bucfan64

I understand exactly what you are saying, if anyone locally or afar is spared the misery of losing their job that is great. But there is a forest out there that we are neglecting to see for the trees. 15 jobs right now sounds good, but in the long run, there potentially could be 1,000's of jobs lost as a result of this crazy spending. Thats what concerns me......

The TRUTH speaks louder than lies!

I have been emailing my state reps requesting that they adopt a similiar measure. Join me if you are interested by clicking the link below. You can find your rep on this site. http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform

Popular state sovereignty bills draw comparison to Civil War posturing GREG HAMBRICK Charleston City Paper March 18, 2009 The threat is only implied in more than two-dozen state sovereignty bills making the rounds in legislatures across the country, except for a New Hampshire bill where the authors didn’t hold back. Any law infringing on the state’s right to self govern would trigger the dissolution of the nation: "All powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution … shall revert to the several states individually." The S.C. House of Representatives has approved a resolution with the same state’s rights concerns (but omiting the dire consequences), and the Senate is expected to soon take up a similar resolution. State Rep. Michael Pitts (R-Laurens), who authored the House bill, says that it’s not as much a threat to the Union as it is a "wake-up call." Federal mandates have strained his patience, particularly those laws relating to gun control and the treatment of illegal immigrants. Threats aren’t necessary, he says. "If Washington doesn’t wake up and our economy keeps going the way it is going, I don’t think we’ll have to dissolve the union," he says. "It won’t be able to stand." Political revolts against federal laws are nearly as old as the nation itself. From trading to slavery to civil rights, states have felt put-upon by Washington’s mandates. But it was a political standoff on Charleston’s shores in 1832 that framed the argument leading to the Civil War. It was a stand for state’s rights that applied similar language to what we’re seeing in the present-day debates over sovereignty, says Civil War historian W. Scott Poole, an associate history professor at the College of Charleston. "I was fairly horrified actually," Poole says upon reading Pitt’s House bill. "It clearly harkens back to nullification." "King Street, King Street" A federal tariff on European imports was crippling sections of the South Carolina economy in the late 1820s, and there was no relief following the election of President Andrew Jackson in 1828. The mounting tension led the state to nullify the tariff in November 1832. The challenge from South Carolina was likely one of the worst of Jackson’s presidency, writes Newsweek Editor-in-Chief Jon Meacham in American Lion, his 2008 book on Old Hickory’s years in office. The state would continue to collect the fee for several months while it awaited other southern states to join the protest. In the meantime, Jackson ordered ships to the Charleston Harbor to ensure the tariff was collected and to protect federal interests in anticipation of armed revolt. But secessionists weren’t as well positioned in other states, and South Carolina nullifiers were left to stand alone. Even among its own residents, there were unionists in S.C. who felt strongly that the nation must be preserved. In one particular exchange cited in American Lion, the political debate nearly led to a brawl in the streets of Charleston, according to a letter by the Rev. Samuel Cram Jackson. A group of people supporting nullification "staked out King Street downtown," and they sent word to federal supporters, called Unionists, who had gathered nearby that they should use Meeting Street or risk a confrontation, according to Meacham. "The warning infuriated the Unionists," Meacham writes, going on to quote the letter from Samuel Cram Jackson: "Their blood was up, to think that the nullifiers should dictate the street they should walk in. The cry resounded, ‘King Street, King Street.’ Before they left their hall, they organized into companies, chose their leaders, and promised implicit obedience. Both parties were armed with clubs and dirks." It looked to be 500 nullifiers, compared to 1,000 Unionists. The confrontation was eventually resolved without a battle. According to Samuel Cram Jackson, "it was owing entirely to the firmness and wisdom of the leaders that the streets of Charleston did not run down with blood." Without support from other states, and citing the threat of federal force, South Carolina accepted a compromise tariff in early 1833, ending the political standoff. Meacham notes a letter from Jackson soon after the resolution that reveals he understood the real goal of the state’s nullification posturing. "The tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object," Jackson wrote. "The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question." Back to the Future As in 1832, some have claimed the modern argument over state sovereignty is in response to the crippling financial crisis, like the Republican Caucus of the state Senate. "While Congress continues its irresponsible spending spree and grows our debts on the backs of hardworking South Carolina taxpayers, many Senate Republicans are pushing a resolution to reaffirm our state’s sovereignty under the United States constitution," wrote spokesman Wesley Donehue in a recent caucus release. But, once again, it is about more than just money. Pitts notes he first designed his bill in response to mandates that the state provide education and emergency medical treatment to illegal aliens. And it goes beyond that to other concerns, like the threat of stricter gun control laws under the new Democratic administration, Pitts says, as well as Bush-era policies, like No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act. Authors of sovereignty bills in other states have also made reference to federal abortion laws. The U.S. government has been continuously overstepping its bounds since Roosevelt, Pitts says. "They send money to the states with strings attached." But courts have determined that it’s Washington’s prerogative to require states to spend the money it provides in a particular way, says College of Charleston political science professor William Moore. Today, states are even more dependent on federal aid than they were 200 years ago. "If you have your hand in the government pocket, you’re going to have to abide by those requirements," he says. The threat of secession in the New Hampshire bill has doomed its passage as it was overwhelmingly rejected by the state House earlier this month, but South Carolina is poised to approve its sovereignty resolution, which avoids declaring such drastic consequences. Pitts, an Army veteran and retired police officer, stresses he doesn’t want to see South Carolina secede from the Union, though he’s candid enough to note that "we have very little in common with the West Coast." The struggle in 1832 was only a prelude to the secessionist battle to come decades later. Jackson framed the argument for preserving the union in his response to South Carolina’s nullification threat. "To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the union is to say that the United States is not a nation," Jackson wrote. "Because the union was formed by a compact, it is said that the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they may not. A compact is a binding obligation." His words suggested a resolve in the heart of Washington that would truly be tested years later on the battlefield. Recollections of the blood spilled in that war between the states likely kept New Hampshire from approving its recent preamble to revolt. It will likely also keep other states like South Carolina from doing more than stomping their feet in dissatisfaction.

