A couple of days ago I reported on a pastor that was tweaking the IRS's nose in order to spark a court test of the IRS ability to remove the tax free status of a church over political speech in the pulpit. onenewsnow.com is now reporting that the IRS has backed off and will not press the issue because they know they will loose in court. Of course this tells the thousands of preachers across the nation that they have nothing to fear from "The Big Bad Wolf".
I hope this is true, that there is nothing to fear. But remember the story of Little Red Riding Hood. She was told by the wolf that she had nothing to fear from "Grandma."
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Stupidity, Hypocrisy, or just plain Evil?
First, the Stupidity of government. I am sure all of you have at one time or another opened a new product package and found a "note" inside or on the product that specified that you should wear goggles when using the product. I once opened a box that contained a water faucet and found such a note. I guess they were worried that water might squirt into your eyes!!
Well the other day I bought a gas powered string trimmer. It came with that warning, AND a pair of goggles. In the past when I was still wearing glasses I ignored that warning because the glasses would protect my eyes, and they did so admirably. However two years ago I had cataract surgery and had both lenses replaced.
After cataracts are removed they put in a new lens. The "usual" lens is a single focus lens that restores your vision to either distance or close, NOT BOTH. Medicare will pay for the "usual" lens completely. However there is now a multi focus lens that will restore your vision to what you had as a 20 year old. Medicare will NOT pay for that lens because they consider that surgery to be like a "boob job", is the way it was explained to me. That is "stupidity". After all, my original vision was multi focus, all I am asking is to restore my original vision. Would they tell someone with an arm amputation that they could only have a hand prosthesis attached at the shoulder! Be that as it may, if you are having cataract surgery , and can afford the $3000 per eye, I highly recommend the multi focus lens!
Now back to my story of the goggles. This time because I no longer have the protection of the glasses, and because they had provided the goggles, I decided to wear the goggles. Shortly thereafter I knocked myself silly by hitting my head on a tree branch that I could not see because the goggles restricted my vision. Maybe we need a warning on the goggles that wearing them may cause a danger to the user because of restricted vision??? Stupid!!!
I could go on forever about the stupid rules that are produced by government agencies. But the best comment on that I once heard, was "A Camel is a horse built by a government agency."
Now, the hypocrisy. There is a group of people called "Birthers" that doubt the birth place location claimed by the president. I am NOT one of them. I am fairly sure he was born in Hawaii, but that is beside the point. When questioned by the "Birthers" and asked to produce a birth certificate, the administration has always refused, saying that it was not their responsibility to provide it.
Now, the president attacks the Chamber of Commerce and claims they are spending "foreign money" on political campaign support. This would be an illegal activity if it were true. However he presents no proof. And the Senior Advisor, David Axelrod, has the audacity to say this about the lack of proof. "If its not true, they could just produce their records and prove it."
Now couldn't this be said about the birth certificate? To paraphrase David Axlerod, if Obama was really born in Hawaii, "he could just produce the certificate and prove it."
Isn't this rank Hypocrisy?
Well the other day I bought a gas powered string trimmer. It came with that warning, AND a pair of goggles. In the past when I was still wearing glasses I ignored that warning because the glasses would protect my eyes, and they did so admirably. However two years ago I had cataract surgery and had both lenses replaced.
After cataracts are removed they put in a new lens. The "usual" lens is a single focus lens that restores your vision to either distance or close, NOT BOTH. Medicare will pay for the "usual" lens completely. However there is now a multi focus lens that will restore your vision to what you had as a 20 year old. Medicare will NOT pay for that lens because they consider that surgery to be like a "boob job", is the way it was explained to me. That is "stupidity". After all, my original vision was multi focus, all I am asking is to restore my original vision. Would they tell someone with an arm amputation that they could only have a hand prosthesis attached at the shoulder! Be that as it may, if you are having cataract surgery , and can afford the $3000 per eye, I highly recommend the multi focus lens!
Now back to my story of the goggles. This time because I no longer have the protection of the glasses, and because they had provided the goggles, I decided to wear the goggles. Shortly thereafter I knocked myself silly by hitting my head on a tree branch that I could not see because the goggles restricted my vision. Maybe we need a warning on the goggles that wearing them may cause a danger to the user because of restricted vision??? Stupid!!!
I could go on forever about the stupid rules that are produced by government agencies. But the best comment on that I once heard, was "A Camel is a horse built by a government agency."
Now, the hypocrisy. There is a group of people called "Birthers" that doubt the birth place location claimed by the president. I am NOT one of them. I am fairly sure he was born in Hawaii, but that is beside the point. When questioned by the "Birthers" and asked to produce a birth certificate, the administration has always refused, saying that it was not their responsibility to provide it.
