speaking of changing orientations. . .
This is a good video from Focus on the Family (or at least one of their affiliates). It speaks to the possibility of change for those who want it.
That reminds me. . .
I found out that the National Education Association endorsed same-sex marriage. They are also pushing for "gay" issues to be required content for teacher credentialing. Still think education is neutral? Are you ready to homeschool yet?
Speaking of changing orientations. . .
This is a good video from Focus on the Family (or at least one of their affiliates). It speaks to the possibility of change for those who want it.
That reminds me. . .
I found out that the National Education Association endorsed same-sex marriage. They are also pushing for "gay" issues to be required content for teacher credentialing. Still think education is neutral? Are you ready to homeschool yet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)