Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Please, folks - it only takes a minute or two for you to stand and be counted. If you do not, then it is likely that the source of parts for our cars will dry up, and at the very least, become far more expensive as supply dwindles. And to add insult to injury, they will use YOUR tax money to accomplish this travesty.
Even if you are not involved in this hobby, but like to see the restored classics and antiques as they drive by, you really need to add your input to Speaker Pelosi. If Americans do not stand together, we will fall together.
From the SEMA website at http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=62498:
Urgent Action Alert
Washington lawmakers are drafting a large economic stimulus package to help create jobs and rebuild infrastructure. They want to include a nationwide scrappage program which would give U.S. tax dollars to consumers who turn-in older cars to have them crushed, as a misguided attempt to spur new car sales. The lawmakers need to scrap this idea.
The stimulus package is being drafted right now. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wants to introduce the bill on January 6 and have it approved by Congress by January 20, so that President Obama can sign it into law after he is inaugurated. Contact House Speaker Nancy Pelosi IMMEDIATELY To Oppose Cash for Clunkers! Call: 202/225-0100
Talking Points Oppose the Use of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars for Cash for Clunkers
• I am [calling/writing] to urge lawmakers not to include a “Cash for Clunkers” provision in the economic stimulus bill. Owners who turn in vehicles for crushing would receive a "minimal" payment to purchase a new car. This is a misguided attempt to spur car sales and claim that the country’s air quality or fleet fuel mileage is being improved.
• “Cash for Clunkers” programs threaten enthusiasts nationwide with the loss of valuable parts and parts-cars for repair, restoration, and customization projects. The programs also risk destroying classic, historic and special-interest vehicles, our American heritage.
• Cars turned in for scrappage often barely run, or are rarely-driven second or third vehicles that have a minimal impact on overall fuel economy or emissions.
• “Cash for Clunkers” programs will reduce the availability of affordable transportation and repair parts used by low-income drivers. It will also compete with the Salvation Army, the Purple Heart and other charities that rely on vehicle donations to raise money.
• “Cash for Clunkers” ignores better policy options. If Congress wants to act, support for repair and upgrade is a better choice and a win-win for consumers, dealers, manufacturers and repair shops. Significant emissions and fuel economy improvements can be achieved in older vehicles through relatively simple and inexpensive means: repaired/replaced exhaust systems, tune-ups, etc.
• We hope we can count on you to reject “Cash for Clunkers.” Thank you for your consideration on this very important matter.
Please send a quick note and/or a copy of your message to Speaker Pelosi to: E-mail:
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
*When all through our land,*
*Not a Christian was praying*
*Nor taking a stand.*
*See the PC Police had taken away,*
*The reason for Christmas - no one could say.*
*The children were told by their schools not to sing,*
*About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.*
*It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say*
* December 25th is just a 'Holiday'.*
*Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit*
*Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!*
*CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod*
*Something was changing, something quite odd! *
*Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa*
*In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.*
*As Targets were hanging their trees upside down*
* At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found.*
*At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears*
*You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.*
*Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty*
*Are words that were used to intimidate me.*
*Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen*
*On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!*
*At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter*
*To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.*
*And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith*
* Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace*
*The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded*
*The reason for the season, stopped before it started.*
*So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'*
*Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.*
*Choose your words carefully, choose what you say*
*Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS , not Happy Holiday!*
Merry Christmas to all our readers
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls , journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, or attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier, leaving the rest of us to pick up the entire tab.
David R. Kamerschen
Ph.D. Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no further explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Being religious, I have given it a lot of thought. I lost my own mother when I was 15, and recall asking myself the same question. And again, when a house fire claimed two other dearly loved ones.So I got to thinking about it. And I think I may have the answer, though it does nothing to really soothe.
I think it is because God is so much wiser than us, and sees the "big picture" that we cannot, or will not, see.
From a purely scientific point of view, our planet can sustain not more than 20 billion people - or less. Limited space; limited resources. Now for the sake of argument, let us assume that when Jesus came, He put an end to pestilence and wars. Had none of those people died prematurely, and had they lived to a ripe old age and propagated, the world's population would have exceeded 20 billion over a century ago, and resources will have long been depleted. All countries - those that still existed - would all be "third world" in status, even America. There would be starvation and misery on a scale we cannot even imagine.
That said, any God would realize that there must be methods whereby the population is curtailed. He is our Father, and like any parent, He would not wish to have to choose which of His children would perish. So, he would make it so that "nature" - and our own lifestyle choices - would separate the weak from the strong - survival of the fittest. He would still know the sorrow of losing children, but at least He would not have to choose which of His children would suffer.
So He calls up the forces of war, pestilence, famine - just like it says in the Bible. Not to make us suffer, but to protect us from extinction. He is more concerned with the survival of Mankind than with the survival of any one individual.
Consider the Biblical passage that says "If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out; if thine hand offend thee, cut it off." Well, He is simply trying to teach us that in order for the whole to remain healthy, some parts must be sacrificed. It is simply a matter of survival of the fittest. Just as we prune trees and shrubs to make them healthier, or have our pets "fixed" to prevent being overrun, we, too, benefit from "pruning".
It is, in short, nature's way of helping us to preserve the whole - Mankind - though it results in losing individual parts.While this explanation does nothing to soothe our hearts at the loss of a loved one, it does explain the need, and indicates that God is not without compassion - He simply has to consider the survival of the whole of Mankind.
But perhaps this can help soothe - if any of the above has any credence, then there is a God, and those who suffer here and get called "home" before us are now in paradise, and will be patiently awaiting the time when we can all be together once more. Or, as Johnny Cash so aptly put it, "The Circle Won't Be Broken - we'll be together again up yonder in a little while."
And so there shall always be war. There will always be disease, famine, drought, poverty. And, lest we forget, we all grow stronger from any tribulation that does not kill us. Much as fire tempers steel, we must suffer the hardships of life if we are to become strong.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Atlanta Journal Constitution has an interesting story about one Greg Fischer, a consumer who paid his September Bank of America credit card payment through his bank's web site. He paid on the deadline day.
However, his bank said that he was late anyway. Why? He paid at 4:10 in the afternoon, past a 3:30 p.m. cut-off that he wasn't aware of, a cut-off, I'm sure, that's buried somewhere in legalese on his credit card statement or on the credit card's web site.
He's out more than just a late fee. Since he was late with a payment in April, his interest rate doubled to 28.99 percent. He was told that the bank wouldn't consider lowering the fee until he had paid on time for six months. Now if you do the math, April to September is six months straight. Nice timing.
In another instance, BOA doubled the interest rate of one of their better customers, a man who had been their customer for over 10 years. Why? Because the Postal Service erred, sent his mailed payment across country before delivering it - a day late. One day. First "late" payment in ten years. And they doubled his rate to 27.99%.
There used to be a law against such usury. And there ARE laws governing fair business practices. But because Bank of America is so big, they simply ignore them, and get away with it.Our Congress, elected to protect us, fails to do so. The banks pay them too much money for them to take any action. So, what can be done?
Simple. If every consumer were to refuse to do business with Bank of America, they would simply go out of business - a deserving and fitting end to a bunch of pathetic cheats who prey on their own customers.Remember - Bank of America is also the bank that kicked America in the teeth in 2006 when they created credit cards specifically for illegal immigrants. Risky cards for high risk individuals, and the cost of that added risk is passed onto the rest of the bank's customers.
It is high time that we, the People contact our Congressmen and TELL them to do something about these unethical, immoral practices, and to do their jobs to protect the American people. In the meantime, do yourself a favor - DON'T do business with Bank of America - they are dangerous to your wealth, and your credit rating. They care nothing about their customers. Their only God is the almighty dollar, and they will put the screws to anyone in pursuit of their quest for your money.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
As you can see, it has been tanking almost constantly, having lost more than 16% of the market's entire value just since the election.