Now, the president attacks the Chamber of Commerce and claims they are spending "foreign money" on political campaign support. This would be an illegal activity if it were true. However he presents no proof. And the Senior Advisor, David Axelrod, has the audacity to say this about the lack of proof. "If its not true, they could just produce their records and prove it."
Now couldn't this be said about the birth certificate? To paraphrase David Axlerod, if Obama was really born in Hawaii, "he could just produce the certificate and prove it."
Isn't this rank Hypocrisy?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
"One Pastors Opinion"
I found this today on the internet. He says it so well, I will just copy it for your edification.
Pastor Gordon tells OneNewsNow that Christians are often accused of shoving their religion down others' throats -- and if they say the same things inside the walls of the church, they are accused of bringing politics into religion. "You can't have it both ways," he remarks.
"We're tired of the hypocrisy of these people because they desire to ensconce -- and frankly they're doing it -- ...secular humanism [as] the new state religion of the United States of America in violation of the original intent of the First Amendment," he laments.
Gordon stresses that despite complaints from groups like Americans United, he will continue to preach his convictions on Sunday.
"I have never, nor will I ever, get a message from the Holy Spirit and then go check with the IRS tax code first to see if it's okay to preach it," he states. "I'm tired of pastors submitting to this tyranny -- and I'm expecting to try to get the IRS to sue us so that we can take it all the way to the Supreme Court and restore freedom in America's pulpits."
Well said, Pastor Gordon.
Jim Isbell
==============================================
==============================================
Pastor Gordon tells OneNewsNow that Christians are often accused of shoving their religion down others' throats -- and if they say the same things inside the walls of the church, they are accused of bringing politics into religion. "You can't have it both ways," he remarks.
"We're tired of the hypocrisy of these people because they desire to ensconce -- and frankly they're doing it -- ...secular humanism [as] the new state religion of the United States of America in violation of the original intent of the First Amendment," he laments.
Gordon stresses that despite complaints from groups like Americans United, he will continue to preach his convictions on Sunday.
"I have never, nor will I ever, get a message from the Holy Spirit and then go check with the IRS tax code first to see if it's okay to preach it," he states. "I'm tired of pastors submitting to this tyranny -- and I'm expecting to try to get the IRS to sue us so that we can take it all the way to the Supreme Court and restore freedom in America's pulpits."
Well said, Pastor Gordon.
Jim Isbell
==============================================
==============================================
Friday, October 8, 2010
National ID Cards
Being a conservative I am supposed to be against national ID cards. But I am not sure I am. Maybe, but not sure.
The reason I say this is that I am certified as an Election Judge here in Texas so I know how the election rules are applied. The argument for national ID cards is that they will clean up the elections. It will be harder for people to stack the cards, have dead people vote, vote multiple times at different precincts. All of these can be a problem as the recent case in Houston where it was found that 24,000 voters were registered either multiple times, or dead, or whatever. They were not qualified voters for what ever reason.
A national ID with your picture on it might stem the tide of voter fraud. If the risk of Big Brother or a nation run by dead voters was at stake, I would take the risk that the government might use the cards incorrectly. But I dont think that is the choice.
In Texas if a voter presents anything but a valid registration that is on the list before the clerk, his/her vote will be taken, but NOT counted. You can actually vote by just showing your drivers license of even just a piece of mail with your home address on it, like an electric bill. These votes are put aside until after the known valid votes are counted. If the race is so close that the number of contested ballots could change the results, then the contested ballots are counted. But they are not blindly counted, they are examined closely and where they can be verified as legitimate voters, they are counted.
So people that vote multiple times or that are dead are not counted...even though they were allowed to vote at the polls. It is far to difficult to examine every contested voter at the voting place. But that doesnt mean that they are NOT examined before the vote is counted.
So the need for a national ID, at least for voting is not that great...at least, not in Texas.
However something that has bugged me for years is the way hunters, fishermen, taxpayers, and drivers are treated across the nation. If I have paid taxes in one state on a new boat, it is credited to me as having been paid if I move it to another state. So if I have paid for a fishing license in one state, it should be valid in another state. After all, I can not be fishing in two states at the same time! The same goes for a hunting license, or a drivers license. In the case of the drivers license, it IS considered valid in all states, why not fishing and hunting licenses? A national fishing license, hunting license, drivers license all would be incorporated into a national ID.