WITH the stimuls, many more will lose their jobs in the future. All the stimulus did/does is put a band aid on an amputated arm. It WILL CAUSE GREATER GRIEF! Common sense, says that you can't borrow more money and fix your debt problem. It's called DEBT PEONAGE! It will cripple this country, and we have both parties to thank for it.........

For the liberals out to defend Obama they will now say, "I told you he wasn't going to do that......." Despite the fact that he DID PROPOSE IT HIMSELF! Some liberal will claim that we were wrong!

I don't believe that our leaders were afraid of a world wide meltdown. I believe that the current administration is doing what the Bush Administration did. They are spending money like crazy to defer an economic meltdown. In other words, by spending like crazy now, they will put off the inevitable and thusly pass the buck to the next president, who will in turn attempt to do the same thing. None of these leaders want this to happen on their watch, therefore, they spend excessively in order to make things appear better or at least good while they are in office. The Bush admin, did it and now the Obama admin is doing it, until one of these parties mans up to the plate and cuts spending this problem will not go away. Unfortantely when and if a one party does it, bad times will come economically and the other party will then use that to blame them and capitalize on our nations misery. They will do this just to win votes or to get elected or re-elected. This is the scenario and neither group is going to do what is right and get this debt down and allow poor decisions and bad management to FAIL!

Found out this morning that the proposal has been dropped. I suppose that the presidential advisers took enough heat from the Various Veterans associations to put this one on the back burner for a while. By the way Field General posted an article stating the fact that the proposal was dropped. The fact that it was dropped is not a liberal victory in this argument, the fact that such an ASININE idea should have to be dropped just shows how out of touch with reality our President really is at this time.

The recent chaos over AIG paying out contracted bonuses is nothing more than a clever diversion by the Obama Administration to divert the publics eye from the REAL STORY. 165 million is a lot of money but it does not compare to the BILLIONS that are being laundered through AIG. Why the American public criticizes and complains about these folks receiving these bonuses, they are not watching the ELEPHANT that is in the room. If the American people new that AIG took large chunks of the bailout money and forwarded it to Germany 11 Billion, France 19 Billion, the U.K. 11 Billion and Sweden 5 Billion not too mention forwarding Billions to Chase Manhattan, Goldman Sachs etc. They would be OUTRAGED BEYOND CONTROL. By cleverly diverting the American people to focus on the meager 165 million in Bonuses the Obama Administration comes out smelling like a rose. Facts: The Admin. used fear tactics to get the Stimulus Bill passed in a hurried fashion, this prevented it from being thoroughly read and it allowed many QUESTIONABLE items to remain. AFter all as Rahm Emanuel said "we can't let a good crisis go to waste." Senator Dodd (D) placed a measure in the Stimulus Package which actually increased the amounts of the Bonuses. Secretary of the Treasury Gheitner, new that the BAILOUT MONEY would be used for the bonuses, but did not attempt to prevent it from being in the Stimulus package. Now, of course he and the president are acting all up in arms over this great TRAVESTY of justice. Thoughts: AIG should honor the contracts, if the federal government is allowed to VOID the contracts it would violate the Constitution (The Fed. Govt. does not have the right to void any contracts, this allows Free Markets to flourish and it prevents us from falling into Socialism or a Command Economy, our founding fathers new what they were doing when they included this in the Constitution) Should we allow the govt. to stop these bonuses, which is exactly what the President wants the AMERICAN PEOPLE to suggest, it would essentially be destroying the constitution, or at least whats left of it. The Govt. caused this problem with AIG and it is not the result of inept business leaders at AIG. This appears to have been the goal all along. 1. In '94 under Clinton, AIG was forced to set Quotas for their brokers. These quotas were imposed by the Federal Govt. The purpose of these quotas was to FORCE AIG into making loans to minority groups and lower income persons who WOULD NOT NORMALLY QUALIFY for a home loan. 2. In '95 under Clinton, AIG was forced once again to increase their percentage of loans to lower income persons and minorities to 46% of their total loans distributed. 3. In '93 under Clinton AIG was forced to grant LARGER BONUSES TO BROKERS that made these poor advised loans. This is where the big bonuses come from. 4. In 2000 before Clinton left office AIG was forced once again to give exactly 50% of their loans to low income, financially unqualified individuals. This was a 4 percent increase, meaning that half of ever loan they MADE, HAD TO GO TO PEOPLE WHO DID NOT FINANCIALLY QUALIFY FOR A LOAN. In other words they had to give money to people that they KNEW could not pay the loans back. 5. In 2004 under W, AIG was forced again to increase the amount of these "SURE TO LOSE" loans to 56% of their total loans. This is why AIG FAILED, the Government forced them into failure and now they want us to bail AIG out of debt. Despite the fact that the government forced these bad loans on this company. As bad as things are right now, we have yet to feel the true effects of the housing bubble......................but we will!

