5views.com

It’s the only name that seems to fit.  I’ve heard it called the ’swindulus’ package, the ‘porkulus’ package and the ’spendulus’ package.  No matter what you call it, it’s a bad idea.  And now you too can protest this irresponsible legislation.

Monday (tomorrow) on President’s Day in Seattle there will be a protest against the Friday the 13th Spending Bill (that’s the day it was in conference and reached its final form.) a.k.a. the “Obama Stimulus Package” (written by Nancy Pelosi and friends.)

Here’s the announcement:

IT’S ON!! PRESIDENT’S DAY PROTEST AT WESTLAKE PARK IN SEATTLE!

The protest against the porkulus is on for President’s Day!

Date: Monday, February 16th
Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Where: Westlake Park in downtown Seattle, 401 Pine St., in the open area by the big arch.

The idea is to use what we’ve learned about dissent over the last eight years. We need loud protests with lots noise and visuals. So, what should you bring?

Bring AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN! Bring your families, your friends, neighbors, bring everyone!

Bring SIGNS!! Get those craft making juices flowing and make signs and banners and pictures and paintings. Just imagine that you are a left-wing college student with nothing else to do and that should help you get started!

Bring something to sit on and appropriate clothing.

Most importantly, JUST BRING IT!!!

More info (PROTEST UPDATE -NEW!):

Great news! Steve Beren, the man who tried to take on radical lefty Jim McDermott, will be a speaker at the protest rally! I am in the process of trying to find more speakers, including economists from the list of those that signed that letter published by the Cato Institute.

Let’s see what happens!!

Stay tuned…

NEW UPDATE:

1. I will be on KIRO News tonight on the 5:00 news talking about our protest.
2. The speakers will start around 12:30pm to accommodate those people who can only come during their lunch hour, so get there earlier rather than later!

Stay tuned for more!!

Another post from Liberty Belle:

More Reasons to Attend the Protest on Monday

This really is for the children.  It’s irresponsible to saddle them with debt that resulted from the mistakes of people that we elected (and when I say ‘we’ I’m actually just being polite since I didn’t do anything to elect Clinton or Greenspan).  The next generation should be left to decide for themselves how much debt they deserve and can handle.

But for all of my ‘fans’ out there, I’m sorry to disappoint but I won’t be attending the rally.  I have a prior commitment.   If not for that I would be there.

Update:

From the Boston Tea Party to your neighborhood pork protest
A Protest for the Rest of Us
Seattle’s Stimulus Bill Protest
Signs of the day
So, so proud - happy, satisfied, tired, RILED UP!!!

There are two very important facts left out of the calculation that supposedly ends with the $789 Billion price tag on the spending package just passed by congress.

Those facts are:

• Debt financing is not included in that number
• Congress will never cut spending from these levels to the pet projects that were included in it

The Heritage Foundation has more accurate numbers posted on it’s blog.  The numbers are based on figures from the Congressional Budget Office.

The true expected cost: $3.27 Trillion dollars.  And that’s a preliminary figure based on extending out only 20 of the most popular spending items.

There are some other things to think about when considering just how much these numbers can still rise.  Debt financing costs could rise.  There are other programs and projects that are not calculated with the assumption that they will never by cut.

Debt financing numbers ($744 B) are based on current rates paid by the US Governmen, mostly for Treasury Bills.  However, because the world economy is slowing there will be less money available to borrow, so the government will have to raise the rates that it pays on these instruments to attract investment.  The biggest example of this is China, which has been buying up T-Bills for years.

Congratulations Democrat voters.  You have just succeeded in saddling the next generation with an impossible debt burden.

It seems that Norm Dicks has received $59,500 in campaign contributions from a defense lobbyist group that, in turn, received about $100 million in defense contracts for it’s clients

In case you hadn’t guessed already, I didn’t vote for him.  It does remind me of one of the funniest campaign stickers I’ve ever seen.  Someone tore off the ‘rm’ from one of his stickers and slapped it on the sidewalk at the Freedom Fair.

Since Dicks is a Democrat there will likely be nothing that becomes of this fact.  However, if he were a Republican you can bet he’d be investigated by every government agency with even the remotest interest in such things.

