Friends, if you are looking for a God fearing man who is not afraid to stand for the truth this is your candidate.
It doesn't matter what state you are from help make this go viral.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpK1iJQo3k0&feature=youtube_gdata
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Friday, December 20, 2013
Sunday, June 19, 2011
carey defends his thoughts on drugs and same sex marriage
This is my reply to someone on a meet up board about my thoughts on Ron Paul's stance on drugs and same sex marriage
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please you really need to rehash what I wrote over and over until it makes sense, because it does.
I have never questioned Ron Paul's faith as I am well aware of his Lutheran background and the many babies he has delivered but he is not thinking sensible about the issue of marriage and or drugs.
Please explain this. One state allows same sex marriage, this couple because they are married are allowed to adopt, then this couple decides to move to a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriages. Now what? This is an area that needs a uniform law. This is not like healthcare, education, roads etc....
Furthermore the Constitution needs to expand with the times. When it was written the perversion of same sex partners was unheard of. If you were caught in a homosexual act it was a harsh penalty, sometimes the death sentence. Just like with the advent of the computer, 20 years ago crimes committed using it were unheard of because the Internet was just coming of age. So laws had to be made. Follow me?
About drugs. Making the comparison with alcohol is not the best argument. Would we be better off without alcohol? Only a fool would say we wouldn't be. Think of how many lives would of been saved, think of how the quality of life would be improved, whether its production in the workforce or family life. OK so we tried the experiment with prohibition and it failed, but you will never convince me America is a better place because we made it legal.
Besides, alcohol does have some merit, whether its in cooking, or as a beverage. Can you make that claim with drugs?
Continuing on about drugs...
Explain what freedom is there for a person that is hooked on drugs? What about crack babies? What about communities that are in shambles with people afraid to leave their houses because of the drug violence? And if you are concerned about financial matters, what about welfare and the cost for drug treatment? ALL of America is paying for this. IS there freedom in any of this? Making drugs legal would that make families stay together? Make a more productive worker? Make crime go down? Should I go on?
I have an older friend who is Iranian. He came to America in the late 50's to raise a family. He still has other family members in Iran. This friend went on to say how bad it is in Iran. One of the things the Iranian government does is pass out drugs freely to dope young people from starting a rebellion. Is there freedom in this? Study history and the downfall or decline of many civilizations and nations, its usually debauchery at the root.
And yes I stand by what I wrote: "In a free society you have to restrict certain freedoms to ensure that freedom continues"
There is no freedom with drugs. There is no freedom with allowing the communist party on ballots. Should I continue with examples of freedoms that should be restricted?
Lastly, the war on drugs hasn't failed, its our liberal judicial system and corruption in this country that has. If I know where the drug dealers are then why aren't the cops going to these street corners arresting them? Because most of the drug violence and crime is in the inner city black neighborhoods so who cares. It only becomes a problem when it reaches the white suburbs.
I must add this. One law that I would like to see and I have been telling people this. Any person caught dealing drugs or buying should be tried as helping terrorism. We are being doped out of our freedom to make way for a dictator. There is NO freedom in drugs.
Carey Masci
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please you really need to rehash what I wrote over and over until it makes sense, because it does.
I have never questioned Ron Paul's faith as I am well aware of his Lutheran background and the many babies he has delivered but he is not thinking sensible about the issue of marriage and or drugs.
Please explain this. One state allows same sex marriage, this couple because they are married are allowed to adopt, then this couple decides to move to a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriages. Now what? This is an area that needs a uniform law. This is not like healthcare, education, roads etc....
Furthermore the Constitution needs to expand with the times. When it was written the perversion of same sex partners was unheard of. If you were caught in a homosexual act it was a harsh penalty, sometimes the death sentence. Just like with the advent of the computer, 20 years ago crimes committed using it were unheard of because the Internet was just coming of age. So laws had to be made. Follow me?
About drugs. Making the comparison with alcohol is not the best argument. Would we be better off without alcohol? Only a fool would say we wouldn't be. Think of how many lives would of been saved, think of how the quality of life would be improved, whether its production in the workforce or family life. OK so we tried the experiment with prohibition and it failed, but you will never convince me America is a better place because we made it legal.
Besides, alcohol does have some merit, whether its in cooking, or as a beverage. Can you make that claim with drugs?
