They are at it again

Hi, been a little Busy lately, and have had little time to get my thoughts out of my head.

Our wondrous and magnanimous state government is at it again.

They have been busy these last couple of weeks legislating away the rights of the people. The latest bill to get by the senate was a helmet law for bicycles under age sixteen, not motorcylces mind you bicycles. As if the police don't have enough to do already now they will have to write tickets to 15 year olds for not wearing a helmet. Lets get real here!! The parents are not the ones to decide if the child should wear the helmet, it now the states responsibility. I only heard one state senator that spoke out against this law. He said it was just another extension of the nanny state, and he is right. The senators for this bill all claimed it would save the state money in medical bills picked up by the state. I see this as another way for the state to make money, to fund other crazy ideas like this one.

The next item they tried to pass was a state ADA act fashioned after the glorious ADA Act passed during the Clinton Administration. This act goes a little farther though. Any employer with six or more employees must either make accommodations for the handicapped or explain to the state why it would not feasible or prudent to do so. It would have put a lot of people out of business. Look at it this way, have you ever seen an electrician, carpenter, security tech, dry wall hanger, or heating and AC tech. in a wheelchair. If this law had not stalled with a 12 to 12 tie vote in the senate, companies that do this type of work in the state would have to justify not making their business accessible to the handicapped. Thankfully this bill has stopped, but I am sure we will see it again real soon.

Then, we have the new easy pass system. Yahoo!! They are trying to take the token discount from commuters, 50 percent, and lower the discount for easy pass users to 30 percent. Does this make any sense to you? I do not understand this logic. If you do not use easy pass you must now pay the full price of the toll. And the easy pass user get his transponder for 5 bucks and a 30 percent discount. The transponder costs forty dollars, so the state is willing to take a loss of thirty five dollars just to entice users of easy pass. Flawless logic isn't it? The real kicker is there is going to be only one easy pass lane at the the toll booth stations and the rest are cash and exact change. Why would any one use easy pass? Tokens are so much easier you actually have at least six cash lanes to choose, making the traffic move quicker. I can just see the problems, imagine getting stuck in a line trying to get to a cash lane but you have to wait for a line of cars to go through the easy pass lane. I don't really have a problem with easy pass, for people that want to use it, the state should not absorb a loss implementing it. If a person wants to use easy pass, they should pay for the transponder in full. 30 percent discount is fair after the transponder is paid off. And the discount should not apply to out of state easy pass users.

The Lefts Latest Buzz Word

"Dominionist", "Dominionism": Ominous words aren't
they? You almost expect the bogeyman to jump out of
the dark corner. That is the idea behind these words,
to scare people.

The strange thing about these words is that they do
not exist in Noah Webster's dictionary, or any other
dictionary for that matter. These words were made up
by people that want to demonize someone they disagree
with.

I "googled" the word "dominionist" and got 19000
hits. ninety five percent of those hits were from left
leaning secularists.

These people are secularists and leftists. I looked
these up and they are in Webster's dictionary.
Secularist means: Religious skepticism or
indifference. and Leftist means: Belief in or support
of the tenets of the political left.

"Dominionist' is the latest buzz word for the left
leaning secularist to use against the "religious
right", conservatives, and people that are
constitutionalists in order for them to seem evil or
misguided. It is used to bludgeon and destroy anyone
that does not subscribe to their belief in the
collective. It is used to put down the free thinker.
It is used against anyone that believes in an absolute
right and wrong.

The people that bring us this word "Dominionist", are
the same people that believe we went to war with Iraq
for oil. They believe business and free markets are
evil. They believe in the redistribution of wealth.
They believe that health care should be managed by the
government. They think "it takes a village" to raise
a child. They have feelings on political issues,
instead of thoughts.

I noticed that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,
a constructionist, and Chief Justice William
Rehnquist, an "old school" conservative, have been
lumped into the dominionist category.

Secularism has permeated our society so much, that
not only should politicians not be morally guided by
their religion or beliefs. Doctors and pharmacists
should also check their religion and morals at the
door when they come to work. The doctor or pharmacist
is a private citizen, they have the same rights as you
or I. They take an oath to do no harm, not give up
their beliefs. A small business, a family owned
Pharmacy or even a independent doctor's office, has
every right to do business how they please and run it
according to their religious beliefs if they wish to
do so. If your doctor or pharmacist does not agree
with you or your beliefs, you can always find one that
does.

Did you know, when you check into a hospital no
matter how serious or minor, you are always asked your
religious faith? So, you can be treated by a doctor of
similar faith if it matters to the person being
treated.

Secularists believe that evolution or Darwinism
should be the only thing taught in biology class. The
evolution theory is only a theory and as yet unproven
with empirical scientific evidence. We have yet to see
a new species evolve from an old one. They complain
that we can't include "Intelligent Design" because it
is not a scientific theory. In effect evolution theory
is also a religion which means, at its simplest,
believing in something with no proof. I believe both
should be taught as theories, not as fact.

Most, not all, secularists subscribe to moral
relativism, meaning there is no right or wrong only
shades of gray. No good or evil only victims and
oppressors.

These secularists would have you believe we are only
a step away from becoming a theocracy. When in truth
we are only a step away from becoming a complete
socialist state. Their ideals hold more true to the
ideals of socialism, than democracy.
Democracy is not a correct statement, we are in truth
a constitutional republic with democratically elected
representatives.

