This site has been deprecated. Please visit our new site Wake Up Suckers!
THIS EDITION #23
MONEY AT WORK …. AGAIN.
OK --- NOW I
HAVE THE SCRIPT
FIREMEN --- FOR ENDANGERED FISH?
THAT ONE MAGIC ASSET GOVERNMENT HAS
DIDN'T MISS THIS ONE, DID YOU?
DEMOCRATS ARE SO ANGRY.
THIS GOVERNMENT PROGRAM GOOD RIDDANCE.
YOUR TAX MONEY AT WORK …. AGAIN.
particular government outrage comes from Seattle.
They had a bit of an earthquake up there.
It happened around February 28th and is known
thereabouts as the Nisqually Earthquake.
earthquake provides us with an excellent lesson on just what happens when
a government can take the money you have earned then have no
accountability to you whatsoever for how that money is spent.
night before the earthquake about 75 urban outdoorsmen (that would be
“homeless men” to the more insensitive among you) spent the night at
the Compass Center in Seattle. The
Compass Center is a shelter near Pioneer Square.
The next day the Compass Center was destroyed in the earthquake.
That meant these urban campers had to find another shelter to run
to the next evening.
night or so after the earthquake one urban outdoorsman told his buddies
that he had heard on television that the federal government was handing
out checks to displaced residents. All
you had to do was call a toll-free number!
Hell, they were displaced, weren't they?
The shelter they had stayed in the night before the quake was gone!
Word spread like wildfire. Homeless
men started claiming displaced status.
guess what? You got it!
Checks are being handed out. They're
not saying just how many have gone to the urban outdoorsmen … but dozens
have already received their checks. How
much? Well, how is $1,200 for
starters? That's what the
feds say two months rent is worth in Seattle.
Many homeless men have also received additional checks for over a
thousand additional dollars for stuff they claim they left at the Compass
Center and couldn't recover after the quake.
can't afford a tax cut?
OK --- NOW I HAVE THE SCRIPT
back to that absurd study about dreams and politics.
It seems some “researcher” in California interview 56 people
about their sleep habits and their dreams.
A conclusion was reached - based on 56 people - that Democrats
sleep better than Republicans. Republicans
have more nightmares, you see. Democrats
dream sweet, peaceful dreams.
Atlanta's WSB-TV (Channel 2) got around to reporting this “study” this
past weekend. I won't mention
the name of the reporter - she didn't write the copy, she just read it.
Some fresh-out-of-college weekend news writer probably wrote the
actual script. Fresh out of
college and still under the insipid influence of the liberalism and
political correctness that permeates university and college journalism
Here's the script: --- straight from the teleprompter:
New this morning … news about how the President may sleep at night.
Researchers say Republicans are three times as likely to have nightmares as Democrats.
A California dream researcher says that the ruling is based on interviews with 56 people chosen at random across the country.
researchers believe left-wingers apparently sleep easier because they are
more open to how things could be made better.”
talks to 56 people and we have a RULING?
And all this time I thought that rulings came from courts!
this research tells us how President Bush may sleep?
The implication is clear, obvious.
Bush, being a Republican - Bush, being a right-winger doesn't sleep
well at night because he's not open to how things could be made better.
--- not naming the reporter. But
I'm quite sure I would refuse to read garbage like this if my name was on
the report. Maybe it's just
not nice to make waves like that up there on the third floor.
OK … let's hear it again. The media isn't biased. Yeah, right.
FOUR DEAD FIREMEN --- FOR ENDANGERED FISH?
is a prime example of the essential idiocy of government.
story first came to my attention on the Fox News Channel the other night.
It was about a forest fire last month in the Okanogan National
Forest near the community of Winthrop, Washington.
group of firefighters are fighting a relatively small fire.
There's a river running right through the fire area.
The firefighters call for a helicopter water drop.
Denied. Denied why?
Because the river contains some endangered fish and there is a
policy against dipping fire-fighting water out of streams or rivers with
Forest Service and environmental experts were sitting in an air
conditioned offices discussing whether or not they would permit a
helicopter water drop from this river four firefighters burned to death.
