In the mean time, if someone wants to write and/or publish an article on the site during the next two weeks, please leave me a message below.  I will e-mail you a guest account log-in so you can access the site.  All I ask is that you do not post any hate articles and do not use profanity.  Also, I will do the Weekly (Carnival) this weekend, so if you have articles you’d rather just submit, you can do so here.

Don’t miss out.  Share you views with the world by submitting your work at the Blog Carnival website.

Miscellaneous

Madeleine Begun Kane presents Ode To An Obstructionist posted at Mad Kane’s Political Madness.

A poem about Jim Bunning and his stand against government spending.

Madeleine Begun Kane presents Liz Cheney: Chip Off The Old Crock posted at Mad Kane’s Political Madness.

A poem about Liz Cheney and the al Qaeda Seven ad.

Lou presents The Political Chop Shop or The Telepromter-gate saga continues posted at The Tao of Lou.

REMARKS: This blog includes some humorous observations on some recent events that have made our political headlines: 1.Tea Party, Coffee Party, and what kind of a platform a "Red Bull party" would adopt. 2. My take on the Sarah Palin controversy about her writing down notes for her speech on her hand…. and her latest faux pas in that controversy…"Sarah Palin: God wrote on his hand too." 3. A comedy sketch about a scenario that might have occurred
if God really
HAD used his hand to write crib notes.

Cynthia Bateman presents Gays Stay Home! Prom Is For The Straight Kids? posted at Blog About It.

Discussing the decision by a Mississippi School District to cancel senior prom because a lesbian student requested to show up in a tuxedo.

Related articles:
TalkLeft – "Republicans Attack Holder Over Detainee Amicus Briefs"
Connecting.the.Dots – "Entitlement Derangement"
Atheist Revolution – "Idiot of the Week:  Itawamba County School Board"

Contributing members:

• U.S. Common Sense
• The BoBo Files
• Phuck Politics
• The Right Wing
• EGO
• Bad Gals Radio

If you wish to be a contributing member, please visit the Political Blog Listing for more information.

InLinks

InLinks is a service that sells text-based advertisement on your behalf.  These ads appear as links to various websites embedded in the articles, without all those annoying pop-ups or large banners that obscure the flow of the article you are reading.

When ads are sold, you are paid each month a fixed amount, making it a reliable source of income.  In my case, I turn those funds around and pay off my web-hosting fees.

If you maintain an active blog and wish to recoup your investment, I highly consider checking out InLinks for yourself.  The graphic below will take you to their website, where you can discover more about their service.  You won’t be disappointed.

I have a question for you. Who should have the say over how much an insurance company can raise their rates: the Federal Government, the State Government, or no one? This question comes after President Barack Obama stated that the Federal Government should have the power to reject health insurance rate increases that they deem to be excessive.

If the Federal Government had control, then that means they could have the say over insurance companies that only operate within one state. This would supercede the authority states would have within their own borders, or as Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario stated, “It could end up as a ‘who’s on first and what’s on second’ problem.”

In my view, this violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 states:

The Congress shall have power to … regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

This would mean the State Government should have control, but that control would only last until the company expands the state borders. That is no different than any other company who grows and expands their business. But what happens if no one oversees the rate increases? You’ll be left with a handful of local monopolies that are able to increase their rates with consumers having no alternatives to turn to, meaning they either have to pay the higher rates or drop their coverage.

In my view, competition is probably the best way to keep rates in check. If one company starts to increase their rates (for whatever reason), the alternative becomes more appealing. By lowering the artificial barriers to competition, and start allowing companies from across the country to start competing for the business for every resident in the United States, not only will you see the growth in insurance rates slow, you might actually find yourself paying less for the same coverage. And when you start providing tools where rates and benefits of various insurance companies are posted online, customers can do side-by-side comparisons to find the best coverage for their needs and in their price range.

I recall waiting for the cable providers in my area to provide broadband service to my development. Friends and coworkers in neighboring develops were receiving broadband coverage for years before it ever reached me, and the delay was simply a confusion over which hub served our area. (You would think that the hub that provided our cable television was also the hub supplying the internet service.) Since those frustrating times, I have enjoyed 10 years of relatively reliable broadband coverage.

However, there are still some areas in the U.S. that doesn’t have coverage. Many of these locations are in rural areas where it would be just too expensive to lay cable to supply just a handful of potential users. One alternative that the Broadband for America group should consider is broadband delivered via satellite. Satellite internet service providerssuch as Wild Blue, HughesNet, and DirectTV can transmit their service to remote locations with ease the same way as cell phones such as the iPhone can connect to the net through their wireless signal.

I feel that this is the way our internet access will evolve in the near future. Ford should understand this, as Tennessee has many rural towns, which might be why he is an honorary board member. Is it cheaper to transmit signals via satellite than to lay cable all over the United States? I would have to think so, as well as being more environmentally friendly.

