I live in the Independence , Kansas City area, this is about two grocery stores,
The first known as Sunfresh use to allow the local food pantry to come by and acquire pulled food products
to hand out to people,also this food would help the local meals on wheels and a senior citizen center,
Now to the other store Price Choppers which has bought Sunfresh will no longer allow the food pantry to pick up food,you ask well happens to this food now? They destroy it and dump it. How wasteful is that?
I can't believe they would do this , as big as this store is as much money as they make they would rather destroy the food than let people have it that are need of it.I ask all people who read this to boycott these stores.and check to make sure if your local Sunfresh is owned by Price Choppers if it is boycott that store also.
They do not deserve any business for being so uncaring.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Monday, December 26, 2011
Church and State
I think alot of these people who complain that the United States government has to much God and wants to remove God from everything, they need to go back to school and relearn what *The Separation Of Church and State * is,
A letter from Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson simply quotes the First Amendment then uses a metaphor, the "wall", to separate the government from interfering with religious practice
When Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association he never intended the words "Separation of Church and State" to be taken out of context and used as a substitute for theFirst Amendment, but for all practical purposes is what the courts have done. No where in the first amendment do you find the words"Separation of Church and State"
At the very heart of Jefferson's idea "Wall of Separation", is the notion that the government will not interfere with people's right to worship God. The very fact that the government has ruled to regulate religious practices, indicates that the government has crossed that "Wall of Separation."
Links and quotes:http://www.schoolprayerinamerica.info/1separationchurchstate.html
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html
A letter from Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson simply quotes the First Amendment then uses a metaphor, the "wall", to separate the government from interfering with religious practice
When Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association he never intended the words "Separation of Church and State" to be taken out of context and used as a substitute for theFirst Amendment, but for all practical purposes is what the courts have done. No where in the first amendment do you find the words"Separation of Church and State"
At the very heart of Jefferson's idea "Wall of Separation", is the notion that the government will not interfere with people's right to worship God. The very fact that the government has ruled to regulate religious practices, indicates that the government has crossed that "Wall of Separation."
Links and quotes:http://www.schoolprayerinamerica.info/1separationchurchstate.html
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
American Censorship
SOPA,, Do you want your emails, blogs,facebook, twitter or anything else use to be censored?
Well this is what SOPA intends to do if it is passed this week.. I have provided a link that goes into to more
detail also a link to help stop this.
http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/
http://americancensorship.org/
Well this is what SOPA intends to do if it is passed this week.. I have provided a link that goes into to more
detail also a link to help stop this.
http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/
http://americancensorship.org/
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Ridiculous fees.
This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard of a $75 annual fee to the local fire department.
A couple in Tennessee who's home burnt down because they failed to pay this fee, firefighters just
stood back and watched their home burn down.
This particular town government needs a better way to support its emergency personnel .
What would they have done if someone was trapped inside? Thats a scary thought.
A couple in Tennessee who's home burnt down because they failed to pay this fee, firefighters just
stood back and watched their home burn down.
This particular town government needs a better way to support its emergency personnel .
What would they have done if someone was trapped inside? Thats a scary thought.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
This ad, written by Bill Donohue, was rejeccted by the Kansas City Star, without explanation.
The close relationship between the newspaper and SNAP is disturbing, but to turn down
$25,000 is still surprising. The Star can impose a gag rule on us, but it cannot control us.
We intend to let everyone in Kansas City, Missouri know about this matter.
TAKING AIM AT BISHOP FINN
There is nothing wrong with asking legitimate questions about the way Bishop Robert Finn
handled the Fr. Shawn Ratigan matter. But there is something wrong about not asking
legitimate questions about the politics of those out to sink him. First, let's recap what
actually happened.
Last December, crotch-shot pictures of young girls, fully clothed, were found on Fr. Ratigan's computer; there was one photo of a naked girl. The very next day , the Diocese
contacted a police officer and described the naked picture; a Diocesan attorney was shown it.
Because the photo was not sexual in nature, it was determined that it did not constitute child
pornography. This explains why the Independent Review Board was not contacted there was
no specific allegation of child abuse..
When Fr. Ratigan discovered that the Diocese had learned of his fetish, he attempted suicide. When he recovered, he was immediately sent for psychiatric evaluation. It is important to note that
Bishop Finn, who never saw any of the photos, did this precisely because he was considering the possibility of removing of removing Fr. Ratigan from ministry. After evaluation ( the priest was
diagnosed as suffering from depression, but was not judged to be a pedophile). Fr. Ratigan was placed
in a spot away from children and subjected to various restrictions. After he violated them, the Diocese called the cops. That's when more disturbing photos were found.At the same time,
Bishop Finn contacted an attorney to do an independent investigation into this matter.
