Fight The Sheep » politics

Hola, license and registration por favor

Voter_X — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:05:08 +0000

Friday Arizona passed it’s own immigration bill, SB 1070, to combat out of control illegal immigration. Up until two years ago I lived in Arizona so I feel I might have a better feel for what AZ is going through compared to people outside the Southwest.

First off, I remember watching the news every morning. I remember seeing the daily kidnappings, murders, home invasions and car chases being reported. I completely understand where this legislation is coming from. Considering how many times Sheriff Joe has been re-elected in Maricopa county I am surprised this hasn’t happened before now. It is easy for people to pass judgement from a far. As for Obama attacking Arizona, that is pretty much what I would expect from someone who wants to turn all those illegals into democratic votes.

Now lets talk Constitutionality, this is the part I have had to work at to get my head around. Arizona says that the Fed is not doing their Constitutionally required job:

Article 1, section 8.1 – According to the Constitution, part of the reason we pay taxes is so the Federal Govt can “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”
Article 4, section 4 – Concerning state’s rights, the Federal Govt “shall protect each of them against invasion” and “domestic violence”

However, it is going to very important that Arizona carry these new laws out in a way that does not compromise citizen’s 14th amendment rights and that they maintain procedures that do not make this bill target one specific race. I read the bill, personally I would have liked to have seen a little more verbiage in there addressing this concern. If the law does stay in effect, I am guessing most lawsuits will say that SB 1070 article 8, section B was violated and that the officer pulled someone over for being a particular race. SB 1070 requires ”lawful contact” to be made first which means they have to be violating a traffic law or something.

All in all I support Arizona’s decision. If the Federal Govt is NOT going to protect their border, then someone needs to. I am pretty sure citizens still have more rights than illegals in this country (for now).

Share on Facebook

Nice try GOP, maybe try a real policy next time?

Voter_X — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:41:27 +0000

I know right now some of you read the title to this post and said,”Wait Voter_X, we thought you were a Conservative”. And you would be correct, I am a “Fiscal Conservative” by definition. I am also equally suspicous of both parties and any group, movement or organization. By no means does Conservative equal GOP in my book. If anything I am angrier with the GOP than the Dems these days. The Dems are doing what we would expect them to do, the GOP keeps letting Conservatives down. But anyway, guess that makes me some sort of “Paranoid Conservative”.

So be it…

Ok, on to my original topic: Thursday the House GOP proposed a one year ban on all earmarks. Read that again, a ONE YEAR BAN. Sorry Mr. Boehner, it will take more than that to get my vote. Are you saying that you want to see how it goes for a year and then re-evaluate next year? That is something I would expect to hear from say…… a crak addict, alcoholic or Tiger Woods. “Oh I’ll just try going without for a year and see if I can do it. No promises after that though!”

yeay…

Here is my idea for a real proposal: Permanently change House procedures so that all earmarks must be voted on seperatly and cannot be thrown into other bills.

Afterall, we send you to Washington to vote on things right? Maybe if all earmarks were aired on CSpan, politicians would be embarrased to ask for $200k to study the mating rituals of the east-south-north-upper-westside dung beatle to benefit a friend’s pet ta write-off (i.e. institute). Want money for a bridge, look into your own state’s means. Bonds? Privatized roads? Actually SAVE for it?

Now to be fair, most states can not afford a 2 million dollar bridge anytime they want. This leads us into the bigger picture: Maybe if the Federal Govt didnt consume so much money, the states would have money for their own infrastructure. Maybe if the Federal Govt found long-term ways to lower their operating cost, they could lower taxes and stop unconstitutionally stealing ours.

Share on Facebook

Violence towards elected officials and CYA (Cover Your Arse)

Voter_X — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:15:44 +0000

Before I begin, FTS does not condone any violence towards elected officials.

Ok that being said, lets talk about media bias and all the idiots making death threats and vandalizing offices and what not. If you are one of the idiots sending death threats or participating in illegal acts towards elected officials, YOU ARE NOT HELPING, IDIOTS! Truthfully, I wouldnt doubt it if it was SEIU members out there secretly throwing bricks at Dems offices just to give the liberal media more ammunition. I’m still waiting for MSNBC to tie the Hutaree Militie wackos and the Teaparty together (they probably have and I just missed it).

Now why am I talking about this? I heard an interesting story on the radio today so I googled around and found some stories. Basically this church took issue with a play at the local college and the pastor passed out email addresses and phone numbers for local college officials to his congregation, sort of like what we do with politics. The college canceled the play and said it felt threatened. Later on they published the emails they received, none of which had threats of violence, they were just “angry”.

Now at FTS we dont get into religion or social issues, but I want you to take note of how CBS played the story out:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/29/national/main6343852.shtml

You have to dig deeper to read the actual emails the school provided:

http://static.cbslocal.com/station/ktvt/docs/2010/march/VileMessages.pdf

Pretty threatening huh? So this got me to thinking, what if the church congregation had published copies of their own emails? They probably could have shot down the “violent” labels pretty quickly.

So my CYA recommendation to you is to create a folder and save a copy of any email you send to elected officials. In this digital age, you never know when something could come back around.

Share on Facebook

I can haz your vote? I give stuffs!

Voter_X — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:18:13 +0000

Obama flew to NV today to stump for Reid and give out 1.5 billion of mine and your tax dollars to try and buy votes. This seems to be the only transparency that the liberals are going to give us; see-through, lame attempts to buy votes. I hope people in the targetted states see through this cheap attempt to buy some votes and are rightfully offended.

Now ask yourself:

If you live in these states: Would you be getting this help if Reid wasnt getting spanked in the polls?