To put this in perspective, this is the first time ever in the history of the stock market (about 200 years) that it went down after a presidential election. An election - regardless of who wins - usually creates an upsurge, as investors determine and can guess the likely future, now that they know who will lead.
Apparently, that is not the case this time. No one - particularly investors - know, or can predict what Obama and a Democrat congress might do. The people are worried about that. And investors do not invest when they have no way of predicting the possible future. They are investors, not mindless gamblers.
And so the economy follows suit, and continues to tank.
Just remember - you heard it here first - as far back as last summer, when this blog predicted this.
We also predicted Obama would fill positions with left-wing partisans and Washington Insiders, instead of the "change" he promised. To date, 75% of his appointments are Clintonites, Washington insiders and Chicago politicians. So much for "change". The only change seems to be back to old worn-out retreads of the 90's.
Now for the bad news - we predicted a McCain win would result in a hard, but not-so-long recession, but an Obama win would predicate a destructive depression.
This is one time I hope I am wrong...but don't bank on it!
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Some say it was because of the economy. Some, because he belonged to the same party as Bush. And some say it was because America has taken an abrupt left turn.
All of them are wrong.
Of course, the economy and the Bush legacy damaged McCain, and would have damaged any Republican to some degree. But McCain allowed those things to hurt him far more than was necessary. And America, by all polls, is still right of center. So, just why DID McCain lose so badly?
He lost because he betrayed the conservative base that is the strength of the GOP. He tried so hard to encompass moderates, and the so-called "Reagan Democrats" that he lost the support of many Republicans.
I have heard from thousands of Republicans who chose not to vote for McCain because they were still angry that he tried so hard - and sneakily - to betray conservative values concerning immigration. And throughout the campaign, they waited with baited breath to hear him say, "I was wrong - that was not the answer." But he never did recant his position.
And they waited, and hoped he would finally admit that his "McCain-Feingold" bill was a huge mistake. But in spite of being handicapped because of it, he stood by it.
And they waited for McCain to get angry about the debacle in the financial sector. They waited to hear him say he would find the responsible parties and hold them accountable - jail, not bail. But he remained silent, and even contributed to passing the hated bail-out bill.
Well, Senator McCain, if you kick your supporters often enough just to try and win a few "moderate" votes that there is little chance of winning, you will lose. And you did lose. You lost the country for the same reason you lost Pennsylvania - you invested too much into trying to win votes that you just could not win. By courting moderate Democrats, you lost Republicans - and still did not get the Democrats. You tried to win 50,000 Pennsylvania Democrats - and it cost you 50,000 Republicans, and you still did not get those Democrats. So, you lost.
And so did many other so-called Republicans who also lost their way. And the GOP will continue to lose until they wake up, and return to their roots, because that is where their stength is.
The GOP has to remember one simple tenet of business - you trade nickles for dimes, not vice versa. If you are going to dump 50,000 Republican votes, you had damned well better be certain you are getting more than that from the other side. And in politics, that simply is not possible.
As of now, there are precious few Republicans capable of rebuilding the party - Palin, Steele, Gingrich, Jundal, DeMint. That's about it.
And as of now, the "elitist" members of the GOP who have ruined the party these last 10 years are fighting hard to hold on, and working to destroy the very Republicans who can save the party.
Unless the PEOPLE of the GOP stand up and demand change, the liberal socialists will continue to rule.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Well, now, if that don't take the cake. The UN, in its preponderance of stupidity claims that a cloud of soot and chemicals, obviously caused by human activity, is "a threat from global warming." Wow! The cloud is caused "from global warming", instead of vice versa.
So, according to the bright folks at the UN, if we stop global warming, that will prevent any further countries from polluting the atmosphere.
I think they have it backward. As usual!
Here's a thought for that prestigious bunch of international jokers - the cloud is obviously originating from the same countries that, according to the Kyoto treaty they want us to sign onto, would be exempt. So, even with Kyoto, those countries will still be creating those clouds, and global warming. So, what's the point of Kyoto?
The point, for those of you who may have missed the fine print, is not to fight global warming. Rather, it is to punish countries that are already industrialized, and have already taken vast measures to have clean air, while the polluters are left to go on polluting. America, the cleanest of the industrial nations, would be forced to shut down much manufacturing in order to comply. The manufacturing, which must still occur somewhere, will be done in these uinrestricted countries, resulting in even greater pollution.
America would lose jobs. America would be forced to spend billions. And China and India can take over as the industrial leaders of the world, polluting as they go, and raking in all the money.
If just a few short years, it will be China and India who will be the world leaders, and America would be reduced to third world status. America will have been hog-tied.
With Obama as president, and a democrat congress, you can count on them signing onto the Kyoto treaty, which will - I repeat, WILL be the downfall of America.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
In the Senate race in Minnesota, the Republican, Coleman, beat Democrat challenger Al Franken. However, because it was close, there must be an automatic recount.
Suddenly, hundreds of "new" ballots are popping up out of thin air - all favoring Franken. One ballot counter (a Democrat, by the way), suddenly found a bunch of absentee ballots in the trunk of her car - all were mysteriously for Franken. And what, pray tell, were they even doing in her trunk? And the town of Mountain Iron suddenly recorded an extra 100 votes, all for Franken, AFTER the election. Since these are taped in that municipality, they were asked to produce the tape for verification. And guess what? The tape was dated November 2nd - so it was created even before election day, though the 100 new votes appeared on Nov. 6th.
So far, there have been numerous instances of ballots mysteriously coming to light, all favoring Franken. How can that be? Frankly, it CANNOT be.
And now it comes to light that the guy in charge of the recount - another Democrat - is affiliated with the group ACORN, which has already been shown to be involved in voter fraud.
It is high time that we, the people stood up and demand that voting be cleaned up, once and for all. Get ACORN out of this entirely. Prohibit anything that even so much as provides an opportunity for fraud. Force each municipality, county and state to be accountable for accuracy in voter regfistration, and control of ballots. If the chain of evidence is broken, as in the case of those ballots found in a trunk, the ballot does not get counted. Period.
As for the "motor voter" law the Democrats and ACORN pushed through in many states, it should be outlawed for several reasons. First, it encourages fraud when a person can register and vote at the same time, so the registration cannot be verified as legitimate. And it does not allow for new information coming to light in the late stages of the campaign - if a person votes in September, and it comes to light in October that the candidate is a criminal, it is too late. The ballot cannot be changed.
I believe we should all have one week in which to vote (except legitimate absentees, who may vote earlier), and registration must be at least 3 months prior to an election. In this manner, illegal registrations can be ferreted out before fraud can be committed. Voter fraud cannot occur without voter registration fraud.
ACORN says such measures would keep the poor from voting. I fail to see how. If the poor can show up to register in September, they can show up to register in July. If they can show up to vote in September, they can show up to vote in November. The ONLY reason ACORN and the DNC wants the motor-voter laws to stand is so they can intimidate poor people into registering AND voting all at once, to insure that they do, indeed, vote. And to provide a fertile ground for fraud - a registration filled out today cannot possibly be verified today. So allowing registration and voting simultaneously does nothing except promote fraud.
The point is clear, and this joke of an election in Minnesota proves it out - we need to take strong measures to insure honesty, integrity and legitimacy of the voting process, or we will no longer have a democracy.
I do not doubt Franken can, and probably will "win" in Minnesota, since ballots in his favor are popping up everywhere. I may even have some in my glove compartment. But if he does "win", understand that Franken, originally a comic on Saturday Night Live, will be a part of making a comedy of the entire Senate, and of our election process. How can there be any respect for anything the Senate does if it is done by people who were not democratically elected?
And the entire nation should be thoroughly ashamed of Minnesota - first, for giving a convicted tax cheat and liar more than a half dozen votes, and second for allowing the democrats to so blatantly steal the election. I do not know of a single person who believes that all of those "sudden" and "mysterious" ballots for Franken that are showing up only after the election are actually legitimate.
Franken is an un-funny comic. But the comedy of the Minnesota election process is even less funny!