Fair-minded persons may question whether the Diocese was too lenient, but unless there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed, there is no cause for contacting the authorities. Yet the Diocese--unlike the officials of other organizations faced with the same situation--contacted a police officer and a lawyer immediately. [Note: in 2007, a huge investigation by the Associated Press of teacher sexual misconduct revealed that Missouri school districts were guilty of "backroom deals" that allowed molesting teachers to "quietly move on." So where is the dust-up about this? Where are the calls for grand jury probes?]
Why, then, the attempt to get Bishop Finn?
What's driving the anti-Finn campaign is politics. The major players are the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and attorneys Rebecca Randles and Jeffrey Anderson. Their goal is not justice. Nor is it child welfare. Their goal is to sabotage the Catholic Church.
Here''s how it works. Anderson, who is worth hundreds of millions, helps to find SNAP. SNAP works with Randles, a protege of Anderson, and together they find new "victims"--adults who just now seem to remember being groped decades ago. Indeed , upwards 20 new lawsuits have been filed since Ratigan was nailed in May. SNAP, ever coy, then holds a press conference, making wild accusations. Importantly, no one in Finn's office is prepared to comment because Randles has yet to file suit. In other words,,SNAP and Randles ambush the Diocese, garnering a high media profile, and then press the authorities to indict Bishop Finn.
What is SNAP? It sells itself as a victims' advocacy organization that represents those who have been abused by any authority. This is a lie. It concentrates almost exclusively on the Catholic Church. How do I know? For one, just check its website. More revealing, last July I asked trusted sources to register ast a SNAP conference outside of Washington, D.C. The entire event was dedicated to discussing ways to undermine what they called the "evil institution," namely the Catholic Church. No one from SNAP has contested a single comment attributed to the speakers as described in my report, "SNAP Exposed."
Here's how SNAP manipulates the media. At the meeting, attendees were instructed how to hold a press conference: "Display holy childhood photos"; Use "feeling words"; Say, "I was scared" or "I was suicidal"; "Be sad, not mad"; "If you don't have compelling holy childhood photos, we can provide you with photos of other kids that can be held up for the cameras." The unmistakable goal is to feign sorrow and stage the event.
SNAP"s director, David Clohessy, began his activist career by working for ACORN, the now discredited far-left wing organization. In 1988, while watching the movie, "Nuts," he had a revelation: his memory exploded with tales of being molested by a priest 20 years earlier. Three years later, his attorney, Jeffrey Anderson, sued the local diocese; working with Anderson for the first time was Rebecca Randles. The time gap in both instances is striking.
Clohessy wants Bishop Finn behind bars for not moving fast enough on this matter. But when Clohessy was working for SNAP in the 1990's, he refused to contact the authorities when he learned of a man who was sexually abusing young men. That man was his brother;, Kevin, a Catholic priest. Feeling conflicted, David wondered, "he's my brother; he's an abuser. Do I treat him like my brother? Do I treat him like an abuser?" He chose the former. "He [Kevin] told me he was getting help, getting treatment." This is understandable. What is not understandable is his outrage at bishops when they voice the same sentiment about their brother priests. The duplicity is sickening.
Is SNAP really upset about child porn, or just when a priest is involved? Dr. Steve Taylor is a psychiatrist who is in prison for downloading child porn on his computer. He is not just an ordinary shrink with a sick appetite--he worked for SNAP for years. Before his conviction, Barbara Blaine, the founder SNAP, intervened on his behalf and wrote to the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners asking them to give consideration to Taylor's alleged humanitarian work--she didn't want him to lose his license.. Had Taylor been a priest, her reaction would have been vengeful.
At the July SNAP conference, Blaine spoke about priests who believe they have been mistreated by the authorities and want to counter-sue. She said they may have "a legal right," but they "don't have moral right to do so." This is what SNAP means by justice. When lawsuits were flying in 2002, after revelations about the Boston scandal, many priests who claimed innocence decided to counter-sue. SNAP actually declared such lawsuits "brutal" and "un-Christian.