Q: Why is it called reconciliation?

A: The process was established in the 1974 law that requires Congress to pass a federal budget at the start of each year. Some years, the budget will instruct Congress to pass legislation that “reconciles” tax and spending laws with the policies laid out in that budget and triggers a process that makes it easier and quicker for lawmakers to do that.

Q: How does reconciliation make the process simpler?

A: It’s a blunt instrument that makes it easier for the majority party to win. It has little impact in the House, where the majority usually has its way. But in the Senate, it prevents the minority party from using a filibuster, which lets it block legislation with just 41 of the chamber’s 100 votes.

Q: Is that the only advantage reconciliation provides?

A: It also limits Senate debate to just 20 hours, rather than the potentially unlimited time allowed normally.

The bill has passed the House. The bill has passed the Senate with a super-majority.

To be correct, she should have said:

A bill has passed the house. A bill has passed the Senate with a super-majority.

This is what much of the debate between Congressional Democrats have been about, and why the Health Care Summitt was called the other week. It wasn’t simply because the Republicans have refused to support the legislation, but because the House Democrats and the Senate Democrats passed two different bills. Since the Democrats have lost their super-majority control in the Senate, they are forced to rely on the House to vote for the Senate-version of the bill, which some Democrats refuse to do.  If “the bill” had been passed as Sebelius stated, there wouldn’t be any debate right now, since the President would have already signed the bill into law.

Don’t miss out.  Share you views with the world by submitting your work at the Blog Carnival website.

National Security

Ottens presents Too Much On Obama?s Plate? posted at Atlantic Sentinel.

REMARKS: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell does no regret endorsing Barack Obama. . Although the president might have taken on too much too soon during the first year of his administration, the country, said Powell, is not less safe.

Scott Spiegel presents A War Movie for People Who Know or Care Nothing About War posted at Scott Spiegel.

Reviewing the inaccuracies of the movie "The Hurt Locker."

Madeleine Begun Kane presents Subversive Limerick posted at Mad Kane’s Political Madness.

A poem about an old South Carolina law that requires subversives to register with the government.

Related articles:
Cato of Utica – "Hope FOR Change"
QandO – "Military tribunal for KSM probable result (update)"
eWorldVu – "Security Still An Obstacle For Immigration Reform"

Contributing members:

• U.S. Common Sense
• The BoBo Files
• Phuck Politics
• The Right Wing
• EGO
• Bad Gals Radio

If you wish to be a contributing member, please visit the Political Blog Listing for more information.

InLinks

Since we had such a small turnout for this issue of the Political Blog Weekly, I want to let you in on a little secret.  This website pays for itself.  I don’t have to invest any out-of-pocket money to keep this site up and running, and I have to credit that to InLinks.

InLinks is a service that sells text-based advertisement on your behalf.  These ads appear as links to various websites embedded in the articles, without all those annoying pop-ups or large banners that obscure the flow of the article you are reading.

When ads are sold, you are paid each month a fixed amount, making it a reliable source of income.  In my case, I turn those funds around and pay off my web-hosting fees.

If you maintain an active blog and wish to recoup your investment, I highly consider checking out InLinks for yourself.  The graphic below will take you to their website, where you can discover more about their service.  You won’t be disappointed.

The death of Chelsea King is the latest in a string of children being killed after assaulted by a registered sex offender. With each death, the wounds held by past victims and their families re-open, making them relive the experience all over again. The responses to these actions are usually that of a mob-mentality, with calls for stonings, hangings, or at a minimum life in prison. However, the first two are not acceptable in a civilized society, and the latter can be viewed as harsh by others.

Brent King, the father of Chelsea, has called for changes in the current laws. He stated on the Today Show, “Kids [need to be] kids and be safe … and predators should not be allowed within their reach.” I can’t think of anyone that would disagree with that statement. As we grow older, we often think back to the days of our innocence, were we would go out and play, with the only worry on our mind is if we’ll be discovered in a game of hide-and-seek. Children shouldn’t be forced to live with the emotional scars of an attack or live in fear of it happening again.

The Sexual Offender (Jacob Wetterling) Act of 1994, also known as Megan’s Law, was designed to help communities deal with registered sexual offenders living in their neighborhoods. Sex offenders have to register with the local community when they move into the area, and that information needs to be made available to the public. Many states and organizations have created websites that compiles this information, so residents can screen their neighborhoods to see if there are any sex offenders nearby.

This practice is handy, but it isn’t fool proof. How can you disclose where a sex offender lives when the person is homeless? In Michigan, State Senator Bill Hardiman thinks he has the answer. He introduced legislation this week that would require the homeless sex offenders to site what area they are living in. That way, the residents would at least know that there is an offender somewhere in the region, even though that can’t pin-point the address. But even still, sex offenders are not under house arrest, so even if they did live in a house, the person could be a threat elsewhere in the area.