Let me start by saying I really do not care if someone chooses to be an atheist. I see that as being their problem, not mine. They are free to choose their own direction, which, as you may recall, is also the same position I have on the gay lifestyle. To each his own, and more power to them. We will all answer for our choices someday.
But I do object when anyone - gays, atheists, agnostics, democrats, liberals - anyone - chooses to belittle, insult, denigrate or otherwise complain about MY choice of direction. They need to give me the same courtesy and respect that I give them.
To reply to that humanist group's question, I would simply say this: if I were an atheist, and it turns out there is a God, I would lose BIG time! And if there is NO god, I would not gain a thing. So, as an atheist, I simply could not win, and I would have zero chance at a bright eternity. On the other hand, if I believe in God, and it turns out there IS a God, I WIN - big time. And if there is no God, I have not lost a thing. So, as a believer, I simply cannot lose.
It occurs to me that it is much smarter to choose a position in which I cannot lose, as opposed to a position in which I cannot win. Not being a complete dunce, my choice is rather apparent.
No, that is not WHY I believe in God. But it does answer the question those humanist clowns posed - it simply makes more sense to believe than to not believe. As the story about that ad wore on, some folks supported their position of non-belief with the tired expanation that religion damages society, and religion has caused many atrocities. They simply do not understand that religion can "do" nothing. PEOPLE do things. Religions are not "bad" just because some people use and abuse them to serve their own agendas. That is not the fault of religion - it is the failing of Man.
They also fail to realize that, without religion, we are no better than animals. It is religion, alone, that provides society with boundaries of right and wrong, good and evil. It is those boundaries that determine the laws we live by. Without those boundaries, and devoid of laws, we would live as animals. There would be no knowledge of "right and wrong". That is what the Garden of Eden was all about. That was the point at which Man stopped being "just another animal" and "bit of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil". That is where we came to understand the difference between right and wrong. And that occured because - and only because - "Adam" and "Eve" knew God. Personally, it would appear. Note that they "talked" with God long before they ate the proverbial "apple". Religion already existed, and societal rules began.
Christmas time is upon us. And in a way, those humanists make a point, albeit in a backward fashion. Rather than asking ourselves "Why believe", we should ask ourselves, "Why Not?" And amid all the festivities and commercialism, we would do well to take some time to remember the reason for the season. And we should carry that reason with us throughout the year. If you celebrate Christmas only one day a year, you are missing a lot - and you are missing the whole point.
I feel sorry for those who do not believe in a greater power. After all, there are insects. And there is a greater power than them - the birds, animals etc. And there is a greater power than the birds and animals - Mankind. So it seems only reasonable that there is something even greater than ourselves. Remember the old adage, "No matter how big you are, there's always someone bigger?" For gunslingers, there was always "someone faster." I think the same is true with ourselves - there is something greater. Why wouldn't there be? The universe is incredibly vast, with wonders we cannot even comprehend. How can any person think that something as miniscule and imperfect as a human being is the greatest power in the universe? We can't even SEE the end of the universe, or understand it. So how can we possibly be the greatest power, or the most formidable intellect?
If you ask me, believing in Man's omnipotence in this universe is far more absurd than believing in a greater power. So, when an atheist says to me, "Believing in an invisible, all-powerful being is absurd", I point out the absurdity of believing there is not something far greater than we can imagine.
One such non-theist even threw that old riddle at me, to prove there was no God. "Can God create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift?" He went on with, "No matter what you answer, there is something your all-powerful God cannot do."
I smiled. And then I explained that he lived in a very small world where things are black and white. And I went on to say, "Yes, God can create a stone He cannot lift, because he can create anything. And THEN, after He creates such a stone, He can give himself the strength to lift it, anyway. Because He can do anything."
If the person reading this is an atheist, please understand that I am not trying to belittle your beliefs, nor am I disrespecting your choice. I am simply presenting my side of the debate, and I can only hope that you will not simply dismiss it summarily. Instead, give it some intelligent thought. Consider possibilities that reach beyond that which can be analyzed. There is far, far more to this thing we call "life" that cannot be seen by the eye (air, conscience), nor touched (happiness, or grief), nor even understood (black holes, the human brain).
If you can accept that, then you have already accepted the possibility of a greater power.
Happy Holidays, folks!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
WASHINGTON (Nov. 11) - A congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation's foreign service.
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (as the military. Ed.)."
Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force. (Ed. Such a ban would be necessary if such a national security force is to be effective).
As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.
"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."
Ed. A poll was conducted among 40,000 Americans. 55% said Broun has a valid point.
These atheists go on to complain that America is a secular nation, not a nation under God. They make this bogus claim because they twist the purpose of the founders who decided to leave God out of the Constitution. What they so dishonestly "forget" to tell people is that the founders left God out of the Constitution for the purpose of making the Constitution a concrete foundation based on law.
They knew full well that if they were to inject God into Man's Law, it would reduce God to Man's level, and weaken both the nation and its religious foundation. To insure that the Constitution could never be usurped on the basis of religious change, they kept religion out of it. The Constitution had to be pure law, to eliminate the need to rewrite the Constitution every time the religious foundation of the nation changed. The Constitution had to be timeless, and unaffected by ANY outside influences.
But the other documents of the time proves that the founders knew and accepted that America was a nation under God. Of that there is no doubt.
The Piss 'n Moan club will always be with us, trying to destroy the nation that the founders crafted, and Americans fought and died for, over the last 230 years. They are fully aware that if they can remove religion from the public square, religion will become weak and die. This is their goal because it is religion, and only religion, that sets limits on behavior.
Secularists want no limits. They want abortion on demand - even at birth. They want to be able to euthanize the elderly. They want to legalize drugs, and some have even expressed that they want sex between adults and children to be legalized. Secularists want NO boundaries. They want to be able to pursue their personal Sodom & Gomorrah without repercussions. They do not want to have to account for their actions. In fact, that is the very reason they choose not to believe in God. If there is no God, then there is no punishment for sins. Which means, in effect, that there can be no sin. Anything goes in a Godless society.
Certainly, I will defend the rights of the P&M Club to hold to their beliefs. I will defend their right to express those beliefs. But no one should defend their intentional use of deception and lies to promote those beliefs. And we certainly should not humor them - that only encourages them to do more of the same.
In the letters of each of the founding fathers, they made it perfectly clear that they were well aware that the only thing that could keep a nation together was religion. They carefully expressed that it is religion that sets the limits on moral behavior, which would help America grow and become strong. A nation requires a steady moral compass, which only religion can provide. That is still true today. It will remain true tomorrow.
It matters not if you, personally, believe in God or not. What does matter is that America remains a strong, moral nation. And for that purpose, we all need to stand, and recognize the need for the moral direction provided by religion. Because if we do not preserve the strength that comes from morality, America cannot stand. And if we lose that, we also lose our rights - including the right to be either religious or secular.
Religious or secular, we all need to keep America strong, independent, free and morally straight. And that means religion needs to play a very major role.
As a side note, all those secularists and atheists are not really atheists at all. In fact, they believe in God even more than the rest of us. Think about it. If they truly believed there is no God, then they would not care one iota if the rest of us practice our religion wherever and whenever we please. It simply would not matter to them, because they would "know" that we are performing rituals that have neither meaning nor effect.
To illustrate, ask yourself if you would complain vehemently if you were to see aborigines worshipping the Volcano God. No - you might be amused, but you would not consider their rituals any threat to you.
But atheists do complain. They do consider religion a threat to them. Why? It is because they do, indeed, believe in God, but because they want to live in sin, they hate God. The only way they can "justify" their choices is to refute God. But how do you refute something if it does not exist?
Atheists believe in God. But they would prefer it if there were no God. So, they hate God, which is why they fight religion so strongly. They hope that if they can "kill" religion, that will "kill" God, and without God, they would be spared having to pay for their sins.