Continuing on about drugs...
Explain what freedom is there for a person that is hooked on drugs? What about crack babies? What about communities that are in shambles with people afraid to leave their houses because of the drug violence? And if you are concerned about financial matters, what about welfare and the cost for drug treatment? ALL of America is paying for this. IS there freedom in any of this? Making drugs legal would that make families stay together? Make a more productive worker? Make crime go down? Should I go on?
I have an older friend who is Iranian. He came to America in the late 50's to raise a family. He still has other family members in Iran. This friend went on to say how bad it is in Iran. One of the things the Iranian government does is pass out drugs freely to dope young people from starting a rebellion. Is there freedom in this? Study history and the downfall or decline of many civilizations and nations, its usually debauchery at the root.
And yes I stand by what I wrote: "In a free society you have to restrict certain freedoms to ensure that freedom continues"
There is no freedom with drugs. There is no freedom with allowing the communist party on ballots. Should I continue with examples of freedoms that should be restricted?
Lastly, the war on drugs hasn't failed, its our liberal judicial system and corruption in this country that has. If I know where the drug dealers are then why aren't the cops going to these street corners arresting them? Because most of the drug violence and crime is in the inner city black neighborhoods so who cares. It only becomes a problem when it reaches the white suburbs.
I must add this. One law that I would like to see and I have been telling people this. Any person caught dealing drugs or buying should be tried as helping terrorism. We are being doped out of our freedom to make way for a dictator. There is NO freedom in drugs.
Carey Masci
Thursday, August 19, 2010
dark moment for America
This was accepted and printed in the Lake County News Herald on August 8th.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday was a very dark moment for America. Proposition 8 was overturned by the courts in California. We are on a slippery slope that has ramifications to undo the very fabric of our government. The courts used the 14Th Amendment for their reason to do so. I can not understand how they interpreted the 14Th to block what the people voted on in Proposition 8. This is serious. Courts over turning what we have voted on is becoming increasingly more common.
The Socialist that have taken over our US courts are interpreting laws to support their agenda. They allow issues to be placed on the ballot knowing its a no lose situation. If an issue passes that they want, they can say the people have spoken, if it goes against their agenda they will repeal it by perverting the meaning of the Constitution and its amendments. This is serious, can't say it enough, this is serious.
If we don't stop this legislating from the judicial branch our laws, our Constitution and the will and wants of the people are meaningless and will push us a step closer to someone firing that first shot that puts us on a path for another civil war.
Carey Masci
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday was a very dark moment for America. Proposition 8 was overturned by the courts in California. We are on a slippery slope that has ramifications to undo the very fabric of our government. The courts used the 14Th Amendment for their reason to do so. I can not understand how they interpreted the 14Th to block what the people voted on in Proposition 8. This is serious. Courts over turning what we have voted on is becoming increasingly more common.
The Socialist that have taken over our US courts are interpreting laws to support their agenda. They allow issues to be placed on the ballot knowing its a no lose situation. If an issue passes that they want, they can say the people have spoken, if it goes against their agenda they will repeal it by perverting the meaning of the Constitution and its amendments. This is serious, can't say it enough, this is serious.
If we don't stop this legislating from the judicial branch our laws, our Constitution and the will and wants of the people are meaningless and will push us a step closer to someone firing that first shot that puts us on a path for another civil war.
Carey Masci
Monday, August 16, 2010
This is whats wrong with America
Read this and then I will comment.
Sean Walter, an attorney and first-term town supervisor in Riverhead, N.Y., insists he is a staunch defender of privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
But Walter supported using Google Earth images to help identify about 250 Riverhead homes where residents failed to get building permits certifying their swimming pools complied with safety regulations. All but about 10 eventually came to town hall.
Walter said the focus was safety, not filling town coffers with permit money, which averaged about $150 depending on the size of the pool. A 4-foot fence is required, gates have to be self-closing and padlocked. All pools must have an alarm that sounds when sensors are activated indicating someone is in the pool.
"We have a town employee who is a personal friend of mine whose son was found face-down in a swimming pool," Walter said. "He's OK, but I don't want to be the supervisor that attends the funeral of a child that drowns in a swimming pool."
