US coins carry more value in metal than money

---

me@rescam.org

You're right, BillHyland. To remark this seems to be ungrateful.

But unfortunately the US government is known to spend much more money for killing people than for their charity: $410 billion alone were spent for the DoD in 2006, and $439.3 billion are planned for 2007 according to the official US budget
"each B-2 bomber costs approximately $2.2 billion, while each F-117 fighter costs approximately $45 million; the U.S. fields 21 B-2s and 54 F-117s." (source: answers.com)
Or that F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program which is about to cost $256 billion! How much help would be able to give with this amount of money being spent for an IMHO totally unneeded thing.
The Iraq War has cost approximately 350 billion dollars until now - for that money they could have provided almost 17 million students four-year scholarships at public universities, or could have hired about 7 million additional teachers! Or have could have provided medical help or re-building in a lot of places and ways. So when you see this (and everyone in the world can see this, at least by searching the internet), is it still so ungrateful to say "Hey there is so much money you're throwing away, so why do you spend only a small part of it for good reasons? Throwing away that amount of money shows you are able to spend much more for Charity instead!"?

None of which invalidates my point. And furthermore, it is our business where we place our national resources.

If you wish to modify the manner in which the US government spends money you have a way to do it. Simply emigrate to the US, become a US citizen and either run for office on your own merits or vote into office those you believe will hold to policies you accept.

If you wish to do this, I would be happy to sponsor you and your family for US citizenship. This is not a trivial offer, nor is it made lightly.

Thank you very much for this offer. Believe it or not: I already have applied for a Green Card in the beginning of this year.

If you are ever in the Albuquerque area, let me know.

US coins carry more value in metal than money

You know, I would have thought that the existing laws that prohibit defacing American currency would have covered that.

I miss Kofi already...

Good Riddance!

---

I miss Kofi already...

Good Riddance!

Oh, sure! Like Butress Bad*ss Golly was any better...

---

US coins carry more value in metal than money

You know, I would have thought that the existing laws that prohibit defacing American currency would have covered that.

Some people have money to burn. Better than the flag.

---

me@rescam.org

US coins carry more value in metal than money

You know, I would have thought that the existing laws that prohibit defacing American currency would have covered that.

Some people have money to burn. Better than the flag.

Couldn't they just give it to me instead?

(The money, that is.)

---

US coins carry more value in metal than money

You know, I would have thought that the existing laws that prohibit defacing American currency would have covered that.

Some people have money to burn. Better than the flag.

Couldn't they just give it to me instead?

(The money, that is.)

Boy, if they did I'd smile at them and be nice to them and everything!

Congress helps milk gang thwart outsider

SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

December 15, 2006

Ready for a government horror story? Here's a doozy.

A massive milk cartel now holds sway over American supermarkets, thanks to a maze of regulations enacted during the Depression to keep struggling dairy farmers in business. These anachronistic, anti-competitive rules cost U.S. consumers at least $1.5 billion a year.

But instead of accepting a tidy guaranteed profit by staying within the system, a Riverside County dairyman, Hein Hettinga, saw a better way – one that would give consumers a much fairer deal.

Almost all dairy farmers ship their raw milk to plants for conversion into jugs of milk, ice cream, cheese and other dairy products, accepting a fixed, government-set payment in return. Hettinga realized that if he cut out the middleman and owned both dairies and production facilities, he could provide much cheaper milk operating outside the federal system. “Producer-handlers” willing to risk free-market competition were specifically exempted from the 1937 federal milk-price support law.

And so beginning in the early 1990s, Hettinga built a network of dairies from California to Texas and set up two processing plants in Yuma, Ariz. By 2002, his Sarah Farms milk – at least 30 cents cheaper per gallon than price-support milk – was a hugely popular fixture at Costco, Sam's Club and other grocers in Southern California and Arizona.

So what did Hettinga's rivals do: Upgrade and streamline their own operations? Pursue new efficiencies and innovations? Go the “producer-handler” route so their milk also would be cheaper?

Nope. They asked Congress to punish Hettinga for the sin of not joining in their rigged game – and, according to a recent Washington Post report, got their way without a single hearing in the House or Senate.

The article detailed a three-year, multimillion-dollar lobbying and campaign contribution blitz by the dairy cartel. With key assists from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare, the blitz paid off this spring with the passage of a bill that forced Hettinga to give much or most of his profits to one of the cartel's regional pools – in other words, to his competitors. A dairy industry lobbyist openly bragged to the Post that he helped write the measure.

Even by the debased standards of Washington politics, this stinks. A cartel that's been ripping off people for decades finally faces a little competition and squashes it by buying off Congress. Talk about banana republic politics.