One argument against a national ID is that it might offend some religious beliefs if it had a picture on it. But that argument just doesnt fly. We wont let a Muslim woman walk into a bank with her face hidden...after all it could be a man with an AK47 under the dress!!! And that offends the Muslim community. The Amish community is offended by having their picture taken, But isn't access to banking services more important that access to hunting or fishing.
Why not have a national ID with no photographs, but maybe a retina scan, or a finger print?
Jim Isbell
======================================
======================================
The reason I say this is that I am certified as an Election Judge here in Texas so I know how the election rules are applied. The argument for national ID cards is that they will clean up the elections. It will be harder for people to stack the cards, have dead people vote, vote multiple times at different precincts. All of these can be a problem as the recent case in Houston where it was found that 24,000 voters were registered either multiple times, or dead, or whatever. They were not qualified voters for what ever reason.
A national ID with your picture on it might stem the tide of voter fraud. If the risk of Big Brother or a nation run by dead voters was at stake, I would take the risk that the government might use the cards incorrectly. But I dont think that is the choice.
In Texas if a voter presents anything but a valid registration that is on the list before the clerk, his/her vote will be taken, but NOT counted. You can actually vote by just showing your drivers license of even just a piece of mail with your home address on it, like an electric bill. These votes are put aside until after the known valid votes are counted. If the race is so close that the number of contested ballots could change the results, then the contested ballots are counted. But they are not blindly counted, they are examined closely and where they can be verified as legitimate voters, they are counted.
So people that vote multiple times or that are dead are not counted...even though they were allowed to vote at the polls. It is far to difficult to examine every contested voter at the voting place. But that doesnt mean that they are NOT examined before the vote is counted.
So the need for a national ID, at least for voting is not that great...at least, not in Texas.
However something that has bugged me for years is the way hunters, fishermen, taxpayers, and drivers are treated across the nation. If I have paid taxes in one state on a new boat, it is credited to me as having been paid if I move it to another state. So if I have paid for a fishing license in one state, it should be valid in another state. After all, I can not be fishing in two states at the same time! The same goes for a hunting license, or a drivers license. In the case of the drivers license, it IS considered valid in all states, why not fishing and hunting licenses? A national fishing license, hunting license, drivers license all would be incorporated into a national ID.
One argument against a national ID is that it might offend some religious beliefs if it had a picture on it. But that argument just doesnt fly. We wont let a Muslim woman walk into a bank with her face hidden...after all it could be a man with an AK47 under the dress!!! And that offends the Muslim community. The Amish community is offended by having their picture taken, But isn't access to banking services more important that access to hunting or fishing.
Why not have a national ID with no photographs, but maybe a retina scan, or a finger print?
Jim Isbell
======================================
======================================
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Solution Is NO JOBS!!!
After hearing Ms Polosi's recent comments I realized that the Obama administration is on the right track. So far nothing he has done has made a substantial dent in the unemployment situation. His defense is that, "It could have been worse if it were not for the jobs saved by the stimulus." No where do I hear him giving evidence of jobs created in quantity enough to make up for the ones lost.
But, thats ok according to Nancy Polosi. Ms Polosi says that, "Every dollar spent on Food Stamps produces $1.79 in stimulus." "Its the best bang for the buck," she says.
If that is so, then the administrations approach to unemployment is on the right track. If they keep on they will eliminate every job in the US or they will ship them overseas. Then the phrase will be "Jobs lost or shipped overseas.", not "Jobs saved or created." And that will put everyone on Food Stamps.
With everyone on Food Stamps then every dollar spent will produce $1.79 in stimulus and the $1.2 trillion Obama wasted last year will mean $2.1 trillion in stimulus.
We will be the biggest boom in history......
BUT.... no one will have a job. But thats ok as the government will buy more food stamps to continue the boom.
Jim Isbell
============================================
============================================
But, thats ok according to Nancy Polosi. Ms Polosi says that, "Every dollar spent on Food Stamps produces $1.79 in stimulus." "Its the best bang for the buck," she says.
If that is so, then the administrations approach to unemployment is on the right track. If they keep on they will eliminate every job in the US or they will ship them overseas. Then the phrase will be "Jobs lost or shipped overseas.", not "Jobs saved or created." And that will put everyone on Food Stamps.
With everyone on Food Stamps then every dollar spent will produce $1.79 in stimulus and the $1.2 trillion Obama wasted last year will mean $2.1 trillion in stimulus.
We will be the biggest boom in history......
BUT.... no one will have a job. But thats ok as the government will buy more food stamps to continue the boom.
Jim Isbell
============================================
============================================
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
So What Was His Exit Strategy?
Mr Obama was always grousing about Bushes failure to have an "Exit Strategy" But he doesn't have one either.