OK do you see where I am going with this? Let me hi-lite key sentences:
Sean Walter, an attorney and first-term town supervisor in Riverhead, N.Y., insists he is a staunch defender of privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
But Walter supported using Google Earth images to help identify about 250 Riverhead homes where residents failed to get building permits certifying their swimming pools complied with safety regulations.
Sean Walter's thinking is whats wrong with America. He insists he is a staunch defender of privacy rights but then goes after residents who failed to get building permits. Building permits are in almost ALL cases anti-freedom, anti-American and non Constitutional. Building permits was really one of the first steps towards socializing America.
I want to know where and how this started that we need the government protecting our every move from injury or death? That is NOT the role of the government. IF a pool is in someones yard, that's their responsibility to watch and police it. And if a neighbors child wanders over to it, its the neighbors fault. Why do we need the government watching us?
I grew up with a neighbor 2 houses down with a large above ground pool. I wanted so bad to sneak over there many times but I knew it was off limits or I would face hell from him and my parents. No alarms, no inspections, he installed a pool and we got warned. End of story.
Wake up people, this attorney generated permit money for the city and possibly was just using the label protector of privacy rights for self gain. Either way its an oxymoron no matter how you look at it.
Carey Masci
taken from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_hi_te/us_eyes_in_the_sky
Sean Walter, an attorney and first-term town supervisor in Riverhead, N.Y., insists he is a staunch defender of privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
But Walter supported using Google Earth images to help identify about 250 Riverhead homes where residents failed to get building permits certifying their swimming pools complied with safety regulations. All but about 10 eventually came to town hall.
Walter said the focus was safety, not filling town coffers with permit money, which averaged about $150 depending on the size of the pool. A 4-foot fence is required, gates have to be self-closing and padlocked. All pools must have an alarm that sounds when sensors are activated indicating someone is in the pool.
"We have a town employee who is a personal friend of mine whose son was found face-down in a swimming pool," Walter said. "He's OK, but I don't want to be the supervisor that attends the funeral of a child that drowns in a swimming pool."
OK do you see where I am going with this? Let me hi-lite key sentences:
Sean Walter, an attorney and first-term town supervisor in Riverhead, N.Y., insists he is a staunch defender of privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
But Walter supported using Google Earth images to help identify about 250 Riverhead homes where residents failed to get building permits certifying their swimming pools complied with safety regulations.
Sean Walter's thinking is whats wrong with America. He insists he is a staunch defender of privacy rights but then goes after residents who failed to get building permits. Building permits are in almost ALL cases anti-freedom, anti-American and non Constitutional. Building permits was really one of the first steps towards socializing America.
I want to know where and how this started that we need the government protecting our every move from injury or death? That is NOT the role of the government. IF a pool is in someones yard, that's their responsibility to watch and police it. And if a neighbors child wanders over to it, its the neighbors fault. Why do we need the government watching us?
I grew up with a neighbor 2 houses down with a large above ground pool. I wanted so bad to sneak over there many times but I knew it was off limits or I would face hell from him and my parents. No alarms, no inspections, he installed a pool and we got warned. End of story.
Wake up people, this attorney generated permit money for the city and possibly was just using the label protector of privacy rights for self gain. Either way its an oxymoron no matter how you look at it.
Carey Masci
taken from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_hi_te/us_eyes_in_the_sky
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Coming to Ohio? Lets hope
OHIOANS - Conservative Republican Ohio Senator Tim Grendell supports the Ohio Sovereignty Amendment and I have found that Sen. Grendell supports 99% of what I support 99% of the time. He's a good man that I've consistently voted for for every position he's run for and I have never regretted my vote. -- Donna
Source: The News Herald (news-herald. com), Serving Northern Ohio
Residents may be putting one vote on many issues
Friday, May 21, 2010
By David W. Jones
DJones@News- Herald.com
Registered voters might be asked to read a lengthy document for November ballot placement, then read it again to approve or disapprove the issue in the actual final Election Day decision.
That’s the Ohio Sovereignty Amendment.
The proposed Ohio Constitution change “expressly declares that Ohio citizens declare sovereignty over the state and their authority to alter or abolish government,” according to the amendment.
Among many issues, voters would be asked to:
* Give the people new power to recall any public officeholders by means of petition “whenever they deem necessary.”
* Mandate that recall vacancies be filled by the governor only with applicants nominated by citizens.
* “Substantially redefine the people’s right to bear arms (excluding explosives, biological and chemical systems).”