One of the ways to keep the movements of sex offenders away from where children are is by limiting their access to housing around schools. But as noted above, sex offenders are allowed to walk around in public, placing them in proximity with children. State Senator Bruce Burns of Wyoming is all too aware of this. Sex offenders currently cannot live within 2000 feet of a school in Wyoming, but in a state where there are many small towns; there are sometimes no places for offenders to live. He has submitted legislation to reduce this radius to just 1000 feet, giving a wyoming sex offender more flexibility in finding a residence.

So how do you balance the rights of the sex offender with that of the general public? You can’t just build a commune and expect all sex offenders to be moved to these “reservations.” Nor can you place a proximity alarm on a sex offender so that it goes off if he is too close to a school, especially if the only grocery store is on the other side of that perimeter.

This is the challenge of the law enforcement and legislatures around the nation. What rights do sex offenders have, and when are we allowed to infringe on them? Any suggestions?

Another problem with

I like Starbucks, but not for their coffee. In fact, I hate coffee. The reason why I like Starbucks is for their unwillingness to be bullied into changing their policies in regards to “open carry” laws. (And before I go any further, I want to tell you that I hate guns almost as much as I hate coffee.)

The issue centers around the privilege that California residents have to walk around in public with a gun openly displayed. Most states within the Union allow open-carry of guns by registered/licensed gun owners – a practice that bothers gun-control advocacy groups. One of these groups is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and they’ve adopted an unusual strategy to fight the open-carry laws.

It started in Northern California when the establishments Peet’s Cafe & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen were identified as popular gathering places for gun owners. The Brady Campaign approached the restaurants and asked them to change their policy on allowing people to openly display their firearms indoors, with which they complied. Noticing this was a coordinated attack, the gun owners decided to shift to Starbucks.

The gun owners hedged their bets that Starbucks was too large of a company to be pushed around while at the same time believe the company would not want to lose the sudden increase in customer revenue. The Brady Campaign approached Starbucks with the same request, but was turned away after citing they were in compliance with state laws. Not happy with the lack of the preferred response, the Brady Campaign when on the offensive publicly. Brian Malte, a director within the Brady Campaign, stated, “Starbucks put out a statement today saying they don’t want to be in the middle of this fight. Well, they are.  They are the middle. Why are they in middle?  Because they chose — they chose — not to bar guns, so far, in their stores.”

Malte is wrong, of course. Starbucks was placed in the middle by the Brady Campaign, not because they “chose” to observe state laws. As a result, the Brady Campaign has decided to harass a law-abiding company over a difference of opinion.

Starbucks has tried to keep this issue below the radar since they didn’t want to get involved in a war of words. However, after protests and press conferences in front of their stores, the company felt that their employees and customers were being pulled into an uncomfortable position and decided to go public.

We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.

While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don’t exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.

…

As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue.

The Brady Campaign needs to stop this gutter campaign against Starbucks and go back to working with the state legislatures around the nation. If they continue, I encourage Starbucks to challenge the Brady Campaign and sue them for damages due to any loss of sales as well as for harassment. They have a right to allow law-abiding customers to patron their stores.

In honor of tax season, I’ve decided to give away my copy of “The Millionaire Next Door,” written by Thomas J. Stanley, Ph.D. and William D. Danko, Ph.D. In this book, the authors provide you with years of research findings on the millionaires in the United States. They cover how they earned their money as well as how the spend it. Additionally, they reveal what professions these millionaires held in order to grow their wealth.

When we think of millionaires, we tend to think about the Wall Street brokers riding around in their limousines while wearing expensive suits and shoes. However, most of the millionaires in the United States come from “dull” careers, such as owners of mobile-home parks, paving contractors, and janitorial service providers. This is just one of the many surprising findings found in the book.

The authors cover seven key principles which the millionaire next door observe when building their wealth:

1) They live well below their means.
2) They allocate their time, energy, and money efficiently, in ways conductive to building wealth.
3) They believe that financial independence is more important than displaying high social status.
4) Their parents did not provide economic outpatient care.
5) Their adult children are economically self-sufficient.
6) They are proficient in targeting market opportunities.
7) They chose the right occupation.

Don’t you wish our Congress would practice those principles when crafting their budgets and spending our money?

Contest rules

Since I only have one copy of this book to give away, I want to turn this into a contest. The rules are as follows:

For those operating a blog
- Post an article on your site mentioning this book offer.
- Link to this article using the tag “U.S. Common Sense”.
- Post a link to your article in the comment section below.

For those who do not have a blog
- Leave a comment below on one of these three topics: what business you would like to start, how would you use your wealth to help others, or how you would change the U.S. tax code.

Make sure you enter a valid e-mail address in your profile when you leave your comment. That will be the means by which I contact you so I can mail you the book.

Since this contest is in honor of the tax season, all entries must be submitted by April 14th. I will announce the winner on April 15th. The winner will be chosen by random.