Again - if a person truly does not believe in God, then they simply would give no thought to those of us who do. The very fact that religion bothers them so much only goes to prove that they consider it a threat - they fear it. And since there is no point in fearing that which does not exist, their actions prove they do, indeed, believe in God. They just want to kill Him, so they can live in sin without penalty.
It is a shame that they do not understand what "immortal" means. You cannot kill a God. And He does not stop existing simply because you refuse to acknowledge Him. He will still be there when it's your turn to cross the Great Divide. Not believing in it will not prevent it.
As a side note, it is strange that secularists, known for putting their faith in science, appear to overlook the latest scientific studies on the probability of the existence of God. A number of SECULAR, ATHEIST scientists and researchers, studying all available documentation and recorded facts, came to the conclusion that there is a 67% probability that God does exist. And some of those same scientists went on to join the ranks of believers.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Prediction #1: The stock market would continue to have losses through the election, due to the economic threat of an Obama presidency
Prediction #2: After the election, if Obama wins, the market would take additional serious hits immediately, before smoothing out
Prediction #3: Obama would lead from a very far left position, not from the center as his supporters believe
The first has already come to pass. The second has also come to pass, with nearly a 500 point drop yesterday, and today it is already hovering at a near 400 point drop.
As for the third prediction, it may be too early to be certain, but considering Obama's very first appointment - Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff - bodes badly for any hope of a centrist government. Rahm is famous for being the farthest left of any known politician today, and is another Chicago politician. Making him #3 in the White House indicates Obama has no intention of being a centrist.
Obama owes a lot to the very far left. That is where most of his funding and base support came from. He cannot afford to turn on them, and govern from the center. Yet, if he governs from the far left, he will very quickly lose favor among the folks, the majority of whom still tend to be just right of center.
This is why I believe that my next prediction will also ring true: Obama will only serve one term. In 2012, if the republicans have finally managed to cobble together a conservative center-right platform, they will sweep everything. If they do not, then I think 2012 will be a mixed bag that will not serve anyone very well, but in either case, Obama will be going home in four years - not because he is a "bad" president, but because no matter what he does, he is going to anger and alienate a very large portion of those who swept him in earlier this week.
And another prediction: Governor Palin will run for Presidsent in 2012, and IF the Republican party actually gets around to cobbling together a real platform, she will win handily. The only real faults anyone could make stick on her is her lack of experience in national or international affairs (though she had more than Obama). So my final prediction for today: Palin will spend the next 2-3 years building that weakness into a strength. She is a quick study, and she WILL be ready in 2012. With a vengeance!
As a side note, mostly for AOL users, AOL has been incredibly deceptive lately. Just two examples of blatant, harmful deception:
1) Just two days before the election they posted a "news story" about Nostradamus predicting a "McCain win", stating that Quatrain 78 of Century X called McCain the "feeble kept one", and calling Palin the "imbecile Queen". As AOL already knew, there is no such quatrain with such statements. AOL knew it was a bogus story because the real quatrain is published on hundreds of internet sites, and has nothing to do with anything even remotely similar to what AOL was posting as a "news story". Their only purpose, of course, was to discredit McCain and Palin in the eyes of those who believe in prophecy.
2) Even though the board of inquiry ultimately exhonerated Palin of any wrongdoing just one day before the election, AOL and other liberal media WITHHELD the news until the election was nearly over. Again, the only purpose for withholding such a story would be to prevent voters from learning the truth about Troopergate before the election. The only news media to report it on the day she was exhonerated was, to their credit, Fox News' own Greta Susteren.
Anyone who pays AOL for any services would do well to consider taking their business elsewhere. It is not a good thing to subsidize dishonesty.
By the way, a recent poll produced the following about Fox News:
21% said Fox treated McCain better
21% said Fox treated Obama better
58% said it was just about equal
It just doesn't get more "fair and balanced" than that. Since success is directly proportionate to having accurate, timely information, I'll be getting my news from Fox from now on. None of the other media fared well. For example, MSNBC was rated by 78% as being pro Obama, 9% pro McCain and 13% thought they were treated equally.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
He put on a dress shirt (MADE IN SRI LANKA), designer jeans (MADE IN SINGAPORE) and tennis shoes (MADE IN KOREA). After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (MADE IN INDIA) he sat down with his calculator (MADE IN MEXICO) to see how much he could spend today.
After setting his watch (MADE IN TAIWAN) to the radio (MADE IN INDIA) he got in his car (MADE IN GERMANY) filled it with GAS from Saudi Arabia and continued his search for a good paying JOB . At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his Computer (Made In Malaysia), Joe decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals (MADE IN BRAZIL) poured himself a glass of wine (MADE IN FRANCE ) and turned on his TV (MADE IN INDONESIA), and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in AMERICA......
As I read blogs, I see some Republicans acting the same way the Democrats acted against Bush. I find that troubling. Historically, Republicans have tended to be the more civil, and willing to give people a chance to either step up to the plate, or fail, all on their own. And I find it disgusting that Republicans say that they will never support Obama.
That is wrong. Every President should have the full support of All Americans, at least until he has proven himself unfit and unworthy.
To all fellow Republicans, I urge you to give a better shake to Obama than the Democrats ever gave to Bush. We are supposed to be better than that. If you are going to lower yourself to their standards, then you become the people you hate. We have had 8 years of "I hate the Bush Administration". Let's not have 4 years of "I hate the Obama Administration." Don't do that. Let him sink or swim. But give him the opportunity.
Support the President, whoever he or she may be. If he screws up, call him to account. But until then, he deserves the support of every American.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
There are many, many folks who predict dire consequences and erosion of rights because of the liberal agenda of Pelosi, Reid and Obama. For example, we can kiss voting privacy goodbye when it comes to union voting. Unions will once again be able to intimidate both workers and businesses. And don't be surprised if they pass laws that will increase the ease of voter fraud, like their previous "motor voter" law.
And many believe that the Democratic response to the recession will likely cause a depression if they follow through on their agenda of heavier taxes on the very people responsible for creating jobs and income, and producr the GNP that determines economic health.
There is a silver lining of sorts. For eight years, the Democrats blamed "the Bush administration" for everything, including natural disasters. But from here on in, for the next four years, whatever goes wrong can and will be laid at the door of Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
Of course, the Democrats will still try to blame the Republicans for anything that goes wrong, but MOST of the people are not so naive and gullible as to believe it. So, in 2012, a political revolution like the ones that swept the nation after every other "full Democratic control" will occur, and Palin will be swept into the White House, and the House and Senate will again fall to Republicans.
Why? Right now, the country is angry at Republicans, not because Republicans are worse than Democrats, but because George W Bush earned their ire. Their anger at a few maladjusted Republicans has caused an anger at the party, in general. But as they come to
realize over the next four years that the Democrats are just as bad, or even worse, the American people will look in retrospect (hindsight is always clearer) at the GOP and realize their anger at the entire party was misplaced. They will choose solid, fiscally responsible conservative Republicans to fill the offices that will be vacated when the people dump the current batch of n'er-do-wells in office.
So, the short take: the Democrats can no longer "dodge the bullet" or shift the blame onto Republicans - at least, not successfully. They are in control. They will be held accountable. And because of their liberal agenda, they won't be able to contain or control themselves. And that will result in a Reaganesque landslide for Republicans in 2012.
The key, of course, is for the GOP to get rid of the idiots in charge of the RNC and replace them with competent Republicans that are actually Republicans, and to seek out, and put up for election, only those conservatives that have good moral values, strong family values and have a record of fiscal responsibility. Lately, way too many "Republicans" have been acting like liberal Democrats. This has separated them from their base, and that is why they are losing.
If the GOP has an ounce of common sense, they will heed Gingrich and adopt the platform his organization has provided at http://www.americansolutions.com/. If they do that, they will sweep in 2012. If they do NOT do that, they will likely lose again.
EVERY conservative reading this should first visit American Solutions, check out the platform, and if you agree with the majority of it, you must contact the RNC and tell them, point blank that they need to choose, and adhere to that platform, and to start RIGHT NOW seeking out good prospects for the next House and Senate races. And those prospects must sign on to that platform, or the RNC will not support them. Period.