* “Secure the people’s right to operate their militia.”
* Require that all Ohio laws be “constitutionally compliant” before being enacted.
* Make the sheriff’s office “expressly preserved” in the Ohio Constitution and “not subject to infringement” by state legislators.
* Prohibit “federal or foreign agencies from enforcement activities in Ohio except through the sheriff at his sole discretion.”
* Give the Ohio Supreme Court new power to suspend “any law it deems to be unconstitutional.”
* Mandate that juries “may be comprised only of Ohio citizens.”
* Mandate that sovereignty “be supported in all schools in Ohio.”
* Declare that any attempts to “subvert the Constitution” are “not pardonable” by the governor if such acts are “deliberate or substantial subversive acts.”
In literature being distributed statewide, Michael Young, leader of the People’s Constitution Coalition of Ohio, wrote:
“The proposed amendment is not an attempt to secede from the union, to overthrow government or attack any race or culture. It simply provides the means by which the people can protect their rights and liberties with minimal government interference.
“(The proposed amendment) was constructed to hold government in compliance with and accountable to our state and federal constitutions. It provides the legal mechanisms that people need to ‘effectively and efficiently’ fulfill their duty in holding government accountable.
“There has not been a constitutionally compliant government in the United States for over 150 years. As a result, we find ourselves suffering today from a collapsing economy, perpetual debt, loss of our industrial base, surrendering of American sovereignty and destruction of our Christian heritage.”
URL: http://www.news- herald.com/ articles/ 2010/05/21/ news/nh2515453. prt
© 2010 news-herald. com, a Journal Register Property
...
The Democrat Party has been communist for a long time.
Quote: "No member of our generation who wasn't a Communist or a dropout in the thirties is worth a damn." — Lyndon B. Johnson
Source: The News Herald (news-herald. com), Serving Northern Ohio
Residents may be putting one vote on many issues
Friday, May 21, 2010
By David W. Jones
DJones@News- Herald.com
Registered voters might be asked to read a lengthy document for November ballot placement, then read it again to approve or disapprove the issue in the actual final Election Day decision.
That’s the Ohio Sovereignty Amendment.
The proposed Ohio Constitution change “expressly declares that Ohio citizens declare sovereignty over the state and their authority to alter or abolish government,” according to the amendment.
Among many issues, voters would be asked to:
* Give the people new power to recall any public officeholders by means of petition “whenever they deem necessary.”
* Mandate that recall vacancies be filled by the governor only with applicants nominated by citizens.
* “Substantially redefine the people’s right to bear arms (excluding explosives, biological and chemical systems).”
* “Secure the people’s right to operate their militia.”
* Require that all Ohio laws be “constitutionally compliant” before being enacted.
* Make the sheriff’s office “expressly preserved” in the Ohio Constitution and “not subject to infringement” by state legislators.
* Prohibit “federal or foreign agencies from enforcement activities in Ohio except through the sheriff at his sole discretion.”
* Give the Ohio Supreme Court new power to suspend “any law it deems to be unconstitutional.”
* Mandate that juries “may be comprised only of Ohio citizens.”
* Mandate that sovereignty “be supported in all schools in Ohio.”
* Declare that any attempts to “subvert the Constitution” are “not pardonable” by the governor if such acts are “deliberate or substantial subversive acts.”
In literature being distributed statewide, Michael Young, leader of the People’s Constitution Coalition of Ohio, wrote:
“The proposed amendment is not an attempt to secede from the union, to overthrow government or attack any race or culture. It simply provides the means by which the people can protect their rights and liberties with minimal government interference.
“(The proposed amendment) was constructed to hold government in compliance with and accountable to our state and federal constitutions. It provides the legal mechanisms that people need to ‘effectively and efficiently’ fulfill their duty in holding government accountable.
“There has not been a constitutionally compliant government in the United States for over 150 years. As a result, we find ourselves suffering today from a collapsing economy, perpetual debt, loss of our industrial base, surrendering of American sovereignty and destruction of our Christian heritage.”
URL: http://www.news- herald.com/ articles/ 2010/05/21/ news/nh2515453. prt
© 2010 news-herald. com, a Journal Register Property
...
The Democrat Party has been communist for a long time.