The sliver of hope for justice in this matter resides in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It forbids “bills of attainder” – legislative acts that single out individuals or groups for punishment without benefit of trial. Hettinga is suing the federal government on these constitutional grounds. Given that none of the arrogant milk industry lobbyists or their hired lawmakers bothered to pretend that the Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2006 had any goal besides harming the maverick dairyman from Corona, he appears to have a case.

---

me@rescam.org

Taking Christianity out of Christmas

By Linda Chavez; a nationally syndicated columnist, is the author of “An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal.”

December 15, 2006

The Christmas trees are back up at Sea-Tac Airport in Seattle after they were taken down in response to a threatened lawsuit. But that doesn't mean the bah-humbug season is over yet.

Every Christmas, the politically correct and anti-religion crowd gets into Scrooge mode, trying to deprive the great majority of Americans from celebrating Christmas in traditional fashion. The American Civil Liberties Union files lawsuits demanding creches be removed from public property. School districts change Christmas vacations into winter breaks and ban carols from holiday assemblies. Even some retailers have gotten cold feet about mentioning the holiday, with Wal-Mart instructing its employees that “Merry Christmas” should be replaced with “Happy Holidays.” It would be laughable if it weren't so offensive.

This year's “war on Christmas” story had an unlikely genesis. A Seattle rabbi simply asked Sea-Tac Airport to display a Menorah to celebrate Hanukkah, which begins at sundown. But the Port Authority, which runs the facility, got nervous, worrying that displaying the symbol that celebrates the Jewish victory over the Seleucid king of Syria in 200 B.C. would somehow be a government endorsement of religion.

Nonsense. The story of the Maccabees' revolt against Antiochus IV – who persecuted the Jews and looted the temple – is a cultural and historical celebration as well as a religious one. The airport could easily have accommodated the rabbi's request, but chose instead to panic and remove the Christmas trees, which are certainly a secular, not religious, symbol. And the rabbi didn't exactly help the matter by threatening to sue the airport if it didn't display the 8-foot lighted candelabra.

Many of us grew up in a different time, when civic centers and public buildings routinely featured not just trees, snowmen and Santa Claus, but Nativity scenes that depicted Mary, Joseph, the Baby Jesus and the Three Wise Men. No one was being asked to subscribe to belief in the divinity of Christ because of these displays, but it was an acknowledgment that the overwhelming majority of Americans celebrated the birth of this man.

Should non-Buddhists be offended when cities build pagoda structures with public money, since these buildings are simply replicas of shrines to honor Buddha? Should Christians, Jews and Moslems take offense when Chinese restaurants feature statues of Buddha at their entryways? Should public buildings be forced to remove any Persian rugs that feature the prayer rug design, in fear that not doing so is somehow an endorsement of Islam?

Should public museums remove any paintings that depict religious figures or themes? Should public orchestras and choruses be forbidden from playing “The Messiah” this year? Should corporations similarly worry that they shouldn't be making donations that would be used to promote cultural celebrations of religious themes, in fear they will antagonize nonbelievers or those of different religious faiths?

Some people, no doubt, would answer yes to all these questions. But imagine life in such a society. Instead of a nation that celebrates religious freedom, we would become Taliban-like, banning all expressions of religion in the public square.

Surely common sense should prevail here. The First Amendment, of course, guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The Supreme Court bears much of the fault for taking us down this path over the last several decades. We have become such a litigious society that anyone who feels slighted in any way rushes to court to settle his grievances.

Thankfully, Sea-Tac came to its senses and put back the 14 trees it unwisely took down. And Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky withdrew his threat to sue, opting, wisely, to work with the airport to get the Menorah put up for next year's Hanukkah celebration. Wal-Mart still encourages its employees to wish everyone a Happy Holidays, but it fired a customer service representative who sent e-mails telling those who complained that Christmas has its roots in “Siberian shamanism.”

The United States may be increasingly religiously diverse, and we should be respectful of minority religions and of those who have no religious affiliations or beliefs. But those who do not share the religious views of the majority are not entitled to ban Christianity from the public square.

If they succeed, what will happen next? Remember the Taliban blowing up the ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan? Will we see the anti-religion police roaming our museums and concert halls on some future crusade? This, not a few Christmas trees or even creches on public property, could become the true threat to the First Amendment.

---

me@rescam.org

Carolers told to stop singing at ice rink

ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 15, 2006

RIVERSIDE – A high school choir was asked to stop singing Christmas carols during an ice skating show featuring Olympic medalist Sasha Cohen out of concern the skater would be offended because she is Jewish.

A city staff member, accompanied by a police officer, approached the Rubidoux High School Madrigals at the Riverside Outdoor Ice Skating Rink just as they launched into “God Rest Ye Merry Gentleman” and requested the troupe stop singing, the Riverside Press-Enterprise reported yesterday.

Cohen, the 2006 Olympic silver medalist and 2006 U.S. National Champion, had finished her performance at the rink on the downtown pedestrian mall and was signing autographs.