If enough folks bombard the RNC, they will be forced to return to the principles that made the GOP the Grand Old Party in the first place.
I will make a prediction right here, today. You can hold me to it. Over the next four years, the Democrats will anger the folks. They will make the Bush Administration look acceptable in comparison. And if the GOP puts forth the right candidates, they will sweep in 2012. Gingrich did it in '94. With his help, the GOP can do it again.
If you are a conservative, and you do not stand to be counted, then you will have no one but yourself to blame when America loses the values it was built upon. More Socialism and a Big Brother "nanny state" will be your reward if you fail to do your part.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The following "news" story was run by AOL: "Nostradamus Predicts McCain Win". The story goes on to say that Quatrain 78 of Century X goes like this:
"At the war’s end:
The Feeble Kept One will strike down the Night
And his Imbecile Queen will rise from the snow
Bedecked in finery and the pelt of a wolf."
According to them, The Feeble one is McCain, the "night" is Obama, and the "imbecile Queen" is Palin.
This is such utterly moronic. Even if it weren’t a stretch to interpret it that way, that isn’t even the REAL text of Quatrain 78, Century X. That real text reads:
"Sudden joy to sudden sadness
It will occur at Rome for the graces embraced
Grief, cries, tears, weeping, blood, excellent mirth
Contrary bands surprised & trussed up. "
I don't think there is a single word that is correct in the AOL "quatrain". It is completely bogus, and proves the left-wing slant of AOL and the media. And their only purpose for pushing this "story" is a last-minute smear attack.
By stooping to this level, the last thing liberals should ever have is control of this nation. Surely, the right has also thrown out some crap on Obama, but not this level of smearing. This is right there at the bottom with those on the left who claimed Palin's baby was actually her daughter's, and claims that McCain was a communist sympathizer in Viet Nam. It just doesn't get any more vile.
As bad as the Republicans sometimes are, I am glad that I am not associated with a party that gets THIS low.
I guess the Democrats have not seen what is going on. For example, Louis Farrakahn, speaking in front of his Nation of Islam group did, indeed, refer to Obama as "The Messiah". And in Spain (the country that chose to desert us in the War on Terror), a portrait of Obama has appeared. But it is not an ordinary portrait - the Democratic presidential candidate is shown in a sand sculpture on a beach in Barcelona, Spain. The portrait is 140 yards long by 80 yards wide. and can be seen from the space station. It was created with 500 tons of sand, gravel and white, brown and black pebbles. It cost more than $13,000.
This sort of idolization is not unusual in Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
Has anyone read Revelations lately?
Friday, October 31, 2008
I have to ask, when was the last time $1000 could do all that - 1789?
MCCAIN: Would let the small business owner keep the $30,000 so he could hire another employee, produce more and make more money. He says that the person who gets that new job will be able to use that $30,000 a year to "move up, send their kids to college, buy homes and cars."
That I can understand. Someone actually does move up. And the increased production produces more income, which could result in still more jobs,
The difference, when you take the time to actually look at it, and extrapolate it to its conclusion, is stark.
In both cases, $30,000 gets pumped into the system. But only in the McCain scenario does it have any true and lasting effect. In the Obama scenario, it is nothing more than a case of buying votes. By promising 60 million people a check for $1,000, Obama is simply buying votes, and buying the election. That goes against everything this country stands for, and tells me that the man is unworthy of being our leader.
We do not need a man who stoops to buying votes. We need a man capable of being a leader. In the 21 months Obama has been running, he has yet to produce one iota of evidence that he can lead anything more than a horde of groupies. Nothing in his RECORD shows leadership. Nothing in his RECORD shows any executive experience. Nothing in his RECORD shows a strength to stand against our enemies.
Nothing in his record allows me to vote for him. His choice of cultivated relationships does not allow me to vote for him. His desire to redistribute my money does not allow me to vote for him. And his attempt to buy the election only turns my stomach!
“ there may be no one who lacks what he needs for a living, even though it may be necessary that the wealthy who are wildly squandering may be deprived of the right to do so, for the benefit of those who have nothing at all.”
No, those are not the same words Obama used, although it means exactly the same thing. But here is the problem - those words were spoken by Peron of Argentina, a socialist and fascist whose financial and leadership stupidity caused 3000% inflation, and a starved country.
What is truly amazing is that Obama still manages to command an almost hypnotic effect on his followers. It seems he could become an axe murderer and his followers would still see him as the Annointed One.
Does the name Jim Jones ring a bell?
He has resigned himself to the probability that Obama will be our next President, and will follow through on his promises to tax him to death. In anticipation, he has figured what his additional tax burden would be, and has a plan to offset it, as he must - otherwise, his family would have to suffer those losses alone.
He estimates that the first thing he must do is raise all his prices by at least 8%, so all of his customers will pay more (and have less for themselves). He would also have to lay off 6 employees in order to save enough on salaries and benefits so that he can pay those extra taxes without hurting his own family.
His problem lay in the fact that all of his people are like family. He found it impossible to "pick and choose" who would get laid off.
The answer came to him as he pulled into the parking lot the next morning, and noticed that several of his employees had OBAMA bumper stickers.
Guess who is getting laid off :o)
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Among the questionable associations of Barak Obama are:
- Reverend Wright, a self-proclaimed racist, bigot and anti-semite
- William Ayers, a known domestic terrorist
- Reverend Pfleger, another racist preacher
- Meeks, a well-known Marxist
- Louis Farrakahn, leader of the Nation of Islam
- Anthony Rezko, convicted felon, convicted of "buying" politicians, among other things
- Nadhami Auch, convicted of fraud, bagman for Saddam Hussein
- Rashid Kahlidi, a man long known for his anti-semite beliefs, and patron of the Palestinian Liberation Org
OK, so it is a long and growing list of "bad guys", all with ties to Obama. But is it really important? Does this mean Obama shares their anti-American, anti-semite views?
Taken separately, no. But taken together, absolutely! It's like the old adage says - you are known by the company you keep. If one of your friends is a bad dude, that is not a problem - we all know bad dudes. But when MOST or ALL of a person's associates are bad dudes, and all with the same proclivities, then it becomes obvious that the person is of like mind. People are attracted to those who think as they do, and believe as they do. And they are repelled by those who are opposites of what they believe - for example, a good Christian who believes in the Bible is unlikely to have a lot of friends who are drug dealers, or anti-Christians.
Birds of a feather, if you will.
As I said, if a person has one or two questionable associates, fine. But when all of their time is spent cultivating such associations, that is a problem. A BIG problem.
If, for example, you were to learn that I am friends with drug dealers, friends with people in the KKK, and friends with people on death row, you just might get the impression that I, too, am a bad dude. Why else would I cultivate so many associations that are so questionable?
Maybe Obama is OK. Maybe. But I doubt it - there are just too many....
More important, we are talking about making someone the most powerful leader in the world - our leader. And "maybe" just isn't good enough. If I am not convinced the associations are meaningless, then I cannot vote for the man. And Obama has gone to great lengths to NOT explain those associations. And in every case, he first tried to dismiss them altogether.
Not good enough, Senator. A glib tongue is OK for a snake-oil saleman, but not enough for anyone wanting to lead America. That, my friend, requires character and good judgement. And based on who you have chosen to associate with, you do not appear to have either. And you have made no effort to quiet the growing suspicions.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama's newest ad asks people to take a day off work or school on election day to help him, Obama, get elected.
WOW! Imagine hundreds of thousands of people taking a day off - American production goes down, and the people lose a day's pay during tough times - just to help The Annoited claim his crown.
This guy is unbelievable. He really believes he is God's Gift. "Hey, you peons, blow off your job and lose money just so I can use you to boost myself up onto the throne."