Two young men aged 30 and 21.
Two young women aged 18 and 19.
Four courageous young lives sacrificed - for fish.
MORE STORIES OF SELF-DEFENSE
crop of self-defense stories that will leave your leftist anti-gun friends
convulsing in shock and horror! Why
do I include these here? Because
somebody has to! The
mainstream leftist media in this country will anxiously scan the wires for
any stories of children injured with firearms.
Any stories of self defense will usually be passed over.
Here's the latest::
Georgia. Early Wednesday
morning, Tammie Thompson was in her home with another man when someone
tapped on a bedroom window. That
man was Gregory Brown, the woman's ex-boyfriend.
When no one let him in, Brown let himself in.
He picked up a piece of concrete and shattered a window next to the
front door. Holding pieces of
concrete in his hands, Brown confronted Thompson's new boyfriend and
demanded to know where she was. He
went to another room and found her. He
raised his hand back as if to strike her with a piece of concrete.
Thompson raised a .38-caliber revolver and fired.
Her aim was true. She
hit him dead center in his right eye.
Gregory Brown is now taking an
eternal nap. Tammie
Thompson will not be charged.
South Carolina. Charles Lies
intended to return to his home Monday evening to change clothes.
But he found a man standing in his kitchen!
The intruder was holding several firearms that belonged to Lies.
Lies pulled out a pistol he was carrying and shot the intruder
twice, killing him. It turns
out that 28-year-old Robert Cannon was wanted by police for an outstanding
criminal domestic violence charge. The
local sheriff's lieutenant said Cannon "had a history of taking
things that did not belong to him."
Well, he won't do it anymore, thanks to Charles Lies.
Northwest Houston, Texas. Stephen Hastings was on his way home early Sunday morning when he decided to stop and catch a nap. He pulled off Interstate 45 and parked in front of a restaurant. A few hours later, two men spotted Hastings. They pulled their car in front of his truck to block his exit. One man, armed with a .22-caliber rifle, banged on the driver's-side window and demanded that Hastings get out. Hastings complied. The man with the rifle told Hastings to get money out of his truck. Hastings reached into his center console, pulled out a .40-caliber pistol, and shot the man. Fearing for his safety, Hastings also shot the other man. One of the robbers is dead. The other is in critical condition. Oh, and by the way...Stephen Hastings has been a deputy constable in Harris County for five years.
Two burglars in Shawnee, Oklahoma, got more than they bargained for on Friday night. They kicked in a garage door and gained entry to a home. But the homeowner, Thomas Winter, was armed with a pistol. He confronted the two robbers in the entry hall. One robber was armed with a sawed-off shotgun. He tried to run up the stairs to escape. But the homeowner managed to corral both suspects and hold them for police.
rage turned into a robbery attempt in Hermitage, Tennessee, Wednesday
night. Police are still
trying to figure out what happened on the interstate, but it ended like
this: 24-year-old Anthony
Palazolo exited Interstate 40 and sat at a stoplight.
Another driver followed him off the interstate and stopped, too.
Jesse Bratcher and Chaz Ellis, angered at something Palazolo had
done, walked up to Palazolo's car. They
cursed at him. Bratcher
slapped him. Ellis pointed a
gun at Palazolo and demanded his wallet.
Palazolo grabbed the gun away from Ellis and produced his own
gun--for which he has a license to carry--and shot Ellis.
Bratcher and Ellis were caught by police shortly thereafter.
Bratcher was legally
and police found marijuana in the trunk of his car.
Ellis is in stable condition.
No charges have been filed against Palazolo.
Queens, New York. 19-year-old Robert Regent was hanging out with his friends when a mangy-looking black pit bull came charging towards them. The dog caught up with Robert and grabbed his ankle. Robert managed to kick the animal away and called his father, Ernest, on his cell phone. Ernest Regent, a veteran of the Korean War, called 911 and then grabbed a 9mm handgun from his safe. He's licensed to use it for target practice. He drove to meet his son. When he arrived at the scene, Ernest Regent saw that the dog had grabbed Robert's leg. The sound of his screeching tires startled the dog into letting go...but the dog came after Robert again! Robert jumped onto the hood of the car to escape the pit bull. Ernest Regent got out of his car, retrieved his gun, and confronted the dog. It charged at him...and Ernest Regent put a bullet in the animal's eye to stop the threat.
Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves and their homes about 7,000 times every day. The stories I bring to you are the ones that make the news. Now imagine how these people would have fared if they hadn't been armed.
ONE MAGIC ASSET GOVERNMENT HAS - AND GOVERNMENT ALONE
my thanks to a reader for alerting me to this document.
It can be found on the web site for the United Nations Institute
for Disarmament Research and is entitled “Removing Military Weapons from
Civilian Hands.” Here's
your link if you want to read the whole thing:
- you may have some sympathy for the concept of removing military weapons
from civilian hands. Before
you sign on, however, stop to think about just how the UN would define
“military weapons.” Definitions
--- it's always in the definitions.
now the UN is hosting a meeting in New York on “small arms.”
Basically, it's a meeting to discuss international gun control
efforts. Some of the
delegates to this UN meeting have made it clear that (a) they consider all
firearms to be “military weapons”; and, (b) that they favor a binding
UN resolution banning the private ownership of all firearms with the
exception of some specialized hunting weapons.
--- why do I bring up this particular document?
It's because of one statement made by its authors.
Here's your quote: "Such
weapons distort societies … they make it harder for the State to regain
the legitimate monopoly of force ... compromising the effectiveness of
police forces and encouraging law-abiding civilians to arm themselves for
protection..." (You'll find the entire quote in the 12th
paragraph of the document.)
.. read the paragraph again. Do
you see what's being presented as good and what's being presented as bad?
“.. the (state's) legitimate monopoly of force…”
“ … law abiding civilians (arming) themselves for
call me old-fashioned, but I subscribe to the concept, as set forth in the
Declaration of Independence, that government derives its powers from the
consent of the governed. The
ONLY reason government is empowered to use force, then, is because the
governed have allowed the government to use force for certain narrowly
defined purposes … collective self defense, for instance.
in the concept of wielding power with the consent of the governed is the
idea that the governed (that's us) can, if we wish, decide to deny to
government the power to use force. Now
just how in the hell would we ever enforce such a decision if we have been
Pay attention people. The movement isn't limited to Sarah Brady and her leftist cronies in the United States. There is a concerted world-wide movement to take all firearms out of the hands of all civilians. This movement is based on the concept of the supremacy of government, not the people. Government should and does have a monopoly on force, and the citizens should be powerless to change this. We, after all, are just subjects. We do as we're told … right?
ELECTORAL REFORM IDEAS
don't need to deal with all of the points from this Jimmy Carter led
commission, just the high points:
Person - One Vote
commission recommends that the federal and state governments promote the
“one person, one vote” principal.
Sorry, I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution which
promotes “one person, one vote.”
The Constitution simply sets forth some criteria on which neither
the federal nor the state governments can deny someone access to the
brutal fact of the matter is that we need to work on getting some people
away from the polls. There
are folks out there with voter registration cards who simply should not be
permitted to participate in the election process.
Voting should not be a right.
It should be a privilege earned by the voter. Read on.
and foremost, parasites out! Yeah,
strong language, isn't it? Look
- it looks like society is going to have to endure the presence of welfare
parasites for some time to come. We
just can't seem to come to grips with the idea that it is fundamentally
wrong for one person to be able to use the government to commit an act
which, if they set out to accomplish the task personally, would constitute
a crime. You want me to
phrase that a little more plainly? Fine.
It is just wrong for one person to use the police power of
government to take money from another person for their own personal use.
Well, as I said - we're going to have to endure these parasites -
does that mean that we have to give them a place at the decision making
table? Isn't it clear that
their vote is going to be based simply on which candidate is going to be
the better proxy-looter?
people who are not self-sufficient; those people who depend on government
coerced income redistribution for their needs, have no business voting.
