Gay Protesters Face Prosecution in Russia

Russia is not the kind of place where openly homosexual individuals can display their affection in public. One Russian lawmaker has passed a law banning "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations." For some people in America this is considered a scandal. I think it's quite the opposite.

Considering that the vast majority of the Russian population doesn't approve of homosexuality; this law is not surprising.

Sociologists say that tolerance (particularly to homosexual individuals) as a social phenomenon has been fading in Russia during the recent decade. The majority of respondents said in 2010 that they refused to take homosexual practice for normal relationships. Seventy-four percent of the polled said that gays and lesbians were morally perverted and mentally unbalanced individuals (68% - in 1998). Only 15 percent of Russians believe that homosexual and heterosexual individuals should enjoy equal rights in the Russian society. The research was conducted by Levada Center.

There is no scandal here, just a law that represents the majority opinion.

There would be a scandal only if Russian authorities arrested people and prosecuted them without this law in place. This law will protect LGBT individuals by letting them know that there are consequences should they do what is considered unacceptable by the majority of Russians.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

There was a point when I thought that some people were simply not paying attention.

Now that the Obama administration's true character is becoming publicly visible; there is no way that the American people can honestly look at all of the insanely obtrusive and morally defunct actions of this administration and excuse it. After the IRS scandal does anyone really believe there was no voter fraud taking place? Does anyone really trust these people anymore?

As for the Republicans; I'm afraid that the party is dead and just doesn't know it yet. The Republicans have managed to keep Democrats hating them, while simultaneously losing the respect of the people who were hoping they would come through. No amount of charisma is going to make someone's beliefs invisible (Marco Rubio).

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The Democrats don't have to worry about what their candidates do or say, because they know that their constituents don't care anyway --even when they do actually pay attention. Republicans have to truly and honestly give their constituents reasons to vote for them.

If people don't wake up to what's been happening over the past 4+ years. I don't think that they are going to wake up. It's probably going to be a nasty decade or two.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Budget Control Act of 2011

Before you freak out you should see what's really going on here. First we have to go over Baseline Budgeting. In a nutshell the government forecasts an increase in the budget of (7)% each year.

The Deficit Control Act of 1985 provided the first legal definition of baseline. For the most part, the act defined the baseline in conformity with previous usage. If appropriations had not been enacted for the upcoming fiscal year, the baseline was to assume the previous year's level without any adjustment for inflation. In 1987, however, the Congress amended the definition of the baseline so that discretionary appropriations would be adjusted to keep pace with inflation. Other technical changes, annual increase of now approximately 3% plus inflation, to the definition of the baseline were enacted in 1990, 1993, and 1997. Presently, the [automatic annual] Baseline Budgeting increase is about 7%.

The Sequester is around a 2% reduction in the budget for fiscal year 2013. So what we really have here is an increase of roughly 5% instead of 7%. Obama and the Democrats have made as if half of the government will shut down because of a 2% difference in the forecast government budget.

Now let's look at Stimulus Spending and its aggregate impact thus far. The stimulus bill, passed in 2009, allotted more than 800 billion dollars to various areas of government. The budget in 2009 was roughly 2.7 trillion. That means that the Obama Stimulus Plan, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, was a budget increase of roughly 29%. Did the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 create never-ending jobs? Where did the money go? Did it go into programs that were projected to have Stimulus spending forever?

Knowing that the Stimulus Bill, an increase of almost 29%, didn't create tons of jobs; how are we supposed to believe that a budget decrease of 2% is going to cause mass layoffs?

Mass layoffs don't make any sense when looked at logically. Are we to believe that labor is the last 2% of the federal budget?

If I made $500,000 a year and have a decrease of 2% I now would be left with $490,000. Does that mean that my family will starve now because of a $10,000 reduction in pay? That is what Obama and the Democrats want you to believe. Don't buy it. Now that Obama's bluff has been called; I'm wondering how the media is going to hide this.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

No Smoking

Obama's still smoking, but that's a big No-No for you. Why does any of this matter? Well lets take a look at what has been found in the new health care law. Obamacare penalizes smokers with decidedly higher health insurance premiums.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

The Affordable Care Act — "Obamacare" to its detractors — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

Nearly one of every five U.S. adults smokes. That share is higher among lower-income people, who also are more likely to work in jobs that don't come with health insurance and would therefore depend on the new federal health care law. Smoking increases the risk of developing heart disease, lung problems and cancer, contributing to nearly 450,000 deaths a year.

Insurers won't be allowed to charge more under the overhaul for people who are overweight, or have a health condition like a bad back or a heart that skips beats — but they can charge more if a person smokes.

Several provisions in the federal health care law work together to leave older smokers with a bleak set of financial options, said Pollitz, formerly deputy director of the Office of Consumer Support in the federal Health and Human Services Department.

First, the law allows insurers to charge older adults up to three times as much as their youngest customers.

Second, the law allows insurers to levy the full 50 percent penalty on older smokers while charging less to younger ones.

And finally, government tax credits that will be available to help pay premiums cannot be used to offset the cost of penalties for smokers.

Don't think that you can just lie to your doctor either. Insurers will test you to determine whether or not you are a smoker, then they will hit you with the penalties.

Keep in mind this is while there is still private insurers. What do you think will happen when the government finalizes the takeover of the health care industry?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Bed Bath and Beyond

For all of those in favor of gun bans, read this article.

MIDDLETOWN, N.J. (CBSNewYork) — Police are investigating after a woman was attacked and stabbed multiple times inside a New Jersey store Thursday afternoon.

The victim, identified by her family as 29-year-old Kerri Dalton of Keansburg, also had a baby with her inside the Middletown Bed Bath & Beyond store, when the attack occurred.

The alleged assailant, 19-year-old Tyrik Haynes, is accused of repeatedly plunging a knife into Dalton around 4 p.m., puncturing both her lungs in an apparent random attack.

A published report indicated that Haynes is being held on $1 million bail on an attempted murder charge.

Dalton was stabbed more than a dozen times and Medevaced to Jersey Shore Medical Center, where she remained in stable condition late Thursday night.

CBS 2′s Young reported that Haynes is known locally as a suspected animal abuser. Workers at the nearby Petco told Young the suspect used to come in to stare at the cats and that he is accused of adopting cats and setting them on fire.

Here's another case of some crazy person committing a violent crime. And once again, multiple people knew that this person had a propensity for violent acts.

Can anyone explain to me how a law (gun ban) could have stopped this guy from hurting people --initially? It's pretty obvious that this guy is going to jail for a while.

Let's go over a few things. Gun restrictions limit gun access only for law abiding citizens. Criminals and crazy people are not concerned with the law. Restrictive laws only effect those who obey them.

The end result of a gun ban is fewer law abiding citizens with guns.

Do we have gun related problems with law abiding citizens, or do we have gun related problems with criminals and crazy people?

Why then is the Obama administration worried about guns in the hands of law abiding citizens?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!