This is probably going to happen. My dad is with the American Legion and his local office has contacted him so that he might be able to voice his opinion to Rick Boucher. He isn't a spokesman for them, they are encouraging all members to do so. However, my brother in law who is with the VFW said that he was informed yesterday from one of their reps that it looks like the President is going to go forward with this. All he has to do is say yes and congress will grant the RUBBER STAMP. This is not the CHANGE THAT MOST EXPECTED. Nonetheless, this act and many more like it might get some of the yellow dog democrats to reconsider next election time...............but I doubt it.

O.K. lets see if I have got this right... Lets provide FREE HEALTH CARE TO ILLEGAL ALIENS (I refuse to call them Immigrants) but force the men and women who serve this country to pay for their own health care. This seems even more ridiculous considering the fact that this same President wants to provide UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL. I guess that the all doesn't include our servicemen and women. I will go ahead and begin the countdown.............. Which countdown you ask............ The countdown until some liberal drunk on their own egotism gets on here and defends this heinous act...................

I am trying to fix the problems, this is one of them.

Why no boys BDD representatives?

Do you suppose that your photo is why Beck has seen a huge increase in ratings? Just kidding, sent my photo in also, but didn't see it on T.V. I suppose that they didn't want to see a ratings decrease...........

In Christianity, Jesus is the mediator between God and man, therefore in order for a Christian to properly pray it is necessary to ask the favors, blessings and thanks in the name of the son of God, Jesus Christ. To be told as a Christian that you cannot do this is to deny a person the right to freely express their faith. If there are Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc who are among the state troopers then they should have a Chaplain of their faith to discuss things with. To GENERALIZE God, which by the way would be inappropriate terminology for a Muslim, Hindu and a Jew we would need to refer to the creator as something else..........of course then we would need to be sure that the Muslim, Hindu, Jew etc believed that this entity was the creator and then we would have to carefully select our termnology again. This is the kind of mess that Political Correctness creates. I refuse to be PC, it is a poison a cancer and it denies a person the right to freely express themselves. I am a pastor and I can assure you that Gov. Kaine cannot, will not and would never ban nor disallow me from praying to God the father in the name of Jesus Christ! I would do so no matter what, and if the Muslim, Hindu, Jew etc., found it offensive, then they can move to the United States of the Offended, as for me I will remain a citizen of the United States of America! The country that was founded on the principles of religious FREEDOM!!! Concerning your comment about MULTICULTURALISM AND THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. I can assure you that although there may be persons from many cultures living in Virginia and in America, our state and country is NOT MULTICULTURAL. We have an AMERICAN CULTURE, we are a MELTING POT, not a MOSAIC! The colors of our society are blended, there is a distinct American Culture, there is a distinct Virginian Culture. We are composed of a group of people from various backgrounds who have adapted, CONFORMED and became AMERICAN! To suggest that we are multicultural is to deny that there is something distinct about Americans. We HAVE OUR OWN CULTURE, when someone moves here they are expected to conform. The liberal ideology which supports multiculturalism is nothing more than a trend to disenfranchise the people and keep them separated. This separation prevents national unity and it destroys NATIONALISM, the sense of pride in ones country! My ancestors may have came from Ireland, but I can assure you that I am a RED BLOODED AMERICAN!