It’s kind of like Barry signing an executive order restricting the hiring of lobbyists, then turning around and filing for numerous exceptions to his own rules.  I’m guessing you didn’t hear much about it.  The media like to keep the facts about Barry quiet, just like they do for any other Democrat.  Republicans, of course, receive no such special treatment in the media.

Dicks among beneficiaries of suspect lobbyist firm

Another point to note about this story is that the congressman at the center of this investigation is none other than ABSCAM-bribe-recipient-caught-on-tape John Murtha.  Has anyone heard if he’s going to be prosecuted for accepting that bribe?  Oh, wait.  My mistake.  He’s a Democrat.

So where are all of the people who screamed about Dick Cheney and his former ties to a defense contractor.  All I hear are crickets chirping from that gallery.  No surprise there either.

I just finished watching the Dateline interview of the Octuplet’s mom.  My opinion of this woman has grown tremendously.  My opinion of the interviewer, Ann Curry, has diminished significantly, which I didn’t think was possible considering how low it was to before the interview.

In the interview this new mom came across as a caring, confident, faithful and loving individual. The interviewer came across as a nasty, bitter, condescending, self-righteous… (I’ll let you finish that sentence).
This mother is driven by her love for her children.  She has a tremendous task ahead of her but it’s clear that she will do everything in her power to rise to the occasion.

To put this ‘debate’ in context, let me compare her to a woman who ‘chooses’ to kill her baby before it’s born.  Would Ann Curry have asked a woman who chose to take the life of her unborn baby how that is not selfish?  Would she have condescendingly implied that it was irresponsible as she did with this mother who chose life for her children.

It’s amazing to me that only the death of an unborn baby is considered ‘choice’, but when a mother chooses life for her unborn baby it’s criticized as irresponsible and selfish.

Isaiah 5:20 -  Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!  (KJV)

There’s a guy I run into once in a while that has come to illustrate to me the mentality of liberal commenters.  He’s made so many ridiculous statements that I can only laugh at how much he resembles the liberal commenters that have visited this site.

I just wanted to take a moment to thank this person for confirming to me that I made the right choice in limiting comments to registered users.

I have to make a few simple changes to the site to manage registration and comments.  As soon as that is done I’ll make the opportunity available to begin commenting.  Of course, that opportunity will only be available to thinking people who don’t spew liberal or Democrat talking points.  I don’t mind engaging in debate, but I’m not going to waste any more time with senseless dimbulbs.

I also want to thank the one or two people who actually engaged in intelligent discourse on this site over the last year.   You know who you are.  You’ll be welcomed if you choose to come back.  As for the rest.  I’m sorry to say that I honestly feel that talking with you was a waste of time.  You were neither honest nor were you discussing the issue with the open mind that liberals usually claim to maintain.

I’m more convinced than ever that liberals have become everything they claim to despise about conservatives, especially religious conservatives.  This will likely be the subject of many upcoming posts.

I’m sick and tired of wasting time dialoging with liberals and feeling obligated to respond to their stupid, ill-conceived, narrow-minded rantings.  So, I’m closing the site to unapproved commenters.

If you would like to be able to comment on this site, just send me an e-mail at ‘moderator’ at this site.

I haven’t read any of today’s comments, but I will likely just spam them rather than respond.

I wish I could say it’s been fun dialoging with dimbulbs, but it really hasn’t.  There have only been one or two people who have presented substantive arguments to posts on this site, so it’s largely been a waste of time.

Liberals in the Washington State legislature are once again attacking the free practice of religion.  Bills introduced in the House and Senate by some of the most liberal Democrats in this state’s congress would put employers in further jeopardy of frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled employees and former employees.  In addition it furthers the business-unfriendly climate that exists here in Washington State.

I’m guessing that this is payback for the trial lawyers who supported them in their campaigns.

Aside from opening the door to violating the free exercise clause of the US Constitution, this bill has a broad and nebulous definition of what constitutes a violation.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. (1) An employer may not require an employee to attend a meeting, or listen to, or respond to, or participate in,  any other communication when a purpose of the requirement is to ensure that employees receive communications relating to political or religious matters or to influence the employee’s beliefs, opinions, or actions about political or religious matters.

