lets get this one out to all the people. Really Like the, proposed, Congressional Reform Act 2017!

Lets get this one out to all the people.

That is why they call him the Sage of Omaha. I am gladly sending this on.  You can make your own choice to do so.

Paint and sing and play as if your life depends on it because it does.

Warren Buffett is asking everyone to forward this email to a minimum of 20 people, and to ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in the United States will have the message.

This is an idea that should be passed around.

The BUFFETT Rule

Let's see if these idiots understand what people pressure is all about.

Salary of retired US Presidents .. . . . .. . . . .. . $180,000 FOR LIFE.

Salary of House/Senate members .. . . . .. . . . $174,000 FOR LIFE.

This is stupid

Salary of Speaker of the House .. . . . .. . . . . $223,500 FOR LIFE.

This is really stupid

Salary of Majority / Minority Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE Stupid

Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .$40,065

Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . . . . .. $38,000

Here's where the cuts should be made!

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in five minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election".

The 26th Amendment ( granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds ) took only three months and eight days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffett is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2017

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman / woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

It may not be used for any other purpose.

3 Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4 Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 3/1/17. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three days for most people in the U.S. to receive the message.

It's time!

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

If you agree, pass it on.

Even if you don't agree, pass it on

Trump's Cabinet Vs Obama's & Welfare Facts

TRUMP'S CABINET

 

Read the last item and then look at Trump's Cabinet. No wonder D.C. is in a turmoil. Trump's picks are

bosses and expect their employees to Work!
 
Subject: Eye Opening Numbers
 
This is what bothers a lot of people about Trump.
He won't accept a can't do attitude, or inexperienced, incompetent performance.  
He will get results, it just might not be smooth or pretty.
 
Here are some amazing stats: Make sure you read to the bottom.   An eye opener!  (Or should be!)
 
1.
California
New Mexico
Mississippi
Alabama
Illinois
Kentucky
Ohio
New York
Maine
South Carolina
 
These 10 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed!
 
2. Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2012, between food stamps, housing

support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. Household below the poverty line received

$168.00 a day in government support. What's the problem with that much support? Well, the median household

income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day.
 
To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for 40 hour week, while the

average job pays $24.00 an hour.
 
3. Check the last set of statistics!!
 
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their

appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is:  A real-life business not a government job.
 
Here are the percentages:
 
38%    T. Roosevelt
40%    Taft
52%    Wilson
49%    Harding
48%    Coolidge
42%    Hoover
50%    F. D. Roosevelt
50%    Truman
57%    Eisenhower
30%    Kennedy
47%    Johnson
53%    Nixon
42%    Ford
32%    Carter
56%    Reagan
51%    GH Bush
39%    Clinton
55%    GW Bush
8%   Obama
 
This helps explain the bias, if not the incompetence, of the last administration: ONLY 8% of them had

ever worked in private business!
 
That's right!  Only eight percent - the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents!  And these people tried to tell our corporations how to run their businesses?

How could Obama  president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in

world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one?  Or about jobs when he has

never really had one?  And, when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers?  They've spent

most of their time in academia, government, and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers."
 
Pass this on, because we'll NEVER see these facts in the main stream media

I’m supporting Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court confirmation. This already is an intense battle.

Hey!
 
I’m supporting Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court confirmation. This already is an intense battle. Join with me here:
 
http://www.grassrootsaction.com/201801/share.asp?PID=48626584&ref_id=39610&N

Thanks!

SM1



 

Switzerland ... What's in a handshake? Well worth reading...

Switzerland ...

What's in a handshake? Well worth reading.

 

Sometimes it's the little things that are most telling.  At first glance this may seem like a trivial story but what lies hidden beneath it could have serious consequences for our children and grandchildren.

 ----------------------------- - ------------------------------ --

 

In Switzerland it has long been customary for students to shake the hands of their teachers at the beginning and end of the school day.  It's a sign of solidarity and mutual respect between teacher and pupil, one that is thought to encourage the right classroom atmosphere.  Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga recently felt compelled to further explain that shaking hands was part of Swiss culture and daily life.