This one-way street favored by SNAP also manifests itself in other ways. While it always protects the names of its accusers, it demands that we know the names of accused priests, including those who are dead. Moreover, it will not release the names of its donors. Yet they condemn the Catholic Church for lacking transparency.
In August, SNAP accused New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan of covering up an alleged incident involving a teenage girl who said she was "inappropriately touched" by an 87-year-old priest. Dolan knew nothing about it until the cops were called. SNAP has yet to apologize. It also accused Dolan of "acting secretively" about a previous case where a priest was suspended. But Dolan was not in New York at the time-he was the Archbishop of Milwaukee. Moreover, at the SNAP conference, Dolan was accused of shielding 55 molesting priests. This is libelous. But it is what we have come to expect from these people--SNAP official once spat in the Archbishop's face.
SNAP is so anti-priest that its Kentucky chapter leader once lobbied state authorities to warn residents when Catholic priests who have been accused,, but not convicted, of sexual abuse move into their neighborhood. Just priests. A few years ago, in California, a boy's father alleged that his son had been abused by a priest in the 1990s. The case was dismissed. The alleged victim, now a grown man, said it never happened. When SNAP then learned that this innocent priest was appointed to a sex abuse panel, it went ballistic. In SNAP"s mind, once a priest is charged, he's guilty, no matter what the verdict says.
The reason why SNAP wants to bring down Bishop Finn is because it always shoots for the top, In September, Clohessy admitted that his goal is to bring down the pope. "We're not naive" he said. "We don't think the pope will be hauled off in handcuff's next week or month. But by the same token, our long-term chances are excellent." This kind of thinking explains why SNAP recently blasted the Vatican's new guidelines on sex abuse the day before they were released..
SNAP is so hateful that it even endorses Gestapo-like tactics used against the Catholic Church. Last year, the world was stunned to learn of a Belgium police raid on Church facilities, looking for evidence of wrongdoing. The bishop was detained for over nine hours; the police even went so far as to drill into the tombs of two deceased cardinals looking for documents. And waat did Barbara Blaine say? "If children are to be protected, the actions of Belgian law enforcement must become the norm, not the aberration."
While fascistic means are acceptable to SNAP, it knows it can't get away with that in thee U.S. So it elects to work with those who are flooding the Diocese with lawsuits. This way it can drain its resources, tie up the courts and seek to turn the public against the Catholic Church.
Randles was one of the lawyers who was behind the bundled lawsuits that led to a 2008 settlement with the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph. Those lawsuits included claims dating back to just after World War II. Now she's back, representing clients who just now seem to recall being abused many moons ago. The timing couldn't be more convenient. The SNAP-led crowd is now claiming that the settlement, which held that the Diocese had to take steps to curb abuse, was violated. Their proposed remedy represents the fulfillment of their dream: they want the Diocese to cede control of its operations.
Between 2009-2010 (the latest years for which data are available), there was a 42 percent increase in false allegations against priests. So-called repressed memory figures prominently in these bogus charges. A few years ago, researchers at Harvard Medical School studied this phenomenon and concluded that it has no scientific basis--it is purely a cultural invention. Harvard psychology professor Richard J. McNally also studied this subject. "The notion that the mind protects itself by banishing the most disturbing, terrifying events is psychiatric folklore ."He added, " The more traumatic and stressfull something is , the less likely someone is to forget it."
Randles is now charging that not only did the Diocese know what was happening , and did nothing about it, those in charge actually encouraged it. Here are some examples, all filed recently. In the case of Fr. Stephen Wise, the suit charges that "The Diocese ratified Wise's sexual abuse of the plaintiff by encouraging him to commit the abuse and encouraging him to continue committing the abuse." In the Fr. Michael Tierney case, the suit claims, "the sexual abuse of minors became a collective objective of the Diocese." And in the Fr. Mark Honhart case, the suit also claims, "the sexual abuse of minors became a collective objective of the Diocese."
In one sense, this kind of language is useful: it is positive proof of the anti-Catholic mindset. In their vision,, the Catholic Church is the font of all evil, with the pope at command central. All of this might have been believable if it had been said by nativists 150 years ago, or by those in the asylum today, but to think that such malicious fiction is being trumpeted in 2011--by lawyers no less--is mind -boggling.
Clohessy recently wrote to the prosecutors of Clay County and Jackson County."Jailing Finn once his guilt has been determined or admitted, would be an unprecedented and effective step toward preventing future clergy sex crimes and cover ups, in Kansas City and elsewhere." So Bishop Finn either admits his guilt or is found guilty. There is no other option. That's exactly the way they think.