19 months ago Obama took office and started the recovery of the economy...or so he said. But he didn't have an exit strategy. His plan was to spend,spend,spend until the economy recovered. But it didnt work. So whats his exit strategy?
When you start a plan like this you should always plan for the "What Ifs" He didn't.
Any logical thinking person could see that once you have spent 2 trillion dollars, if it doesn't work, you cant get the money back. There is no exit strategy. It better work or else. If it doesn't work, you cannot raise taxes to get the money already spent or you will further collapse the economy. On the other hand, if you dont raise taxes the deficit will balloon. You are between a rock and a hard place.
On the other hand, if you try to get things going by cutting taxes and it doesn't work, you have not built up a 2 trillion dollar deficit and all you have to do is try the other attack and raise taxes and spend, spend, spend. There is your exit strategy.
If Mr Obama had thought it out he could be now saying, "I tried it your way and it didn't work" (if it indeed did not work) "so now I will try it my way." If it had worked he would be a hero in 19 months from his inauguration. If it didn't and then spending did work, he would, again, be a hero for trying the oppositions plan first and showing it to be defective.
But by stubbornly sticking to the same plan that didn't work in 1932 and failing, he is an ass. Now he will try cutting taxes. If it works he is an ass for not trying it sooner and if it doesn't work he is still an ass. Its a NO WIN situation for him!!
What this shows is that the man is a fool. He could have been a hero but he chose to screw it up, all in the name of a philosophy that had already been proven wrong in 1932.
Jim Isbell
=============================================================
=============================================================
19 months ago Obama took office and started the recovery of the economy...or so he said. But he didn't have an exit strategy. His plan was to spend,spend,spend until the economy recovered. But it didnt work. So whats his exit strategy?
When you start a plan like this you should always plan for the "What Ifs" He didn't.
Any logical thinking person could see that once you have spent 2 trillion dollars, if it doesn't work, you cant get the money back. There is no exit strategy. It better work or else. If it doesn't work, you cannot raise taxes to get the money already spent or you will further collapse the economy. On the other hand, if you dont raise taxes the deficit will balloon. You are between a rock and a hard place.
On the other hand, if you try to get things going by cutting taxes and it doesn't work, you have not built up a 2 trillion dollar deficit and all you have to do is try the other attack and raise taxes and spend, spend, spend. There is your exit strategy.
If Mr Obama had thought it out he could be now saying, "I tried it your way and it didn't work" (if it indeed did not work) "so now I will try it my way." If it had worked he would be a hero in 19 months from his inauguration. If it didn't and then spending did work, he would, again, be a hero for trying the oppositions plan first and showing it to be defective.
But by stubbornly sticking to the same plan that didn't work in 1932 and failing, he is an ass. Now he will try cutting taxes. If it works he is an ass for not trying it sooner and if it doesn't work he is still an ass. Its a NO WIN situation for him!!
What this shows is that the man is a fool. He could have been a hero but he chose to screw it up, all in the name of a philosophy that had already been proven wrong in 1932.
Jim Isbell
=============================================================
=============================================================
Friday, October 1, 2010
Lets Ship Them To Tiera Del Fuego
I was shocked yesterday to hear that the Mexican government blames the violence in the northern border cities of Mexico on the US because they say we are shipping the criminals back to the border. They want us to give them air tickets to their home town instead. So, their inability to keep criminals from traveling north and into the US makes it our fault that they have crime at the border.
Well, for once I agree with them...at least as far as the solution.... Maybe we should take them a bit further south, however, right down to the Straights of Magellan. It would take a long time for them to get back north and possibly they would not live to finish the trip. But even if they did, their crime sprees would be spread out all across South America and Mexico so that some of those countries might be inclined to help with the problem.
Another solution would be to give them a parachute and dump them over their hometown so that the plane wouldnt have to land. I expect few of them would want to return, even if they survived the trip home.
A third possibility is to ship them down to Brother Hugo. Let him feed them.
Jim Isbell
==========================================
==========================================
Well, for once I agree with them...at least as far as the solution.... Maybe we should take them a bit further south, however, right down to the Straights of Magellan. It would take a long time for them to get back north and possibly they would not live to finish the trip. But even if they did, their crime sprees would be spread out all across South America and Mexico so that some of those countries might be inclined to help with the problem.
Another solution would be to give them a parachute and dump them over their hometown so that the plane wouldnt have to land. I expect few of them would want to return, even if they survived the trip home.
A third possibility is to ship them down to Brother Hugo. Let him feed them.
Jim Isbell
==========================================
==========================================
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)