Anyone that arrogant and elitist should not get elected to any office! America does not need a king. We need a LEADER. And a leader would never suggest that the people blow off their jobs, or their education, just to become the leader's step-stool.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
My question is simple: should felons be allowed to vote? My answer is almost as simple.
Felons go to prison because they have deprived others of their rights and/or property. I do not think they should be given the opportunity to vote for the very people we entrust to protect us from such people.
There are several states that have blocked Jessica's Law, thereby protecting child molesters. And judges in at least two states tend to give child molesters probation. And the legislatures of several states have refused to enact various protections for the honest citizen, while protecting the criminals. I contend that if felons are permitted to vote, they are likely to vote for more of those who do not take crime seriously. They will vote for the politicians who will protect them, the felons, from us, the honest citizens.
They will vote for gun control, so they can rob our homes and businesses without getting shot. They will vote against Jessica's Law, or any other law that makes them pay for their crimes. They will vote to legalize pot, and other drugs. They will vote in favor of lowering the age of consent, so they can rape our children.
Felons have already shown they cannot be trusted; that they have little use for the rules of society. So why should we permit them to help make, or change those rules?
No, felons definitely should not be allowed to vote. They forfeited their rights when they took it upon themselves to deprive other people of their rights.
As a side note: neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights includes a right to vote. Frankly, I do not think any uninformed citizen should be allowed to vote, either. If they do not even know who the current Speaker of the House or Senate Majority leader are, then they should not be making decisions that impact the future and security of this great country.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Ohio Secretary of State has broken Federal law by refusing to do what the law requires, as far as checking for voter registration fraud. She claims she "doesn't have the time" to do her job.
The Ohio GOP sued, to force her to adhere to the law. The Appeals court agreed - she should do what the law - and her job - requires of her.
But then it gets to those clowns in the Supreme Court, and rather than rule on it, they throw the entire case out because they don't think the GOP is the right entity for bringing suit!
How dumb is that? Call me old fashioned, but where I come from the courts are supposed to insure that the lawbreakers are held to account, and that justice should prevail. And any citizen could file a complaint against a lawbreaker, and any citizen could sue.
Personally, I think it's time someone fired the entire Supreme Court and started from scratch. Believe it or not, the Constitution gives the President the right to do just that. It was done only once before in this country's history.
I think that would shake things up enough to force justices to get a Reality Check. They have become far too cocky and complacent, falsely believing that they answer to no one.
It's time we corrected them on that!
So, they spread the word that "Joe is a phony - his name isn't even Joe." Well, the truth is, his name IS Joe. But not his first name, which is Samuel. Joe doesn't care much for his first name, so like millions of other folks, he goes by his middle name. So this is just a red herring being tossed out by desperate liberals.
Then they claim that Joe the Plumber is not licensed. Actually, that's not quite true, either. He WORKS for a licensed plumber, and as such does not require any license. But the left won't tell you about that, either. Remember, they will say anything to discredit this guy.
They said Joe is not a registered voter. However, he is, and he even voted in the primary. Some in the media even said that Joe is a McCain plant - but they could not explain how that is possible, since it was Obama that walked into Joe's neighborhood, unexpectedly, and approached Joe. Not vice versa. And here is the lowest - a left-wing blogger that said McCain "planted" Joe because he is the real father of Bristol Palin's baby. That is lower than the slime on a snake's belly. But it is what we now expect from the whackos on the far left.
Then they claim he is a deadbeat because he owes property taxes. But what they do not tell you is that this is the case with many Americans struggling to pay their bills. But more important, the left-wing media conveniently avoids the fact that it is said Martin Nesbitt, the treasurer of Obama’s campaign, has tax liens. So do his companies. You’d think that matters more than the tax liens of Joe the Plumber, wouldn’t you? But good luck finding a Big Media story about Nesbitt’s liens. They won't say a word about that.
And THAT is the real injustice here. We should be able to depend upon the media as being objective, and seeking the whole truth. But that is no longer the case. The media has turned into an arm of the Democrat party. The only truth they will tell you is the part that they want you to hear. It is a case of lying by "cherry-picking" the facts they choose to present - and how they choose to present them.
I have not purchased a newspaper in several years because they will not tell the whole story. Nor do I watch network news - all three, including their hundreds of local subsidiaries - except to be able to see for myself how they slant their news with a bias that favors liberals. The way they hold back facts and distort the truth to vilify "Joe the Plumber" is just one small example of their "business as usual." And I am sick of it!
If Joe really is a phony, then present all the facts, and not innuendo. I'll believe the truth. But to call him a phony when he is not, simply to push an agenda, is unacceptable.
If you don't believe it, you have insulated yourselves. I have read numerous newpapers and blogs, watched the "Obama" commericials, and listened to the liberal media. In almost every instance they are trying desperately to discredit Joe.
EXAMPLE 1: Most are claiming Joe is not a licensed plumber. By making this statement, they hope to cast seeds of doubt in people's minds. But what they conveniently neglect to say is that Joe WORKS for a licensed plumber, and a plumber's apprentice or assistant is not a licensed position. But the liberals won't tell you that part. They would prefer to mislead you.
EXAMPLE 2: Joe is behind on his property taxes, so he is not a good example of an average American. This tends to plant seeds in empty minds that Joe is a deadbeat. What they do not tell you is that one in every five homeowners let their property taxes slide once in awhile, in order to feed their families - especially in these hard times. Or haven't the liberal elites in their ivory towers noticed that these ARE hard times. And the fact is, Joe really IS the average guy on the street, struggling desperately to keep his head above water. But to the liberals, that just makes Joe a deadbeat. They are wrong!
This is not the first time Obama and his minions have attacked average Americans. Remember Obama's speech about how we "cling to our guns and Bibles" because we, the "little people" are ignorant? Or how about Michelle Obama saying she was "never proud of my country until now."
I can tolerate a lot from the liberal spin srtists. But when they start attacking the average guy on the street simply because he has the audacity to question the Great Messiah, Obama, then that's where I draw the line, because it was not long ago that I was "Joe the Plumber". Anyone who has read my books, or know of my history know that I climbed out of homelessnes and scratched and clawed my way up to a postion of some wealth. That is the American Dream. That is the dream that Joe has. It's the dream that most American's have.
And for the Democrats to attack Joe, they are attacking that dream. Where the dream has always been, "If you work hard, you will get ahead", Obama and his crowd are trying to change that to, "If you work hard, we'll take it from you so OTHERS who have not worked as hard can get ahead at your expense."
That is not America. In fact, that is the principle of Marxism - communism.
Maybe liberal Democrats like Obama don't want to believe that a sweating working stiff, living in a modest home on a modest income, a little behind on his taxes (which, by the way, Democrats want to increase) and dreaming of something better is the "Average American". Maybe they don't think so because they live in penthouses, and make millions each year. And maybe they think that earning $250,000 a year means you are "rich". But they need a reality check.
In today's world, putting just one child through college costs upwards of $100,000. The average home costs $250,000. And $250,000 in 2008 is the equivalent of only $30,000 in 1960, when "millionaire" meant you were rich. So, if $30K in 1960 was not even close to "rich", then $250,000 today is not close, either.
Here is the Obama plan: 12 year old Bobby goes out and works up a sweat mowing lawns, while his lazy brother, Johnny watches TV and plays ball. Bobby takes his earnings to the store and buys the things he worked so hard for. Johnny cries because he does not have all those great things. So dad takes some of Bobby's hard earned goods and gives them to Johnny to make him stop whining, and Johnny goes back to watching TV. Dad figures he will have equality if he redistributes the wealth. Equality, yes. Fairness, no. Now, if you are Johnny, you would like Obama's plan because it allows you to have everything without having to earn it or pay for it - "equality" is more important than "fairness". A free ride. But if you are the AVERAGE American - Bobby (or Joe, the Plumber) - then you would have a big problem with that plan, because you believe fairness is more important than equality. And so do I.