 

And the reason she felt compelled to speak out about the handshake is that two Muslim brothers, aged 14 and 15, who have lived in Switzerland for several years (and thus are familiar with its mores), in the town of Therwil, near Basel, refused to shake the hands of their teacher, a woman, because, they claimed, this would violate Muslim teachings that contact with the opposite sex is allowed only with family members.

 

At first the school authorities decided to avoid trouble, and initially granted the boys an exemption from having to shake the hand of any female teacher.  But an uproar followed, as Mayor Reto Wolf explained to the BBC: "the community was unhappy with the decision taken by the school.  In our culture and in our way of communication a handshake is normal and sends out respect for the other person, and this has to be brought home to the children in school."

 

Therwil's Educational Department reversed the school's decision, explaining in a statement on May 25 that the school's exemption was lifted because "the public interest with respect to equality between men and women and the integration of foreigners significantly outweighs the freedom of religion."  It added that a teacher has the right to demand a handshake.  Furthermore, if the students refused to shake hands again "the sanctions called for by law will be applied," which included a possible fine of up to 5,000 dollars.

 

This uproar in Switzerland, where many people were enraged at the original exemption granted to the Muslim boys, did not end after that exemption was itself overturned by the local Educational Department.  The Swiss understood quite clearly that this was more than a little quarrel over handshakes; it was a fight over whether the Swiss would be masters in their own house, or whether they would be forced to yield, by the granting of special treatment, to the Islamic view of the proper relations between the sexes.  It is one battle – small but to the Swiss significant – between overweening Muslim immigrants and the indigenous Swiss.

 

Naturally, once the exemption was withdrawn, all hell broke loose among Muslims in Switzerland.  The Islamic Central Council of Switzerland, instead of yielding quietly to the Swiss decision to uphold the handshaking custom, criticized the ruling in hysterical terms, claiming that the enforcement of the handshaking is "totalitarian" (!) because its intent is to "forbid religious people from meeting their obligations to God."  

 

That, of course, was never the "intent" of the long-standing handshaking custom, which was a nearly-universal custom in Switzerland, and in schools had to do only with encouraging the right classroom atmosphere of mutual respect between instructor and pupil, of which the handshake was one aspect.

 

The Swiss formulation of the problem – weighing competing claims — will be familiar to Americans versed in Constitutional adjudication.  In this case "the public interest with respect to equality" of the sexes and the "integration of foreigners" (who are expected to adopt Swiss ways, not force the Swiss to exempt them from some of those ways) were weighed against the "religious obligations to God" of Muslims, and the former interests found to outweigh the latter.

 

What this case shows is that even at the smallest and seemingly inconsequential level, Muslims are challenging the laws and customs of the Infidels among whom they have been allowed to settle [i.e., stealth jihad toward sharia dominance].  Each little victory, or defeat, will determine whether Muslims will truly integrate into a Western society or, instead, refashion that society to meet Muslim requirements.

 

The handshake has been upheld and, what's more, a stiff fine now will be imposed on those who continue to refuse to shake hands with a female teacher.  This is a heartening sign of non-surrender by the Swiss.  But the challenges of the Muslims within Europe to the laws and customs of the indigenes have no logical end and will not stop.

 

And the greater the number of Muslims allowed to settle in Europe, the stronger and more frequent their challenges will be.  They are attempting not to integrate, but rather to create, for now, a second, parallel society, and eventually, through sheer force of numbers from both migration and by outbreeding the Infidels, to fashion not a parallel society but one society — now dominated by Muslim sharia.

 

The Swiss handshaking dispute has received some, but not enough, press attention.  Presumably, it's deemed too inconsequential a matter to bother with.  But the Swiss know better.  And so should we.

 

There's an old Scottish saying that in one variant reads: "Many a little makes a mickle."  That is, the accumulation of many little things leads to one big thing.  That's what's happening in Europe today.  This was one victory for the side of sanity.  There will need to be a great many more.

 

This needs circulation far and wide.
Hopefully the U.S. can learn before it's too late.