The inmates don't run the asylum.
The animals don't manage the zoo.
how do we limit the right to vote? Income
tax payers? That would just
serve to further institutionalize the income tax system - a downside.
Property owners? That
might lock out the transient businessman who pays heavy taxes and has
every right to participate in the process.
Maybe we could just require the payment of some taxes in some form.
Show that you've paid an aggregate of $5,000 in ad valorem,
property, state and federal income taxes, and here's your ballot?
felons who have served their time to vote.
know who likes this idea? Democrats,
that's who. And why do
Democrats like this idea? Because
in areas where convicted felons are allowed to vote - guess what?
They vote Democratic? Those
of us who believe that the Democratic Party will be the eventual
instrument of the destruction of the American experiment in freedom aren't
Election day a federal holiday.
a union-led idea. Here's
something for you to think about. On
days designated as federal holidays you will generally see more
lower-income people off the job than higher-income people.
Why not just move the election to the weekend?
Open the polls on Saturday morning, close them on Sunday night!
Believe me - Democrats will never support that idea.
To many high-achievers might be set loose on the polls.
election reporting until all the polls close.
now that's a great idea. Let's
impose some federal standards on the way television networks can report
the news! Again, the we have
a better idea. In fact, this
one idea would be the easiest-to-implement highest-impact election reform
idea you could come up with. Read
and marvel: Every voting
precinct in the entire country - from Puerto Rico to Guam - opens at 6:00
am Eastern time on Tuesday morning and closes at 6:00 am Eastern time on
Wednesday morning. With this
plan every single voting precinct opens and closes at the same time - and
every voter in the United States gets the chance to go to the polls and
cast their vote at the very hour that is most convenient to them.
Again, I would suspect the strongest opposition to this idea would
come from the left.
There's sure to be much more argument on this subject to come. In fact, Wednesday's Wall Street Journal has an editorial on the subject. Here's your link:
AND YOU DIDN'T MISS THIS ONE, DID YOU?
talking about Democratic Class Warlord Dick Gephardt.
Last week he was spilling the beans on Democratic plans … plans
that will go into effect if the Social Democratic Party gains control of
the House in the next election. At
the top of the list? Raise
income taxes. That's right !
Kill the Bush tax cut and raise taxes back to present levels - or
more! Oh, and you can be sure
that this tax increase will only affect high achievers - Americans in the
top 30 percent of income earners. By
the way, according to 1998 Congressional Budget Office Figures, if you
make roughly $43,000 or more you fall into the top 30%.
Now --- you people make sure to sit on your rears when the election comes around next year. They're after your money, but you shouldn't worry about it. Why would you vote for anyone who believes you don't pay enough taxes already?
DEMOCRATS ARE SO ANGRY.
there's been a compromise on the Patient's Bill of Rights.
Bush has a bill he can sign, and that bill has been passed by the
Republican House and sent to a House-Senate conference committee.
are royally ticked! They are
beside themselves! And just
why are the leftist so upset? Were any of the real patient protections in
the bill removed or modified? No,
Democrats are upset because the Patient's Bill of Rights may not now
accomplish what the Democrats wanted it to accomplish.
The bill was never about new private health care rights for
patients. It was all about
moving the United States closer to nationalized - government controlled -
Democrats the primary provision of The Patient's Bill of Rights was the
part that allowed patients to sue HMOs and employers for millions of
dollars. The Democrats wanted
a cap of $5 million dollars, and they wanted those suits to be tried in
state courts where trial lawyers have a better chance of finding
high-award juries. Furthermore,
the Democrats wanted the patients to be able to bring these suits without
any review of their claim at all. The
plan was to create so much fear among employers - and to boost the cost of
HMO health plans to such an extent that thousands of employers would just
throw up their hands and cancel all health coverage for their employees.
about it. You're an employer
providing health coverage to your employees.
Suddenly you have a contingent $5,000,000 liability for each
employee if something goes wrong with their health care.
What are you going to do? I'll
tell you what you will do if you are a good businessman.