(2) An employer may not take or threaten to take an adverse employment action against an employee because the employee:

(a) Refuses to attend a meeting or listen or otherwise respond to, or participate in, any other communication that the employee reasonably believes violates or would violate this section;
(b) Challenges or opposes any practice or action that the employee reasonably believes violates or would violate this section; or
(c) Makes a claim, files suit, testifies, assists, or participates in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing involving any practice or action that the employee reasonably believes violates or would violate this section.

The fact is proselytizing, or evangelism, is a basic tenet of most Christian religions.  Preventing anyone, no matter where they are or what they’re doing, from engaging in those efforts violates the free exercise clause.  This law would likely hold the employer responsible any such efforts by any employee for simply allowing the free exercise of religion by any employee. Let me put it another way.  If an employer allowed one employee to talk about his religion in the workplace another employee could claim that he was therefore forced to listen to it.

And you can kiss the company Christmas party goodbye.  And forget about businesses partnering with religious charities to benefit the needy in our communities.

Makes me wonder what these people are so afraid of.  Why does religion, especially Christianity, frighten these people so much that they make every possible attempt to squelch it?  Talk about frightened and clingy.

Here’s how I think they should change this bill:

• Remove any reference to religion, since it’s covered in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which this law violates;
• Leave in all of the stuff about politics;
• Include labor unions everywhere that employers are mentioned.

This way some of the Republicans in the Puget Sound area who fear for their jobs just for mentioning their political affiliations will have some recourse and maybe some union members will feel free to vote their conscious instead of having to risk their paycheck and their safety.

Think that will ever happen?

Related:
COFFEE BREAK: business and politics

Update:
Holmquist: broad bill could limit free speech, cost jobs

Update:
‘Working Privacy Act’ dead amid ethical questions

Global warming alarmists who want us to spend all of our hard earned money on yellow dim-bulbs (CFLs) and higher energy costs are a little red in the face. They’re not embarrassed at how ridiculous they sound, they’ve just been out in the cold weather too long.

Washington temperatures drop near record lows

The low temperature at Sea-Tac Airport dropped to 19 degrees at 4 a.m. today, breaking the old record of 20 for the date set in 1964.

Johnny Burg of the National Weather Service office in Seattle says Hoquiam tied its record low of 25, set in 1967.

Forecasters say previous cold spells will make records hard to break, but the lows expected this week might come close.

I’m still waiting for the last enviro-scare, the coming ice age. Or is it here already?

The Tacoma News Tribune has a one-sided article about the Bush Administration’s decision to give a $1.5 million grant to Federal Way based World Vision to help fund it’s anti-gang program.

The article makes no effort to provide any type of balance. It would have been very simple to provide a link to the actual decision on the Justice Department Web site, but they didn’t even do that. They simply quoted a heavily biased article from the leftist New York Times News Service

Maybe a quote of the constitution would help understand the issue:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

So, a) this does not ‘respect an establishment of religion’ since World Vision itself is not a religion but rather hires people of faith from numerous churches, denominations and groups; and b) withholding money from or requiring them to change their hiring practices would infringe upon their freedom to individually practice their religion.

This money goes to kids, not the establishment of a religion.
(more…)

I’ve downloaded a copy of the report from the Alaska investigation. I started reading the testimonies of the people who were witnesses to the issue. They all say the same thing. Todd Palin was the one pushing the issue.

The report says that Sarah Palin handled the firing of the public safety official properly. What, then did she supposedly do wrong? She didn’t rein in her husband.

There are so many problems with this report that it might only take until morning before people expose the flaws in it. Here are a few that I spotted:

• It was Todd Palin’s behavior that was in question, not Sarah’s.
• Sarah was required to rein him in if there was a question of ethics violations, but the report shows no indication that there were any.
• The report did not recommend any charges be filed or any disciplinary action be taken against her.
• Todd’s concern, and it’s clear that it was shared by Sarah, was for the safety of her sister, her father and the people of the area where the ex-brother-in-law served as a state trooper.

(more…)