Quote: "No member of our generation who wasn't a Communist or a dropout in the thirties is worth a damn." — Lyndon B. Johnson
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
What were my thoughts about being on Breakdown Radio WELW
Quite a few have been asking well what did you think, do you think it went OK (being on Breakdown radio WELW 1330 am)? Some of you I have answered already but for the rest here's my take. Mike didn't have a long lead in, it was BAM right into my situation. I started of with a few stumbles but think I steadied myself enough. I listened to it a few times since then and think I did a better job of bridging thoughts.
The hosts, Mike & Josh, were challenging and were not completely one sided with me. They were balanced and honest. I am pretty harsh with criticism of myself and always think I could have done better but for the most part I believe it went quite well. I told my folks really though it's not how I think it went but how the audience perceived it. And judging from the positive feedback it was successful.
Mike as well Dov and I have been going back and forth on the trouble I find myself in with Euclid. They agree the laws Euclid has set forth are wrong and anti business but ultimately they think it's my fault for not researching or going along with the rules since they have been on the books. After thinking this over YES I concede they are right. As the saying goes buyer beware and I believe it can apply here. BUT you have to give me this, the first house I bought was in '93, you cannot even begin to compare then to now. There was NO need to really look into ordinances. In fact I paid to have the house inspected not really knowing back then what to look for. Euclid was no where to be found and so I bought my second house thinking things were the same.
The most important thing that I hope we don't lose sight of is this, America is in deep trouble friends. DEEP TROUBLE! Whether the rules were on the books and I didn't research them this is just wrong that any level of government can take that much control over someone's property. And two years of fighting this and trying to rally support from elected officials and the populace has really got me no where. Euclid keeps on coming and coming and coming with no let up. As I said on the show, a very simple explanation from Bill O'Reilly of what Socialism is - Socialism is when the government takes control over property and commerce. Thats what we need to keep in mind. Thats why we are attending the Tea Parties. Thats why people are protesting. Thats why you are seeing a resurgence of people looking at the Constitution. This problem I have with Euclid really involves all of us, whether you see it that way or not. IF they can come after me and demand entry or jail time some other city or our federal government can come after you.
And as Mike said this does give me a testimony not only when we reach conclusion which ever way it may go but also for warning people to look into the laws and don't take anything for granted.
This is not the America we use to know - no one is safe.
Carey K. Masci
For those who have asked for the link again here it is:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5236102
The hosts, Mike & Josh, were challenging and were not completely one sided with me. They were balanced and honest. I am pretty harsh with criticism of myself and always think I could have done better but for the most part I believe it went quite well. I told my folks really though it's not how I think it went but how the audience perceived it. And judging from the positive feedback it was successful.
Mike as well Dov and I have been going back and forth on the trouble I find myself in with Euclid. They agree the laws Euclid has set forth are wrong and anti business but ultimately they think it's my fault for not researching or going along with the rules since they have been on the books. After thinking this over YES I concede they are right. As the saying goes buyer beware and I believe it can apply here. BUT you have to give me this, the first house I bought was in '93, you cannot even begin to compare then to now. There was NO need to really look into ordinances. In fact I paid to have the house inspected not really knowing back then what to look for. Euclid was no where to be found and so I bought my second house thinking things were the same.
The most important thing that I hope we don't lose sight of is this, America is in deep trouble friends. DEEP TROUBLE! Whether the rules were on the books and I didn't research them this is just wrong that any level of government can take that much control over someone's property. And two years of fighting this and trying to rally support from elected officials and the populace has really got me no where. Euclid keeps on coming and coming and coming with no let up. As I said on the show, a very simple explanation from Bill O'Reilly of what Socialism is - Socialism is when the government takes control over property and commerce. Thats what we need to keep in mind. Thats why we are attending the Tea Parties. Thats why people are protesting. Thats why you are seeing a resurgence of people looking at the Constitution. This problem I have with Euclid really involves all of us, whether you see it that way or not. IF they can come after me and demand entry or jail time some other city or our federal government can come after you.
And as Mike said this does give me a testimony not only when we reach conclusion which ever way it may go but also for warning people to look into the laws and don't take anything for granted.
This is not the America we use to know - no one is safe.
Carey K. Masci
For those who have asked for the link again here it is:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5236102
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Hope for California? California Gubernarorials
Hope for California? Emily from the west coast thinks so and she has asked that I forward this on. Consider it done Em!