While you are there check out the video below, HILARIOUS! http://the912project.com/ http://theglennbeck912project.com/2009/03/13/bonus-video/

The governor has decided that State Troopers serving as Chaplains should not pray IN JESUS' NAME. He suggests that it is supporting state sponsored religion. The ultra-liberal governor seems to forget that the constitution also states ..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibit the the FREE EXERCISE thereof". article here http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76819

Congratulations, That is an amazing coincidence. Did you know that Coach Ralph Cummins from Clintwood, had 5 or 6 kids and all of them were born on separate years but on the same date in February? That's right, all of his kids have the same birthday................ I think that it is mentioned in The world record book.

Be careful about the bible and the murder issue. If you carefully read your bible you will find that all killing is not considered murder in the eyes of God. There are cases and instances in which it was justified in the bible. In those cases it was justifiably done to a GUILTY PERSON. Not an innocent unborn child..........

Murder is Murder! Once again we hear the liberal argument. "You conservatives are opposed to abortion but you support the war and the death penalty." Could you guys please come up with something legit!!!! Just Once!!!! Conservatives are IN FAVOR of the Death Penalty because it PUNISHES G.U.I.L.T.Y. PEOPLE, we support WAR because it is against our E.N.E.M.I.E.S. We are opposed to murdering unborn innocent children because they are not GUILTY nor are they our ENEMIES! This method of reasoning is called COMMON SENSE! Unfortunately, there are many conservatives that believe if only their guy was elected that it would all end! It will not end in America any time soon. We have lost our way and I believe that we are already feeling the wrath of God for our transgressions. Abortion IS BLACK AND WHITE! There is a distinction between the preservation, respect and dignity of human life and the careless, disregard of selfish intentions. One is right, one is wrong!

Shew! For a minute there I thought that they had found the teeth in West Virginia! Now that would have been headline material! Sorry, I couldn't resist...........

http://www.disclose.tv/viewvideo/19125/CNN_Obama_setting_up_the_New_World_Order/ Also check out the new GLOBAL TV NETWORK? Cliff Kincaid Accuracy In Media March 3, 2009 Elite members of the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, at the end of January were considering a proposal for a new global television network to usher in a state of “global governance.” It sounds authoritarian, even totalitarian, to some. A d v e r t i s e m e n t The media proposal, which was included in “The Global Agenda 2009” report, is to create “a new global network” with “the capacity to connect the world, bridging cultures and peoples, and telling us who we are and what we mean to each other.” Several prominent U.S. media figures signed on to the alarming and controversial proposal. Isn’t it nice that we might have a TV network telling us “who we are?” And “what we mean to each other?” Perhaps we will learn that we are global citizens. Perhaps a global leader of some sort will tell us that. Who might that be? This outlandish and frightening proposal doesn’t come from a fringe organization. The WEF is an exclusive club of very rich and powerful people from around the world. It describes itself as “an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas.” This year’s conference featured speeches by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. The event’s corporate sponsors, which pay about half a million dollars each to participate, include several failing institutions that have received tens of billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers. They include Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Morgan Stanley. These entities are termed “Strategic Partners” of the World Economic Forum. News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, was another “strategic partner” of the event.

At Global warming rally in Washington! Just kidding...........

What makes this entire situation so pathetic. Is that the uninformed, ignorant Obama supporters who opposed the war, will take this and make an argument that Obama kept his promise to pull them out, and argue that he's a man of his word! All the while not understanding the facts about the pull out............ This kind of crap kills me, however, it is this very type of person that helped get the man elected. Don't get me wrong, I didn't care much for McCain either, in fact I believe that both parties are corrupt to the core and a NEW ALTERNATIVE IS NEEDED IN WASHINGTON. http://www.restoretherepublic.com

The dems are now supporting an unconstitutional move that would grant Washington D.C. one member in the house of representatives. Despite the fact that the constitution set D.C aside as a Government seat and folks that move there already are aware that they will not have representation. This move is supported by Mark Warner and it will pass. Next on the agenda ......."well since we've got a congressman now we should have 2 senators like everyone else....." Then they get the two senators and POOOOOOOF! 2 MORE SENATE SEATS! Unconstitutional Power Move by the POWER brokers in Washington! By the way 60% of the EARMARKS IN THE STIMULUS PACKAGE ARE from the Dems and 40% are from the Repubs! Remember the speech the other night? President Obama said that he was happy that we have come together and passed a stimulus package FREE OF EARMARKS! The president himself had one earmark in the package and Biden had 20 himself. This proves that nobody can be trusted in Washington, when the Messiah himself comes on national t.v. and says that the stimulus has NO EARMARKS, all the while knowing that he had put one in there himself! The repubs bitch about the earmarks when they are responsible for 40% of them, it's all talk and no do, when are the people gonna see these idiots for what they are and REFORM THIS GOVERNMENT? Talk about hipocrits!