It is important that every American has equal opportunity. But if they are unwilling to take that opportunity, or unwilling to put in the effort, then they are not entitled to an equal share of the wealth. If you want an equal share of the wealth, that's fine, but you must then put in an equal share of the effort - get educated, work hard, think straight, and use your assets wisely. If you do not do what the successful person does, you cannot expect, and do not deserve, what the successful person has. Period!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The name of the book is "Conversations with God". James Dobson talked about this book twice this week. It is devastating. Parents, churches and Christian schools need to be aware of it. Please pass this information on to church/e-mail addressees, Parents, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins,friends.
Please pay special attention not only to what your kids watch on TV, in movie theaters, on the Internet, and the music they listen to, but also be alert regarding the books they read.
Two particular books are, "Conversations with God" and "Conversations with God for Teens", written by Neale D. Walsch. They sound harmless enough by their titles alone. The books have been on the New York Times best sellers list for a number of weeks, don't judge this book by its cover or title.
The author purports to answer various questions asked by kids using the 'voice of God'. However, the 'answers' that he gives are not Bible-based and go against the very infallible word of God. For instance (and I paraphrase), when a girl asks the question 'Why am I a lesbian?' His answer is that she was 'born that way' because of genetics (just as you were born right-handed, with brown eyes, etc.). Then he tells her to go out and 'celebrate' her differences.
Another girls poses the question 'I am living with my boyfriend. My parents say that I should marry him because I am living in sin. Should I marry him?'
His reply is, 'Who are you sinning against? Not me, because you have done nothing wrong.'
Another question asks about God's forgiveness of sin. His reply 'I do not forgive anyone because there is nothing to forgive. There is no such thing as right or wrong and that is what I have been trying to tell everyone, do not judge people. People have chosen to judge one another and this is wrong, because the rule is ''judge not lest ye be judged.'
Here is a quote from the book:
"Author: But those who have taught me all about the rights and wrongs, the dos and don'ts, the shoulds and shouldn'ts, told me all those rules were laid down by You—by God.
God: Then those who taught you were wrong. I have never set down a "right" or "wrong," a "do" or a "don't." To do so would be to strip you completely of your greatest gift—the opportunity to do as you please, and experience the results of that.... To say something—a thought, a word, an action—is "wrong" would be as much as to tell you not to do it.... To prohibit you would be to restrict you. To restrict you would be to deny the reality of Who You Really Are. I do not love "good" more than I love "bad.' Hitler went to Heaven."
Are you kidding me?
In other words, there were no 10 Commendments. No Beatitudes. No parables. According to this secular progressive jerk, God wants us to "do as we please - there is no right or wrong." If this is the nonsense being taught to our children in schools and the liberal media, it is no wonder that kids murder kids in school. They are taught there is no sin. They can do what they want - lie, cheat, steal, kill, rape....no boundaries accoring to Neale Walsch, the liberal author of this tripe. And Scholastic Book Club and our schools are promoting this garbage.
Not only are these books the false doctrine of the devil, but in some instances quote (in error) the Word of God.
And the list goes on. These books (and others like it) are being sold to schoolchildren through (The Scholastic Book Club), and we need to be aware of what is being fed to our children.
Our children are under attack. So I pray that you be sober and vigilant about teaching your children the Word of God, and guard against their exposure to worldly mediums, because the devil is the Great Deceiver, and roams about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). We know that lions usually hunt for the slowest, weakest and YOUNGEST of its prey.
The left wing of our society is intent, by any means, to indoctrinate our children to their beliefs so that they may take over our society and finally have the lifestyle they adore - to be able to do whatever feels good, without guilt or repercussion. Liberals do not want to have to turn from temptation. They do not want to have to control themselves. They want to be completely unfettered, in a world where there is no "right and wrong", or any moral fabric to act as a barrier to their "fun". In liberal Vermont they sey child molesters free, to molest again. In Massachusetts it's the Man-Boy Love Association. In CT and CA it's gay marriage. And in every liberal stronghold, they are doing away with Christmas, Easter and trying to eliminate Christianity altogether. They use the schools to introduce kindergarteners to sex and the gay lifestyle, and in CA some 1st Graders were brought to City Hall to participate in their teacher's lesbian wedding. Here in Maine, they now provide condoms to 11 year olds in school, without consent of the parents.
Make no mistake about it - there is a concerted effort to turn our society into a more permissive and chaotic society of anarchy, where anything goes and people no longer need to worry about temptation because everything will be acceptable. Sound familiar? Reminds one of Sodom & Gomorrah.
We should consider boycotting the Scholastic Book Club, since they take pride in reviewing books they offer. So, they must have been aware that these books use deceptive titles to worm their way into Christian homes. We can no longer trust Scholastic Book Club to look out for the interests of our children.
Pass this on to every Believer you know. God bless! And, if you are in doubt, check out the books yourself.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Well now - all these years the Democrats have been trying to convince us their increasing of taxes is not a redistribution of wealth. Punitive taxes.
Here's the problem: If a farmer has to turn over more of his "seed money" to the government, he cannot grow as many crops next season. Can't feed as many people. Won't make as much money, so the government won't get as much, either. And everything spirals downward.
Every business is a farmer, of sorts. And their excess profits are their "seed money" for hiring help, buying supplies and inventory, contributing to the growth and wealth of the nation.
Obama also said in that video that, "We have to consider the needs of those below you." In other words, if a person works really hard and succeeds, Obama wants to take a chunk of your success and just give it to folks who have not worked hard. In most cases, the money would go to people who refuse to work, or refuse to get an education.
I feel for the people who are at the bottom of the economic "food chain." I really do. And that is why we have charities, churches and community organizations to assist them. But it is 100% wrong to arbitrarily force people to help others, even before they are allowed to help their own families. Before you can put food on your own table, the Democrats want to take your money out of your paycheck and put food on the tables of those who do not work.
Who is Barak Obama to say how much I do or do not need? He does not know what my bills are? He does not know how many kids I have to put through college, or how many people and charities in my community I contribute to. So how can he say that just because I make "X" number of dollars, all I need is "Y" dollars, and he can take the rest?
That is unconstitutional, for one thing. Just as importantly, it is economically dangerous and morally wrong.
Let's say Obama figures that all I need for my own needs is $250,000 a year (less the current 52% in combined taxes for that bracket). He taxes me an extra $40,000 a year because I am "wealthy" in his view. I cannot afford to just lose $40,000. I have to try and recoup that. So guess what I will have to do? You guessed it - I have to lay off one or two employees.
Now multiply that by the 8.9 million small businesses in the U.S. That's a lot of folks out of work, uninsured, and collecting entitlements from the public teat. Less money going in to the treasury, and more going out.
But regardless of the severe damage that Obama's taxes would do, it is just plain wrong! I would ask you (and Obama): "WHY should I work hard to succeed? If I just sit back and watch soaps all day, the government will take care of me." Why work my butt off, just so Obama can take the rewards of my hard work and give them to some lazy bum?
I was manager of New Hampshire's largest homeless shelter. And 91% of the people in the shelter were there either because they were alcoholics, drug addicts or criminals. And because they were so "poor" and unemployed (by choice), every one of them collected hundreds of dollars a month in federal entitlements. And every dime would be used for alcohol or drugs, or other things the taxpayer should not be paying for, like attending strip clubs. And then add in the thousands per month in free medical care, courtesy of taxpayers. They drink themselves into a stupor, and you and I must then pay the medical bills to get them back on their feet so they can do it again. And we must pay for those things even before we can collect our paycheck and feed our own families.
And now Obama wants to give them even more money....
That is socialism. And we saw the results in the USSR. Workers had no incentive to do any more than absolutely necessary. No point in trying to invent a new product - the government would just take the profits and give them to others. No point in producing more. No point in trying. No point in thinking. No point! Because no matter what, you will have the same as everyone else, through income redistribution.
And socialism has detroyed, or is currently destroying every nation that took that road.
And I must ask - what if Obama later decides the poor need even more help? So he starts taking "excess income" from everyone? You, your parents, your kids...right now, the limit is $250,000. But that figure is bound to change, especially with a bad economy, and a growing population and unrestrained illegal immigration.