CKM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey Carey/Kevin,
For the first time in a while, I feel hopeful that California has a shot at a true recovery. Initially, I was going to support Meg Whitman because I saw her when she was campaigning with Palin. She was the only somewhat promising candidate I had heard of for the California GOP (we have closed primaries, so it's not like I can choose a different party). But it REALLY bugged me that she was so chummy with Van Jones. Her ambiguity on life in the womb is extremely disgusting and her vagueness on offshore drilling is irresponsible. She places way more importance on environmental issues than she should, in my opinion.
Steve Poizner(yeah, lousy name but good man) has articulated a CLEAR, CONCISE, and SPECIFIC plan for allowing California to climb out of the mess it's in. He is currently the state's Insurance Commissioner and is the only one who has budgeted a California agency in such a way to create a surplus WITHOUT raising taxes and fees, this is a matter of record. In fact, when it was discovered that there was a surplus, he went about CUTTING insurance taxes and fees. He believes in LOCAL control of school boards, not state and not federal. He supports offshore drilling to reduce costly oil imports to California. He supports seawater desalination for coastal districts so that not as much water will need to be imported.
He believes in only traditional marriage - basically civil unions and domestic partnerships are tolerable, but changing the definition of marriage to support gay unions is a no no. He believes in abortion only in extreme life-of-the-mother/rape/incest cases but for all other reasons he is opposed to abortions and is especially opposed to government funded abortions. He supports the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Whitman is refusing to debate him, which sends up red flags about her. He signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
According to Poizner's website, he wants a:
10% reduction in all personal income tax rates
10% reduction in the state sales tax rate
10% reduction in the corporation tax rate
50% reduction in the capital gains tax rate
Carey/Kevin (which is it? sorry, I don't know), I'm sorry if this sounds like a political commercial but it's not crap. I was totally in favor of Whitman 2 hours ago, but we can't afford vagueries anymore. I'm humbly asking that you forward this to any of your friends and lists in California. Poizner's only fault is he happens to be married to a democrat and they have a joint checking account which explains the Gore donations. Whitman is not to be trusted, especially if she likes Van Jones.
Blessings,
Emily R Shelley
CKM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey Carey/Kevin,
For the first time in a while, I feel hopeful that California has a shot at a true recovery. Initially, I was going to support Meg Whitman because I saw her when she was campaigning with Palin. She was the only somewhat promising candidate I had heard of for the California GOP (we have closed primaries, so it's not like I can choose a different party). But it REALLY bugged me that she was so chummy with Van Jones. Her ambiguity on life in the womb is extremely disgusting and her vagueness on offshore drilling is irresponsible. She places way more importance on environmental issues than she should, in my opinion.
Steve Poizner(yeah, lousy name but good man) has articulated a CLEAR, CONCISE, and SPECIFIC plan for allowing California to climb out of the mess it's in. He is currently the state's Insurance Commissioner and is the only one who has budgeted a California agency in such a way to create a surplus WITHOUT raising taxes and fees, this is a matter of record. In fact, when it was discovered that there was a surplus, he went about CUTTING insurance taxes and fees. He believes in LOCAL control of school boards, not state and not federal. He supports offshore drilling to reduce costly oil imports to California. He supports seawater desalination for coastal districts so that not as much water will need to be imported.
He believes in only traditional marriage - basically civil unions and domestic partnerships are tolerable, but changing the definition of marriage to support gay unions is a no no. He believes in abortion only in extreme life-of-the-mother/rape/incest cases but for all other reasons he is opposed to abortions and is especially opposed to government funded abortions. He supports the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Whitman is refusing to debate him, which sends up red flags about her. He signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
According to Poizner's website, he wants a:
10% reduction in all personal income tax rates
10% reduction in the state sales tax rate
10% reduction in the corporation tax rate
50% reduction in the capital gains tax rate
Carey/Kevin (which is it? sorry, I don't know), I'm sorry if this sounds like a political commercial but it's not crap. I was totally in favor of Whitman 2 hours ago, but we can't afford vagueries anymore. I'm humbly asking that you forward this to any of your friends and lists in California. Poizner's only fault is he happens to be married to a democrat and they have a joint checking account which explains the Gore donations. Whitman is not to be trusted, especially if she likes Van Jones.
Blessings,
Emily R Shelley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)