O's boys: The Muslim Brotherhood: Peddling Sharia as Social Justice...

In this mailing: Judith Bergman: The Muslim Brotherhood: Peddling Sharia as Social Justice Denis MacEoin: Ireland: Undermining Academia, Implementing Anti-Semitism The Muslim Brotherhood: Peddling Sharia as Social Justice by Judith Bergman  •  March 30, 2017 at 5:00 am Human Rights Watch, an organization that is supposed to look out for victims of human rights abuses, not abusers of human rights is begging US decision makers not to designate the Muslim Brotherhood -- which, if it had its way, would take away everyone's human rights and substitute them with sharia law -- a foreign terrorist organization. "Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope". — Muslim Brotherhood motto. Conveniently, Hamas -- which according to article two of its charter, is "one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine" -- is, it seems, working on a new charter. The new charter would declare that Hamas is not a part of the Muslim Brotherhood, despite its always having been so. That way, is the Muslim Brotherhood's "narrative" of newfound "nonviolence" suddenly supposed to become believable? Left: The emblem of the Muslim Brotherhood. Right: While being hosted by the State Department on a visit to Washington in January 2015, Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood judge Waleed Sharaby flashed the organization's four-finger "Rabia" sign. Gehad el-Haddad, official spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), is on a mission to rewrite the terrorist and radical history of the MB. He seems to be doing this for the consumption of naïve Americans. These seem only too willing to believe -- in the name of tolerance, diversity and trying to be non-judgmental -- that an organization whose ultimate goal is the supreme reign of Islamic sharia law everywhere -- if necessary through violent jihad -- could possibly value anything even approximating equality and the rule of (non-sharia) law. "We are not terrorists," wrote a political activist for the MB, Gehad el-Haddad, in a recent article in the New York Times. Continue Reading Article Ireland: Undermining Academia, Implementing Anti-Semitism by Denis MacEoin  •  March 30, 2017 at 4:30 am It has from the beginning been designed to denounce Israel as an illegal state, all under the cover of supposed neutral academic inquiry. It is not, however, in the least surprising that an Irish government would pass a motion like that so wholeheartedly. After all, links with the PLO and other terrorist groups were connived at or even encouraged by the Irish government itself. The conference put itself in the welcoming hands of the city council, a body thoroughly in agreement with the aims of the event, to find spurious legal arguments for the delegitimization and eventual destruction of Israel. The City Hall of Cork, Ireland. (Image source: Klaus Foehl/Wikimedia Commons) Readers may remember a controversy reported in January. It was proposed that an international "academic" conference about the legitimacy of Israel would take place in University College Cork in the Republic of Ireland. There have been several developments in this sorry enterprise since then. What the conference, which goes under the revealing title, "International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism", was about may be summed up in a few sentences. It has from the beginning been designed to denounce Israel as an illegal state, all under the cover of supposed neutral academic inquiry. The organizers had previously tried to hold the event at Britain's Southampton University and, reportedly, other European universities, each time without success. Continue Reading Article

Violence and Utopia- Realism and Idealism in the age of Gun Control

Posted on March 27, 2017 by Rob Morse

By Rob Morse

Slow Facts

Louisiana- (Ammoland.com)-  Evil is hard to accept.  I attended a self-defense training class last week where an expert described how callous and downright evil violent criminals can be. I don’t think I’m a coward, but recognizing evil takes an emotional toll.  I’m not alone in feeling that way. Gun “prohibition” laws give us psychological relief from facing evil.  Projecting evil intent on an inanimate object protects us from having to recognize violence as part of the human condition. By contrast, recognizing evil strips away our innocence and imposes obligations on us.  This psychological dynamic explains a lot about the political dynamics behind gun control.  Gun control continues to appeal to a certain type of person despite its record of failure.

We don’t know what a violent person looks like. Violence would be so much easier to tolerate if every violent criminal came with a cartoon thought-bubble floating above them that said, “Watch out for this crazy person.”  In fact, criminals defy simple explanation.  Some criminals are poor and some are rich.  They can be crazy or sane.  Some criminals are addicts; others are as sober as the proverbial judge.  Some violent criminals grew up deprived and abused, while others grew up pampered and indulged.  