It is incorrect to assume that Randles and company are motivated mostly by money. No, their real goal is control--the control of the Catholic Church. Raandles wants the Diocese to accept third-party supervision of these matters. She is asking for "continued supervision," explaining that she is "looking for a mechanism to enforce the provisions of the settlement agreement from this day forward, so that there is some form of continuing watch-dogging." It doesn't get much plainer than this.
The Catholic League stands by Bishop Finn without reservation. What's at stake goes well beyond Kansas City. It should be clear by now that the ultimate goal is to have the Catholic Church cede its autonomy to the state. It's what the Catholic haters have long wanted, and are now using Bishop Finn to dig a hole in the First Amendment.
Bill Donohue (President)
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
405 7th Avenue, New York 10123
www.catholicleague.org
.
The close relationship between the newspaper and SNAP is disturbing, but to turn down
$25,000 is still surprising. The Star can impose a gag rule on us, but it cannot control us.
We intend to let everyone in Kansas City, Missouri know about this matter.
TAKING AIM AT BISHOP FINN
There is nothing wrong with asking legitimate questions about the way Bishop Robert Finn
handled the Fr. Shawn Ratigan matter. But there is something wrong about not asking
legitimate questions about the politics of those out to sink him. First, let's recap what
actually happened.
Last December, crotch-shot pictures of young girls, fully clothed, were found on Fr. Ratigan's computer; there was one photo of a naked girl. The very next day , the Diocese
contacted a police officer and described the naked picture; a Diocesan attorney was shown it.
Because the photo was not sexual in nature, it was determined that it did not constitute child
pornography. This explains why the Independent Review Board was not contacted there was
no specific allegation of child abuse..
When Fr. Ratigan discovered that the Diocese had learned of his fetish, he attempted suicide. When he recovered, he was immediately sent for psychiatric evaluation. It is important to note that
Bishop Finn, who never saw any of the photos, did this precisely because he was considering the possibility of removing of removing Fr. Ratigan from ministry. After evaluation ( the priest was
diagnosed as suffering from depression, but was not judged to be a pedophile). Fr. Ratigan was placed
in a spot away from children and subjected to various restrictions. After he violated them, the Diocese called the cops. That's when more disturbing photos were found.At the same time,
Bishop Finn contacted an attorney to do an independent investigation into this matter.
Fair-minded persons may question whether the Diocese was too lenient, but unless there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed, there is no cause for contacting the authorities. Yet the Diocese--unlike the officials of other organizations faced with the same situation--contacted a police officer and a lawyer immediately. [Note: in 2007, a huge investigation by the Associated Press of teacher sexual misconduct revealed that Missouri school districts were guilty of "backroom deals" that allowed molesting teachers to "quietly move on." So where is the dust-up about this? Where are the calls for grand jury probes?]
Why, then, the attempt to get Bishop Finn?
What's driving the anti-Finn campaign is politics. The major players are the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and attorneys Rebecca Randles and Jeffrey Anderson. Their goal is not justice. Nor is it child welfare. Their goal is to sabotage the Catholic Church.
Here''s how it works. Anderson, who is worth hundreds of millions, helps to find SNAP. SNAP works with Randles, a protege of Anderson, and together they find new "victims"--adults who just now seem to remember being groped decades ago. Indeed , upwards 20 new lawsuits have been filed since Ratigan was nailed in May. SNAP, ever coy, then holds a press conference, making wild accusations. Importantly, no one in Finn's office is prepared to comment because Randles has yet to file suit. In other words,,SNAP and Randles ambush the Diocese, garnering a high media profile, and then press the authorities to indict Bishop Finn.
What is SNAP? It sells itself as a victims' advocacy organization that represents those who have been abused by any authority. This is a lie. It concentrates almost exclusively on the Catholic Church. How do I know? For one, just check its website. More revealing, last July I asked trusted sources to register ast a SNAP conference outside of Washington, D.C. The entire event was dedicated to discussing ways to undermine what they called the "evil institution," namely the Catholic Church. No one from SNAP has contested a single comment attributed to the speakers as described in my report, "SNAP Exposed."
Here's how SNAP manipulates the media. At the meeting, attendees were instructed how to hold a press conference: "Display holy childhood photos"; Use "feeling words"; Say, "I was scared" or "I was suicidal"; "Be sad, not mad"; "If you don't have compelling holy childhood photos, we can provide you with photos of other kids that can be held up for the cameras." The unmistakable goal is to feign sorrow and stage the event.
