US Agency for International Development has distributed 10 billion US-made condoms around the world. To save money, they can switch to Chinese-made condoms. They’re less than half the price. But that will eliminate jobs in Alabama. Should the US government insert a “buy American” provision back into the stimulus bill, even though it’s known that protectionist trade policies hurt long term GDP? To save US jobs, it’ll cost more money and extend the recession.

Conservative conundrum:

What the *&#% is the US Government doing paying for 10 billion condoms?

There are a lot of topics that are a possibility. There’s the Study that sexually explicit lyrics lead to teen sex. I’m actually encouraged so many teens are still abstaining. It also leads me to question again whether sex education in our schools makes sense. Teaching them responsibility for their actions makes more sense to me.

The number of people in America that say they have no religion at all has doubled since 1990 to 15%. Where should the blame lie? Media? Education? Government?

Illegal immigrants looking for work are causing traffic accidents in front of Home Depot. They admit they are in the country illegally. Seems to me a simple solution would be to call INS and say, “hey, there are a bunch of illegal immigrants here.” Our US government is responsibile for protecting our borders. Why don’t they do their job?

What do you want to talk about?

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

When the U.S. government is taxing our grandchildren for the purposes of increasing spending, the rights of the state are trampled. Thank goodness states are fighting back.

Lawmakes in 16 states have joined what’s become known as the Tenth Amendment Movement. And it’s picking up speed. At least that many are considering the same. Read more here and here and here.

Call your state representative. Tell them you want to govern your own state, not Washington. Before we’re all broke.

These states have already passed or have resolutions pending to pass the Tenth Amendment Movement: Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington.

Soon to come: Alaska, Alabama, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine, Pennsylvania.

Is your state on this list?

Related articles by Zemanta

• 3 Cheers for the 10th Amendment Movement – ALAN KEYES (usapartisan.blogspot.com)
• When In The Course… (wordout.computergeekservices.net)

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system.

One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446).

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

I think most Americans will object to this being buried in a panic-induced overreaching deficit bill without debate. Why is our Obamanation ramming stuff like this down our throats without debate? If these are so important, why can’t they be voted on individually so each portion can be judged on its own merit?

Please, government, stop helping us. We can’t afford it. Just put the checkbook down, back away, and nobody will get hurt. We don’t need a “stimulus” plan. It’s that’s sort of government “help” that got us into this mess in the first place.

The best and simple economic “stimulus” plan I’ve seen is to simly refund all individual taxes collected in 2008. It costs about the same and gives all the people’s money back to the people who would happily spend such a windfall.

Please, Congress, stop helping us now. Just put the checkbook down and back away.

My post was going to be about how Obama’s strategy results in everybody getting poorer. While the poor may vote for a policy that takes from the rich, they delude themselves if they think they’ll get any of it. The US Government will absorb it all and then some. It’s like a monstrous black hole.

Anyway, life got in the way, and I abandoned the post, but today, Joe is headlines. American people do not like socialism, and Obama’s “spread the wealth around” rubs people the wrong way.

Drudgereport is now reporting that Gallup now shows McCain within 2 points among likely voters (by which I assume voters not recruited by ACORN). That’s quite a jump; perhaps the nervousness about Obama’s comments (along with the William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright associations) are giving McCain some momentum.

But the response by the Democrats and the mainstream media is atrocious. Biden questioned whether Joe the Plumber really was a plumber, saying he made too much money to be a blue collar worker, and reports now show that Joe is behind on taxes and doesn’t have a plumber’s license to work in his county.

Joe’s learning the hard way that questioning the Chosen One has repercussions. Is this a foreboding indication of things to come if the Chosen One is elected?

But regulations that squelch the speech of pastors? Can the US Government tell pastors what they can and cannot talk about?

There is no law that I’m aware of that restricts the speech of pastors, but IRS regulations in place for over 50 years threaten to withdraw the tax-exempt status of churches that speak on politics. I am convinced this is a contributing factor to the decline of morality in the USA. The churches are the center of what we consider moral in the country, and if the pulpits are silent, immorality blossoms.

Some pastors have begun specifically defying this regulation by specifically mentioning candidates by name. Their goal is to overturn the IRS regulation through the court system. Listen: all rules and regulations in this country should follow the US Constitution, right? Here’s the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution -

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.

That tells me that the government can’t pass any laws on what churches can and cannot say, anymore than they can tell newspapers what they can and cannot print. Read that amendment and explain to me how it could be interpreted otherwise.

If you’d like to read more, the Alliance Defense Fund is spearheading this project.

“Pastors have a right to speak about Biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment. No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley.

It’s a government restriction on the freedom of speech and the expression of religion. I cant see how anyone could interpret the Constitution any other way.