Choir director Staci Della-Rocco said she complied with the request “because a policeman told me to stop. I didn't want to have a big old huge scene in front of my kids,” according to the newspaper.

The city staff member, special-events employee Michelle Baldwin, could not be reached for comment. City Development Director Belinda J. Graham said Baldwin “was attempting to be sensitive to the celebrity guest, without considering the wider implications . . . or consulting with her supervisor for guidance.” Mayor Ron Loveridge called the incident “unfortunate.”

Cohen, who is half-Christian and “celebrates everything” during the holidays, “was stunned,” said her mother. “We thought the voices were lovely. . . . Christmas carols are part of celebrating the holiday season,” Galina Cohen told Reuters news service.

Cohen had taken part in Christmas tree-lighting ceremonies at New York's Rockefeller Center and in California, her mother said.

---

me@rescam.org

Carolers told to stop singing at ice rink

ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 15, 2006

Taking Christianity out of Christmas

By Linda Chavez; a nationally syndicated columnist, is the author of “An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal.”

December 15, 2006

I could understand this BS in countries claiming themselves as atheistic, like the late Soviet Union, or old East Germany - and even there Christian holidays were celebrated because of tradition (though they were not free days, except Christmas). What happens there in the US is not only in opposite to their First Amendmend (freedom of religion), but also an insult against the vast majority of US-Americans, against their traditions, beliefs and feelings.

---

Account frozen...

Carolers told to stop singing at ice rink

ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 15, 2006

Taking Christianity out of Christmas

By Linda Chavez; a nationally syndicated columnist, is the author of “An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal.”

December 15, 2006

I could understand this BS in countries claiming themselves as atheistic, like the late Soviet Union, or old East Germany - and even there Christian holidays were celebrated because of tradition (though they were not free days, except Christmas). What happens there in the US is not only in opposite to their First Amendmend (freedom of religion), but also an insult against the vast majority of US-Americans, against their traditions, beliefs and feelings.

Which is why the mostly very liberal people who are waging this war on religion are attempting to do it via the courts. Which is why they are continually attempting (with some degree of success) to intimidate people and organizations by threatening lawsuits.

They know that if they can get their case adjudicated before a judge that agrees with their point of view the can get the judge to pass a ruling favorable to their cause.

Judges that attempt social engineering via decisions which do not follow
accepted precedent or which bypass the US Constitution are known as "activist judges". Activist judges are generally attempting to create law from the bench, because the causes that activist judges support are not supported by the majority of US citizens. This is rule by fiat and is inimical to the very concept of our nations' Constitution, as the only people authorized by the US Constitution to make law are the elected representatives (Senators and Congressmen).

The people who are using the judiciary to wage war on Christmas are only concerned with their own idiology and could care less what the majority of US citizens want.

The only difference between them, the KKK, tin horn dictators from Korea or Iran and the fanatic Islamofaschists is the details of their idiology. All of these groups and people I mention hold people in contempt and their actions are characterized by patronizing and condescending behavior. Because, you see, they know what is best for you and can guide your life much better than you can.

Interesting to watch the political thread drift into religion and the religious thread dabble in politics.

---

Interesting to watch the political thread drift into religion and the religious thread dabble in politics.

Sometimes religion is politics, and politics has to handle religion.

---

Account frozen...

Interesting to watch the political thread drift into religion and the religious thread dabble in politics.

Sometimes religion is politics, and politics has to handle religion.

Jim, that is why the first clause of the first Ammendment of the US Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....

This conflict has been going on since the founding of the US. To get some background, read the writings of James Madison and contrast them with those of Thomas Jefferson. Also, read Gerorge Washington's first inaugural address and his Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 to get the majority view of the Founders on the subject.

Ironically, Madison was the one who frequently advocated "total separation of church and state", but it was Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association which has been misused by activist judges to found the myth that the US Constitution contains this point.

In point of fact, what the US Constitution says on the subject is contained in the first clause of the first Ammendment of the US Constitution.

Interesting to watch the political thread drift into religion and the religious thread dabble in politics.

Sometimes religion is politics, and politics has to handle religion.

Politics has to ignore religion, at least in respect to making laws. Otherwise it degenerates into a fight over who has the True Religion, which is perfect nonsense. Religion is entirely personal which makes all religions created equal -- except when they have a tendency to impose themselves on others.

---

Interesting to watch the political thread drift into religion and the religious thread dabble in politics.

Sometimes religion is politics, and politics has to handle religion.

Politics has to ignore religion, at least in respect to making laws. Otherwise it degenerates into a fight over who has the True Religion, which is perfect nonsense. Religion is entirely personal which makes all religions created equal -- except when they have a tendency to impose themselves on others.

Hence the first ammendment. Activist Justices on the Supreme Court, however, disagree with this concept and legislate from the bench.