If you dont: How do I feel about Obama using my tax dollars as campaign money to buy votes?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703787304575074870587312804.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

Share on Facebook

Well we finally broke 10% unemployment

Voter_X — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:46:23 +0000

Makes you feel good about all the debt we racked up on thestimulus package doesn’t it? Werent we told that if the stimulus wasn’t passed, unemployment could hit 8%?? Makes you feel even better knowing that Congress is trying to pass this ridiculous Health Care reform instead of workingto get our economy straight doesn’t it? Seems like they are bent on making this recession worse. Raising cost on tax payers and expecting states to foot more of the bill with fewer taxpayers just doesn’t seem like good business to me.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobless-rate-tops-10-pct-for-apf-563122944.html?x=0&.v=8

Think about what exactly 10% unemployment is, visualize it. Today when you go to the store or drive around or whatever, count 10 people and then try to figure out which one is unemployed.

I believe that our economy is very resilient and would have naturally rebounded from the recession if govt would just get out of the way and let the American people do their thing. Stop playing social experiments. Stop trying to manipulate areas of the free market. Stop adding debt that is going to make it harder to recover.

As for health reform, do we need it? Absolutely

Do we need what the govt is currently proposing? No

Get the govt out of the way. Get special interest groups out of the way. Let the free market do its thing because it is becoming more and more obvious that Obama’s grandstanding promises and big talk are getting us further in the hole.

Share on Facebook

Worst Bill Ever

Voter_X — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:55:35 +0000

The Wall Street Journal has annointed Pelosi’s new Health Care bill as the “Worst Bill Ever”. Interesting read, good talking points.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html

Share on Facebook

FTS ROLL CALL! Now is NOT the time for complacency

Voter_X — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:26:48 +0000

As you know, the Senate and House have rolled out health care plans this week, both of which include the “public option”.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, then you know one of our goals is to encourage people to regularly contact their elected officials. Hopefully you support that idea. So if you do, put your money where your mouth is. I challenge everyone to contact their officials and then report back here.

You can look up your officials here: http://www.congress.org/

Talking points:

-Identify yourself as a registered voter from their state

-Ask how they plan to vote on the proposed health care bill

-Either thank them for opposing or let them know that your household strongly opposes the health care bill and that will affect your vote come election time.

-Suggest your own talking points here too!

We are an A.D.D. nation my friends. We get fired up quickly, but then quickly forget things. Now is not the time to let up on your officials. Challenge yourself, challenge your family, challenge your friends!

Share on Facebook

An inconvenient sponsorship

Voter_X — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:05:44 +0000

This is a follow up on my post about HR 554 which would require all bills being voted on to be posted online for 72 hours prior to a vote.

http://www.mcswat.com/fightthesheep/?p=102

After I posted this asking everyone to contact their Reps about signing the Discharge Petition so this bill could come to the floor, I myself called my Representative and a few others who had “sponsored” this bill. What I found out, was that the Liberal Reps who had “sponsored” this bill had no intention of signing the Discharge Petition. The general response to the Discharge Petition was that it was a waste of the Representative’s time. How long does it take someone to sign their name??

Now lets think about that a minute, they are sponsoring a bill that they wont help bring to a vote? Now isnt that convenient? Seems to me you can sponsor anything you want when you dont have to back it up.

In reality, any liberal that will not sign it is just playing partisan politics as it would embarass Pelosi. That being said, I would encourage everyone to remind their Reps that we were promised a new era of transparency and we see through their partisan politics.

Here is a link to see who has and hasnt signed: http://www.wethepeoplecanread.com

Share on Facebook

Immoral insurance profits fact check

Voter_X — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:12:27 +0000

We have all heard the claims that the health insurance companies are making obscene profits at the expense of peoples lives. Read this article and then ask yourself how insurance companies can stay afloat against a government agency that does not have to make a profit.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

Means to a single payer system?

Share on Facebook

Where is the ACLU? 1st Ammendment groups anyone?

Voter_X — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:41:40 +0000

Ya know, I remember during the last election hearing about how the liberals were going to shake up Washington. Bring in this whole era of “change”. I am starting to feel that some of the “change” in the WH is bringing in some good ol boy / thug like policies. And they concern me a little tbh..

Now I’m not going to play Foxnews fanboy, but when is it acceptable for the WH to call out a news agency because they dont give them the coverage they want? I mean think about that a little deeper. The leader of the free world is burning WH resources to go after the ONLY major tv media outlet that doesnt kiss his butt and weep when he speaks? That just doesn’t sit right with me. Does that mean that if this website explodes and starts generating a million hits a day (I WISH!) that the WH could set their sights on me?

Now I am going to pull a page out of the liberal play book. WELL BUSH DID IT! Oh wait, no he didn’t…. Do you remember how much nasty coverage and commentary he received the last few years? Can you imagine if he had sought to minimize and discredit MSNBC? Every free speech group in the U.S. would have been all over him. And I think this is even more alarming that these groups arent screaming bloody murder.

Now I mentioned good ol boy policies earlier. What I mean by that is the WH seems to be doing alot of “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” type of operating. Monday, a day after this new WH offensive against Foxnews, Obama has this 2.5 hour, closed door pow wow with liberal media figures. It’s like they are rewarding them for being obedient and using them to help coordinate something. With how Obama rewarded the labor unions after the bailouts, this shouldn’t surprise me I guess.

On a closing note, I seem to recall another gov’t declaring war on a media outlet who wasnt providing the coverage they wanted. Now who was that? Where could that possibly happen?

Oh yeah, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. What was that book Chavez gave Obama again?

Share on Facebook