Today’s first hours of NFL free agency kicked off with Tennesee Titans Defensive Lineman Albert Haynesworth signing a $100 million contract with the Washington Redskins. Why is this important information? I saw today organizations forecast 85-95% confiscatory to pay for some existing and some of the programs being introduced with our newly released $1.75 trillion budget deficit.
So, in that instance, Haynesworth will potentially take home only $5-15 million of his contract. Now, keep in mind, that’s not likely to happen anytime this year, so he’ll get the bulk of his contract, but still a frightening tax-level.
In Denver news, two utility Running Backs, a safety, and a long-snapper signed with the Broncos today. Here’s hoping that Bertrand Berry or someone of his caliber with a similar love for the Mile High City, decides to sign in Orange and Blue.
We obviously need some LBs & Defensive linemen, I’m hoping for a monster pick-up in the running back department ala Terrell Davis, but not in the first round or two.
It seems Denver should be in place to make a playoff run, but only if the Chargers keep AJ Smith as GM and Norv Turner as coach. If by chance, they replace Turner with Ron Rivera, it seems likely they would run over the rest of the division.
One thing is for certain, the Donkeys have drawn a VERY difficult schedule next season, and will be lucky to have a winning record. As long as the Raiders and Chargers stay down, I’m okay with it.
I would have loved to see Shanahan signed with the Chiefs, one, I feel I have more in common with Chiefs fans than Raiders or Chargers fans, two, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. A rejuvenated and motivated Shanahan could have brought the Chiefs to the #2 spot in the AFC West in the next season or two.
Leaving the McDaniel’s led Broncos to split that series, and decimate the California teams to establish division dominance.
Back to politics, between my columns and some of my comments in classes, I sense people probably try to label me as a Republican. This couldn’t be further from the truth.
I find myself nauseated by the Republicans and their demonstrated lack of adherence to the Constitution, likewise the Democrat’s habit of redefining the issue to suit their needs.
Democrats are responsible for the so called “progressive” movement in government. Progress which includes instituting plans to remove most personal responsibility notions, i.e. health care, social security. Nevermind the fact that our Constitution was established as an intentional limit on Federal government’s scope. “The founders couldn’t fathom the idea of health care, so it’s in our interest to insure every man, woman and child in the country.” WRONG!!
The founding fathers had more foresight than any 535 current politicians. They understood the tyranny of power, they realized they had to establish limits on government, step back, and let the states do everything else.
Why would they want the states to do everything else? You might ask. Well, because they ensured states couldn’t print their own currency, likely ensuring that states would operate with balanced budgets.
In modern day politics, there are no term limits outside of the White House, so the only motivation for politicians is to say and so whatever they can or want to get re-elected. The collective US conciousness needs to wake up! These bastards have done nothing less than ruin the economy, the budget, and the image of the US.
Republicans took us off the gold standard, are primarily responsible for the USA PATRIOT Act, and have discusses Constitutional amendments banning flag burning and gay marriage. REALLY?! One of those is covered by freedom of speech, the other is covered by the Supreme Court’s finding of a right to privacy.
These pricks are so equally horrendous in terms of keeping the Constitution as the guide to the federal government, it feels hopeless at times.
Why is Constitutional adherence not insisted upon by the US voters? Why have we not stood up and shouted to the top of our lungs, “IF IT’S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION THEN STOP DOING IT!!!”
The discussion of 2nd Amendment Rights is absurd. “Shall not be infringed.” What? “The right to keep and bear arms.” Whose? “The PEOPLE.” What does that mean. The PEOPLE is the citizens of the US. Not the states, not the police, not the military. It is a personal Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that right “shall not be infringed.” Since when did the founders write anything obscure? SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! Doesn’t mean, “until a group of people come along believing that disarming law-abiding citizens will result in a safer society.” No, it means absolutely, under no circumstances, will that right be even slightly affected by laws. Because the PEOPLE have to be kepts safe from tyranny, and ARMS, will ensure that end.
Why do I focus on the 2nd Amendment? Because Eric Holder, President Obama’s Attorney General, declared this week that the administration will seek a renewal of the misnomered Assault Weapons Ban. Why? Two words, liberal agenda.
They LOATHE the idea of you being able to protect yourself without the government’s intervention. What’s worse? They DESPISE the fact that you may refuse to pay 85-95% taxes, and that you may be able to defend yourself when they come to collect.
The left, from what I can tell, wants total government control. Why? No idea. For whatever reason some people believe that socialism/communism works. I don’t comprehend this.
The US System worked for 150 years before FDR ruined that streak. Since then, in my mind, it’s been a steady downhill tumble.
Now, the ban that was purported by the left to have an immediate impact on street crime (which had ZERO effect on crime, because, as some of us knew, semi-automatic rifles are RARELY USED IN CRIMES!!!), is being brought back under the guise that the US feels responsible to stop the influx of semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines to the Mexican drug-cartels.
Now, wouldn’t the logical way to go here, be to end the Drug War instead? Wouldn’t that effectively put the Cartels out of business? Further, wouldn’t that allow the states to determine which drugs they want to stop, and which they don’t?
Let the states write their own drug laws, but my guess is, they won’t be needed. Put them in the same sales tax as tobacco/gasoline tax nationwide, and reverse the flow of drug money.