SNAP"s director, David Clohessy, began his activist career by working for ACORN, the now discredited far-left wing organization. In 1988, while watching the movie, "Nuts," he had a revelation: his memory exploded with tales of being molested by a priest 20 years earlier. Three years later, his attorney, Jeffrey Anderson, sued the local diocese; working with Anderson for the first time was Rebecca Randles. The time gap in both instances is striking.
Clohessy wants Bishop Finn behind bars for not moving fast enough on this matter. But when Clohessy was working for SNAP in the 1990's, he refused to contact the authorities when he learned of a man who was sexually abusing young men. That man was his brother;, Kevin, a Catholic priest. Feeling conflicted, David wondered, "he's my brother; he's an abuser. Do I treat him like my brother? Do I treat him like an abuser?" He chose the former. "He [Kevin] told me he was getting help, getting treatment." This is understandable. What is not understandable is his outrage at bishops when they voice the same sentiment about their brother priests. The duplicity is sickening.
Is SNAP really upset about child porn, or just when a priest is involved? Dr. Steve Taylor is a psychiatrist who is in prison for downloading child porn on his computer. He is not just an ordinary shrink with a sick appetite--he worked for SNAP for years. Before his conviction, Barbara Blaine, the founder SNAP, intervened on his behalf and wrote to the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners asking them to give consideration to Taylor's alleged humanitarian work--she didn't want him to lose his license.. Had Taylor been a priest, her reaction would have been vengeful.
At the July SNAP conference, Blaine spoke about priests who believe they have been mistreated by the authorities and want to counter-sue. She said they may have "a legal right," but they "don't have moral right to do so." This is what SNAP means by justice. When lawsuits were flying in 2002, after revelations about the Boston scandal, many priests who claimed innocence decided to counter-sue. SNAP actually declared such lawsuits "brutal" and "un-Christian.
This one-way street favored by SNAP also manifests itself in other ways. While it always protects the names of its accusers, it demands that we know the names of accused priests, including those who are dead. Moreover, it will not release the names of its donors. Yet they condemn the Catholic Church for lacking transparency.
In August, SNAP accused New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan of covering up an alleged incident involving a teenage girl who said she was "inappropriately touched" by an 87-year-old priest. Dolan knew nothing about it until the cops were called. SNAP has yet to apologize. It also accused Dolan of "acting secretively" about a previous case where a priest was suspended. But Dolan was not in New York at the time-he was the Archbishop of Milwaukee. Moreover, at the SNAP conference, Dolan was accused of shielding 55 molesting priests. This is libelous. But it is what we have come to expect from these people--SNAP official once spat in the Archbishop's face.
SNAP is so anti-priest that its Kentucky chapter leader once lobbied state authorities to warn residents when Catholic priests who have been accused,, but not convicted, of sexual abuse move into their neighborhood. Just priests. A few years ago, in California, a boy's father alleged that his son had been abused by a priest in the 1990s. The case was dismissed. The alleged victim, now a grown man, said it never happened. When SNAP then learned that this innocent priest was appointed to a sex abuse panel, it went ballistic. In SNAP"s mind, once a priest is charged, he's guilty, no matter what the verdict says.
The reason why SNAP wants to bring down Bishop Finn is because it always shoots for the top, In September, Clohessy admitted that his goal is to bring down the pope. "We're not naive" he said. "We don't think the pope will be hauled off in handcuff's next week or month. But by the same token, our long-term chances are excellent." This kind of thinking explains why SNAP recently blasted the Vatican's new guidelines on sex abuse the day before they were released..
SNAP is so hateful that it even endorses Gestapo-like tactics used against the Catholic Church. Last year, the world was stunned to learn of a Belgium police raid on Church facilities, looking for evidence of wrongdoing. The bishop was detained for over nine hours; the police even went so far as to drill into the tombs of two deceased cardinals looking for documents. And waat did Barbara Blaine say? "If children are to be protected, the actions of Belgian law enforcement must become the norm, not the aberration."
While fascistic means are acceptable to SNAP, it knows it can't get away with that in thee U.S. So it elects to work with those who are flooding the Diocese with lawsuits. This way it can drain its resources, tie up the courts and seek to turn the public against the Catholic Church.