You are going to cancel your health coverage for your employees and
just increase their pay by an amount equal to what you were paying for
health care. Now --- you
would think that the employee would then be able to just take that money
and buy their own policy, wouldn't you?
Well, hold on! The
Democrats took care of that eventuality too.
They recently defeated a Republican proposal to allow employees to
deduct the cost of health insurance on their income tax.
Employers can deduct the cost, individuals cannot.
When you're trying to create chaos in health care you don't want to
do anything that could possibly make it easier for an individual to carry
their own health insurance policy. Independent
individuals are dangerous to statist dreams.
--- the new bill hits the Democrats on all of these fronts.
It reduces the pain and suffering awards to a $1.5 million cap,
provides for a review system before these suits can be filed, and adds
additional protection for private employers.
lawyers, as you know, are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic
Party. A full 90% of campaign
contributions from personal injury and medical malpractice trial lawyers
go to Democrats. This money
comes from the huge amounts of money these trial lawyers make from their
contingency fee arrangements. The
lower the awards, the lower the fees.
The lower the fees, the less money you have to donate to Democrats.
Yet another reason Democrats are so outraged!
simple math here. Let's
lowball it and say that a typical medical malpractice lawsuit would cost
$500,000 to prosecute. The
lawyers is going to have a contract with the client stating that the costs
of the lawsuit will come out of the proceeds - then the lawyers will take
40% or more of what's left. If
your limit in pain and suffering damages is $5,000,000 that would leave
about $1.8 million for the lawyer after all is said and done.
Reduce the cap to $1.5 million and the lawyer's take suddenly
shrinks to $400,000. Quite
frankly, that's not enough for the high-powered Democratic Party donors to
lawsuits, less chaos. Les
chaos, fewer constituents demanding solutions from their elected
officials. The Democrats were
looking for the resulting chaos to produce demands for more government
involvement in health care. Their
goal is complete and total nationalization - and their goal has been
pushed back by George W. Bush.
No wonder they're upset!
WISH THIS GOVERNMENT PROGRAM GOOD RIDDANCE.
called "Creative Wellness."
It's a program that was launched under former Housing Secretary
Andrew Cuomo. It was to be
taught in public-housing centers in 26 cities.
The program identifies people as one of 14 different
"types," depending on their "corresponding glandular
points." Men would be
designated either an "Apollo" or a "Hermes" and women
would be labeled either an "Artemis" or a "Minerva."
programs in Philadelphia and other cities taught government-housing
residents to burn incense and surround themselves with feel-good colors
and gemstones! Documents show
the program's expenses included $3,240 for color charts, $6,270 for gem
bags, $3,174 for incense, $6,255 for aroma kits, $1,201 for aroma
oils...and $624 for nutrition kits that included sugar, salt, candy--and
Jim Beam whiskey!
public housing recipient in Alabama was told she should avoid the color
green. In a testimonial, she
says she's been sleeping like a baby since she "cleaned out my closet
and removed the dark-green bedding."
cost to implement this inane program nationally?
How about $860,000 over three years.
The money would have come from HUD's anti-drug budget.
for taxpayers, President Bush's housing officials have killed this program
just before it was set to go national.
Documents show Cuomo didn't even know about the grant--it was a
favor from career housing bureaucrat Gloria Cousar to a longtime friend,
Michelle Lusson. Both women
were then leaders in a church called the Center for Holistic Healing in
Herndon, Virginia. Cousar got
an assistant housing secretary to sign off on the "Creative
to say, this bizarre program is one of the many remnants of the last
administration we won't miss.
what government does with your money when you're not looking, my friends.
This is the kind of program your government funds with your money.
Apparently teaching aromatherapy is a better use of your money
than, say, saving up for your kid's college tuition.
Neil Boortz is a syndicated talk show host based in Atlanta Georgia. You can visit his website at http://www.boortz.com.
Neil Boortz is a syndicated talk show host based in Atlanta Georgia. You can visit his website at http://www.boortz.com.
Please visit our sponsors