It’s my party and I’ll blog if I want to. Since I can’t seem to find a party I like, I decided to create my own. I actually had some other names for the party, but the cool ones were already taken, so I decided it is My Party. If you wish to join – you’re in and the name works because it will be your party (wait??- no ok, when it is your party and you tell people about it -- you will tell them it is My Party so we are still good!!) Acknowledge your affiliation with My Party by forwarding it to others letting them know about My Party. At some point we may need to have a convention, which will probably consist of a grill and keg and selection of candidates.
My Party Platform
Flat tax everyone pays same. The dollar you earn is the same why not the tax. If you want to pay more great the tax form will have a line for additional contribution.
Pro-life if you don't want a baby there is a way to avoid it.
Congress -- If you pass a law then own it. If you really believe Obamacare is what's best for the country then it should apply to you.
Obamacare should not require anyone to pay for contraceptives or abortion if they oppose it morally or religious.
Congress -- Once you leave congress your salary ends. You're not working for the country so you shouldn't be getting paid.
If your title or job description has the title czar in it – it’s over. USA does not equal USSR. We elect not create positions by fiat.
Every agency should have a justification of its job and need.
Tort reform we have it – they are called juries. They hear the evidence and are in the best position to determine what is just --As in justice. An artificial cap on damages only impacts cases which have been shown to be requiring a verdict to correct harm.
No cap on salary if you can earn it through hard work power to you, but don't be a hypocrite and support tort reform. Either you are for a free market or you aren't
There is no “the problem was Bush, Obama, etc., etc.” The problem is America’s. Stop whining about what happened and start changing what is happening and what is going to happen. There is plenty of blame to go around so let’s move forward and do what has to be done.
Brent Carpenter – It’s My Party
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Pro-Choice--Really???
As I have not blogged lately I decided to start 2012 off with a low controversy issue. Let’s start off with a few definitions:
Pro-Choice is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as those advocating legalized abortion.
Pro-life is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as those opposing abortion.
Abortion is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.
Choice is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as a range of possibilities from which one or more may be chosen.
This week the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a statement detailing the requirement that employers are required to provide insurance coverage including contraceptive drugs including abortion drugs.
The rule will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.
Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.
The entire statement can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html.
If you are a Pro-Life employer you are understandably upset as the rule would require you to pay for something that you oppose on potentially both moral and religious grounds. If you are Pro-Choice I would think that you would be concerned as it is a clear move by the government to do away with Choice. In this rule they are requiring everyone to either obey the law in violation of their personal belief (religious, moral, etc.) or to violate the law and face the consequences. If the issue is truly one for the women whom it impacts — as espoused by Pro-Choice proponents then why is this decision a government issue which requires those who do not agree to pay for that decision.
The issue of pro-choice v. pro-life is one that is so fundamental to most people that a discussion on it will generally end with whether you consider the embryo to be a baby or not. The issue of paying for terminating the life of a baby is not one that should be forced upon anyone or mandated by the government.
The statement by Secretary Sebelius that an additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule is ridiculous. Who is the government to give a person or group a year to adapt to a rule that violates their very moral and/or religious beliefs?
For the purpose of this discussion, I don’t care if you are pro-choice or pro-life. This is an issue of pro freedom from government interference in your life. The very thing that pro-choice advocates claim to have fought to achieve they are now conceding and welcoming because they see it as a benefit to them.
Pro-Choice is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as those advocating legalized abortion.
Pro-life is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as those opposing abortion.
Abortion is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.
Choice is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as a range of possibilities from which one or more may be chosen.
This week the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a statement detailing the requirement that employers are required to provide insurance coverage including contraceptive drugs including abortion drugs.
The rule will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.
Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.
The entire statement can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html.
If you are a Pro-Life employer you are understandably upset as the rule would require you to pay for something that you oppose on potentially both moral and religious grounds. If you are Pro-Choice I would think that you would be concerned as it is a clear move by the government to do away with Choice. In this rule they are requiring everyone to either obey the law in violation of their personal belief (religious, moral, etc.) or to violate the law and face the consequences. If the issue is truly one for the women whom it impacts — as espoused by Pro-Choice proponents then why is this decision a government issue which requires those who do not agree to pay for that decision.
The issue of pro-choice v. pro-life is one that is so fundamental to most people that a discussion on it will generally end with whether you consider the embryo to be a baby or not. The issue of paying for terminating the life of a baby is not one that should be forced upon anyone or mandated by the government.
The statement by Secretary Sebelius that an additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule is ridiculous. Who is the government to give a person or group a year to adapt to a rule that violates their very moral and/or religious beliefs?
For the purpose of this discussion, I don’t care if you are pro-choice or pro-life. This is an issue of pro freedom from government interference in your life. The very thing that pro-choice advocates claim to have fought to achieve they are now conceding and welcoming because they see it as a benefit to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