Randles was one of the lawyers who was behind the bundled lawsuits that led to a 2008 settlement with the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph. Those lawsuits included claims dating back to just after World War II. Now she's back, representing clients who just now seem to recall being abused many moons ago. The timing couldn't be more convenient. The SNAP-led crowd is now claiming that the settlement, which held that the Diocese had to take steps to curb abuse, was violated. Their proposed remedy represents the fulfillment of their dream: they want the Diocese to cede control of its operations.
Between 2009-2010 (the latest years for which data are available), there was a 42 percent increase in false allegations against priests. So-called repressed memory figures prominently in these bogus charges. A few years ago, researchers at Harvard Medical School studied this phenomenon and concluded that it has no scientific basis--it is purely a cultural invention. Harvard psychology professor Richard J. McNally also studied this subject. "The notion that the mind protects itself by banishing the most disturbing, terrifying events is psychiatric folklore ."He added, " The more traumatic and stressfull something is , the less likely someone is to forget it."
Randles is now charging that not only did the Diocese know what was happening , and did nothing about it, those in charge actually encouraged it. Here are some examples, all filed recently. In the case of Fr. Stephen Wise, the suit charges that "The Diocese ratified Wise's sexual abuse of the plaintiff by encouraging him to commit the abuse and encouraging him to continue committing the abuse." In the Fr. Michael Tierney case, the suit claims, "the sexual abuse of minors became a collective objective of the Diocese." And in the Fr. Mark Honhart case, the suit also claims, "the sexual abuse of minors became a collective objective of the Diocese."
In one sense, this kind of language is useful: it is positive proof of the anti-Catholic mindset. In their vision,, the Catholic Church is the font of all evil, with the pope at command central. All of this might have been believable if it had been said by nativists 150 years ago, or by those in the asylum today, but to think that such malicious fiction is being trumpeted in 2011--by lawyers no less--is mind -boggling.
Clohessy recently wrote to the prosecutors of Clay County and Jackson County."Jailing Finn once his guilt has been determined or admitted, would be an unprecedented and effective step toward preventing future clergy sex crimes and cover ups, in Kansas City and elsewhere." So Bishop Finn either admits his guilt or is found guilty. There is no other option. That's exactly the way they think.
It is incorrect to assume that Randles and company are motivated mostly by money. No, their real goal is control--the control of the Catholic Church. Raandles wants the Diocese to accept third-party supervision of these matters. She is asking for "continued supervision," explaining that she is "looking for a mechanism to enforce the provisions of the settlement agreement from this day forward, so that there is some form of continuing watch-dogging." It doesn't get much plainer than this.
The Catholic League stands by Bishop Finn without reservation. What's at stake goes well beyond Kansas City. It should be clear by now that the ultimate goal is to have the Catholic Church cede its autonomy to the state. It's what the Catholic haters have long wanted, and are now using Bishop Finn to dig a hole in the First Amendment.
Bill Donohue (President)
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
405 7th Avenue, New York 10123
www.catholicleague.org
.
Monday, November 7, 2011
POLITICS
National news indicates Obama is not doing so well , the people find him failing is several areas.
Maybe these people should take a look at their senators and congressmen.they are the ones who
keep stalling Obama.He tries yet they tear him down every step of the way,
Lets face it the rich want to stay rich and not help the poor all they want to do is take away from us..
I think its about time they give up some of there money.I think they need to quit trying to block Obama at
every turn and help out.
Maybe these people should take a look at their senators and congressmen.they are the ones who
keep stalling Obama.He tries yet they tear him down every step of the way,
Lets face it the rich want to stay rich and not help the poor all they want to do is take away from us..
I think its about time they give up some of there money.I think they need to quit trying to block Obama at
every turn and help out.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
POLITICS
My point of view on how our government handles money, I'm no expert but I think I could do better than them.
To bad the president couldn't fire all of congress and senate people. If they work for any other company out here they would be fired for poor performance.
Next thing all of need to think about giving up their share of money. THEY NEED A CUT IN PAY.
What do they do instead to help the deficit , they want to cut SS, medicare/medicaid, school education,lets face
it any program that benefits the poor or middle class.So long as they get to keep their money, and the money of big corporations .Do these big buisinesses really need grant money, do they really need tax breaks,they make more than enough money to this on their own, and if the poor and middle class have to pay taxes so should they.
For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.
This is just one major company now imagine just five companies doing this ,hmmm, our government could be making money and on their way out to being debt free.
But yet they want to just take it from the people who can't afford their money being taken away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)