Secularists would also have you believe that our law
is not founded on Judeo-Christian values. Our
constitution was written with this in mind. English
common law is the foundation of our adversarial system
of law. English Common law is firmly founded on these
principles. Common law was brought here during the
colonial period, so it should not be surprising that
it has become entrenched in our law.

Christians, Conservatives, and Libertarians are all
calling for a return to the principles this country
was founded upon. To leave the socialist agenda
behind, and move forward with a true republican form
of government.
For the individual to take responsibility for himself,
not the government. To quit governing with feelings,
and return to reason.

After, writing all this I came up with a little test,
because you might not fit into progressive secular
society, and might be ostracized. I borrowed a little
bit from Jeff Foxworthy, I hope he forgives me:

You might be a Dominionist if:

If you believe in a strict interpretation of the
constitution, you might be a dominionist.

If you believe government should return to its
constitutional foundations, you might be a
dominionist.

If you go to church more than two times a year and
vote, you might be a dominionist.

If you believe in Creationism, you might be a
dominionist.

If you believe taxes should be lower, you might be a
dominionist.

If you believe judges should not use foreign law as
guide for adjudicating cases, you might be a
dominionist.

If you believe government should take less of a roll
in your life, you might be a dominionist.

If you don't have a collectivist mentality, you might
be a dominionist.

If you don't leave your morals at home, you might be
a dominionist.

If you believe in absolutes, such as right and wrong,
you might be a dominionist.

If you own a gun, you might be a dominionist.

So, if you agree with or subscibe to any of these
statements watch out. You might be next to have this
"Domininionist" label thrown at you.

"Redneck" would also have fit, because that is how
religious and conservative people are portrayed by the
left. I know you have heard it: close minded country
bumpkins who are undereducated and don't get modern
progressive life.

Isn't it odd that I used ten different "ism" and
"ist" words, in a political or idealogical context,
and all of them are defined in Webster's dictionary?

I come from a line of thinking that; words mean
things. The politically correct crowd is always trying
to redefine or create words with new meanings.

Social Security Disinformation

The most recent edition of the Goffstown News
contained a letter titled:

Bush's plan for Social
Security is gambling with the future

.

There is so much disinformation circulating,
concerning this subject. And this letter is either
part of that campaign or from someone that is poorly
informed as to the crisis this nation is facing.

Let me begin by stating three indisputable
facts.
1)Social Security will be paying out more than it
brings in 2017.
2)Social Security will be bankrupt by 2042.
3)Bush's plan does not affect people 55 or older.
There is no denying these facts.

Something must be done about this now or no one that
has payed into social security will receive anything
from it.
That is a bad return on an investment, don't you
think?
If it is looked at logically social security is not
secure and won't be unless something is done. People
also seem to have lost sight of what social security
is, it is a retirement supplement to defray the costs
of living with no active source of income. --Read the
Social Security Act sometime, it is very interesting
reading--
If the "baby boomers" and seniors will quit acting so
infantile, they will see that by the time their
children and grandchildren retire, those generations
will be paying for huge for increases in the Social
Security tax and cuts in benefits. Are they so selfish
that they can't see that their children and
grandchildren will exist just to pay Social Security
taxes?
This is a very unfair burden to the younger
generations. I know I don't want my daughter paying
50% or more of her income to Social Security.
What does this quote have to do with Social Security?
"We've seen wiped-out retirement funds; from Enron and
Lucent to Healthsouth and WorldCom: Millions of stock/
retirement dollars evaporated." This has nothing to do
with Social Security, these are 401k's etc. I believe
anyone who invested in these companies signed
something to the effect of: their investment is not
guaranteed a profit and could lose money. They did not
decide how your Social Security money is invested.
These companies or companies like them will not be
running our personal retirement accounts. These
companies' executives are being investigated, charged
and convicted for the crimes they committed.

President Bush misspoke about the the T bills. T bills
were an incorrect term. This is what I believe he was
trying to convey.

Congress for years now has been taking money from the
social security trust fund and using it for the
general
budget. And they(Congress) have issued worthless
IOU's, because Congress has no intention of paying the
money back.

The private stock market is not a risky gamble. It is
a gamble, but life is a gamble. Take a look at the
long term growth of the stock market. It has grown
consistently and steadily in the last 50 years.
Yes, there economic downturns but they are short lived
and sporadic. All in all a good vehicle for long term
investment. If it is looked at with the short term in
mind it is quite volatile. But retirement is being
discussed here and the long term model should always
be considered, not the short term.

President Bush's plan for Social Security might not be
the best plan. It is the only plan I have heard, and I
have yet to hear one idea from the opposition. Instead
of bemoaning how wrong Bush's plan is, why not put
some viable alternatives on the table for discussion.
And by alternatives I don't mean tax increases.
All I keep hearing is how we can't change the
cornerstone of FDR's New Deal.

Personally, I would like to see the Social Security
Act, the Welfare Act and any other entitlement act
repealed. Congress and the President have no
constitutional authority to enact legislation for the
express purpose of taking money from one group and
giving it to another. This power is not enumerated
once in the Constitution. If all this was cut from the
budget, deficits would be non-existent.

Published 05/05/2005 in the Goffstown News
M Loveless