Violence will not go away despite our efforts to label or rationalize criminals and violent behavior. According to data from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, between one-out-of-two and one-out-of-three of us will be victims of violent crime in our lifetime. Though not an everyday occurrence, the sad fact is that criminal violence is with us.  It is uncomfortable to feel at risk. It can even be depressing.

This is where each of us faces a choice.  On one hand, we can view the world as imperfect and slightly dangerous.  A realist takes responsibility for his or her own safety.   On the other hand, we can cling to a utopian view of the world.  An idealist says that it is society's duty to protect people against violence.

It is easier for the idealist to talk about utopian prohibitions against violence than to face the real day-to-day effort of personal protection. Idealists say it is up to the police to keep us safe.  Realists say we are our own first line of defense, and the police are only there to take reports and make arrests.

For the idealist, the benefits of being disarmed are real.  Placing the burden of protection on society allows the idealist to keep human evil at arm’s length.  When someone is attacked, the idealist responds by proposing more gun control laws.  Weapons prohibition is psychic Valium to control the toxic emotional impact of real violence.

The idealist also condemns the realist. The level of psychological projection by idealists is several levels deep.  On the surface, the idealist turns the physical objects of the gun or the knife into a fetish.  It is the inanimate objects that are dangerous rather than seeing danger in flesh-and-blood human beings.  At a deeper level, the placebo of firearms prohibition lets the idealist replace concern with complacency. 

At a still deeper level, idealists not only blame the gun, but the gun owner.  The honest person who wants to use a firearm for personal protection disrupts the fantasy that guns are the problem.  Idealists cannot allow themselves to admit that honest citizens often prevent a crime or protect the innocent from violence.  Therefore, the idealist, especially those in the media, feel compelled to shield the public from this disturbing evidence.  That may seem to be a bold claim, but you can see the evidence for yourself.

Look at the typical news cycle after another innocent person is horribly attacked by a violent criminal.  Anti-gun activists and politicians run to the news media to say there is no personal responsibility to protect ourselves.  I’m paraphrasing here:

‘You don’t need to change how you live because we only need a little more gun-control and then everything will be fine.’

Gun prohibition has no effect on criminals. For example, Maryland imposed strict gun control a few years ago, banning the sale of the most popular semi-automatic rifles.  Legislation also limited the number of cartridges allowed in a firearm. Criminals don’t follow gun laws so the results were entirely predictable.  The crime rate is now at record levels in Baltimore, (and here) Maryland’s most populous city.  That story is repeated again and again in gun-control cities like Chicago and Los Angeles.  

Unfortunately, the idealist doesn’t stop with gun control.  He extends his antipathy beyond guns and knives to include any armed civilian.  Licensed concealed carry holders are the most law abiding segment of society.  They are charged with fewer firearms violations than other segments of society, including the police.  Licensed gun owners are the boy scouts of society.  Idealists say that since they don't want to carry a firearm, we all should be disarmed.

The idealists say their laws stop crime, but gun laws miss their target the vast majority of the time.  These anti-gun laws really target the law-abiding gun owner.

We have already passed some 23 thousand firearms regulations.  They failed to stop or materially reduce violent crime.  This is the rule rather than the exception since we’ve seen prohibition fail time after time in country after country.

“But if criminals obeyed the laws then these gun laws would work.  We just need to pass another law!”

The antipathy towards gun owners is not based upon stopping violence, but upon reducing the discomfort felt by idealists.  For the idealist, letting society take the burden removes both the duty and the emotional cost of facing an imperfect world.  For the idealist, protecting the fantasy narrative is more important than respecting the facts.

In the meantime, the realist faces the daily grind of training and preparation for self-defense.

Which will you choose?
~_~_

The comments of William April, Tom Givens, and Anna Valdiserri inspired this article.
~_~_

Rob Morse: Rob writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.