And we are well on the road to being the next "union of socialist states". America will be no more. Freedoms will be but a memory.
And the American Dream - believing if you work hard you will get ahead - will become the Obama nightmare where working hard produces nothing for you except blisters and the contempt of others.
Great idea, Obama! Penalize the very people whose money pays salaries and healthcare. Stick a tax spigot into the very people who create all the wealth in this country so they are unable to create more.
When I put my "excess" money into the stock market, companies use that money to grow. To hire. To pay insurance benefits. That does more good for the poor than anything else. It provides jobs, health care, security. And at the same time it makes me even more money to invest, so those companies can hire even more people.
But Obama wants to stop all that growth with punitive taxes. Instead of "allowing" me to invest in growth, he would rather take that money away from me and just give it away to people who will do nothing to contribute to growth. And at the end of the day, those people will still be poor, and we will have to do it all over again tomorrow.
Let's be perfectly clear. There is truth to the ancient adage "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." I would add the following: "If, after teaching the man to fish he chooses not to, but rather to lay around in the sun, then let him go hungry, because that is his own choice." We owe him nothing further.
Or, as the Bible so aptly put it, "The Lord helps those who help themselves." If it's good enough for the Lord, it's good enough for me. I'll give a man a hand up, but not a hand-out.
And a final point - if, instead of giving people more entitlements we should instead give much, much less, I contend a lot of those people will suddenly start working, and contributing to the growth of the country. They would have to. And I know that would be the case because the Welfare Reform Act of the Republican Congress in the 90's did just that - and people went to work.
Obama, your economic and tax plan is foolish and dangerous, and proves you have no concept of what is good for the economy or the people.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Folks up here in New England tend to understand hunting, and generally have no problem with it because they know that everything we eat was at one time a living thing. And we understand there is no real difference between shooting your own, and paying someone else to kill it for you and wrap it in plastic at the local Hannaford's. On the one hand you have a person who acknowledges reality, while on the other hand you have someone who would prefer to ignore it.
So it truly amazes me that so many good folks on the left attack Sarah Palin not for her political beliefs, but because she hunts, and can field-dress a moose. In an effort to belittle her, they make claims that she is a "murderer". I even read the depraved rantings of one blogger who said she is a phony on being pro-life because she kills pregnant moose! And I ask myself, how would that clown even know if she ever killed a female moose, let alone a pregnant one? And just exactly how does a moose equate to the level of a human being on the issue of abortion?
I would suggest to that blogger that she, too, is responsible for such acts if she has ever eaten a cheeseburger. A cow was murdered so she could pass the A-1. And MAYBE that cow was pregnant. Who would know?
What really got me, however, was that the blogger mentioned that Governor Palin "kills God's creatures." This seems to indicate the blogger believes in God. So how is it that she conveniently forgets that God decreed that we are to "eat of the flesh of the beasts with cleaved hooves, and that chew their cud"? Perhaps her belief in God is only part-time, or a matter of convenience rather than a foundational belief.
Frankly, I respect any person who is unafraid to act in a natural, real fashion. A person who accepts the realities of life, rather than ignore the things we deem unpleasant. The former tend to get stronger with adversity, while the latter tend to falter when adversity comes.
And when hard times or trouble comes, I for one would rather have a Maine (or Alaskan) hunter beside me than a San Francisco weenie with flowers in his hair (or a Chicago empty suit with a glib tongue).
Well, our nation is in trouble. Hard times are upon us. I can't stand McCain. But we really need a few Palin's in Washington. Apparently she is not afraid to "abuse her power" if it is what's necessary to do the right thing, and get the job done. And with the rats' nest in Washington, the only way it will ever get cleaned out is if some gutsy person bucks the system and "abuses" their power. Because those Washington crooks will not just give up and walk away because someone says "Pretty please." It's going to take another Buford Pusser ("Walking Tall"). He, too, abused his power - and cleaned up a very corrupt county. Couldn't get the job done any other way.
Back to hunting. The season is upon us. I miss hunting. But I don't really miss the frozen toes, or the hemorrhoids from sitting on cold rocks near a hot trail. And I do not miss the killing - I never enjoyed that part, but accepted it. What I do miss is the commune with nature; the warmth of the woodstove when you come in at dusk. The camaraderie of other hunters, all trying to tell a bigger lie. And the sweet smell of Hoppes gun cleaning solvent....
Friday, October 10, 2008
Let's first understand that I am fully 100% behind all couples having the same legal rights, whether they are straight, gay, or something yet to be determined. But let's also get it straight that marriage is not a legal right, anymore than driving is a legal right. Under a legal right, everyone is entitled. But are the blind entitled to drive? No. So driving is not a legal right. And neither is marriage.
Allow me to explain - and offer a common sense solution to all this stupidity.
Marriage is a religious rite, not a state right. Marriage in its various forms was created by religions to recognize the union of two people in God's sight according to God's law. In recent times, states took it upon themselves to require licensing for the purpose of trying to prevent the spread of venereal disease by requiring testing. But when that was deemed unconstitutional, the state kept requiring licenses simply because they did not want to give up all that money, and they wanted a method of determining whether or not a couple had "shared" legal rights. Rather than create a state sanctioned method of bestowing such rights, they co-opted marriage for that purpose, in violation of the separation of church and state.
But licensing, as we saw with drivers, does not constitute a "right". But many think it does, even though that is not the case.
What many folks overlook is that this does not just concern gays and their rights. If gays are allowed to be "married", it robs religious people of their own right to hold marriage as an institution sanctified by God, and turns it into something less, santified by the state. So there are rights at stake for all concerned. And that is why we have the problem.
But no problem is without a solution, if folks want to put aside their prejudices and narrow-mindedness long enough to consider reasonable possibilities. No one has any right to say that gays should not be allowed to be couples, or to deny them any rights. Some may condemn the lifestyle, but no one has the right to judge them - particularly Christians, who are supposed to understand that you may hate the sin, but love the sinner. And to "judge not, lest ye be judged."
If everyone can accept that all people are entitled to their own happiness - even though we may not approve of their lifestyle - then the battle is half won.
So here is a possible solution: The state may only issue licenses for civil unions for ANY couple wishing to have the legal rights and protections under the law that is afforded to couples legally united. The state must never issue a marriage license - marriages are a religious rite, and under the 1st amendment, no state may legislate in any way to interfere with religion.
Now, everyone may obtain a license for a civil union. Those who are religious, belong to a church and can get their church to approve their union may consummate their union in the church, in the "sight of God". The civil union, sanctioned by the state, has now become a marriage also, sanctioned by God. In any other case where a church does not permit said marriage, or the couple does not wish to unite in a church (atheists, for example), they may still unite legally at the City Hall or Justice of the Peace. Any union consummated outside of a church shall be deemed a civil union only, and not a marriage, as marriage is a church-sponsored religious ceremony only. But all the legal aspects are identical.
The short take - All are civil unions. Only those who wish to marry in a church, and are allowed by the church to do so according to church doctrine, may then elevate their civil union into a marriage. It's a lot like education - we are all entitled to high school. If we CHOOSE to go on to college, and are willing to pay the price, then we can elevate our education. If we do not go to college, we are not entitled to a college degree. It's that simple. There would be unions that are not sanctioned by a church (civil union), and unions that are sanctioned by a church (marriage).
So, gays and straights would all be entitled to civil unions, with all the same rights. But only those willing to adhere to the tenets of their church may elect to take the next step into marriage, with the church's permission. And if a church allows gay marriage, so be it - since marriage belongs only to the church, the church may decide what their doctrine permits. If it permits gays to marry, and the gays belong to that church, they may be married.
Whether or not the Good Lord looks fondly upon such marriages is, again, between the Lord and His children. It is not for us to judge. But married or not, santified by God or just the state, we are all entitled to the same legal rights. Civil unions, complete with all the legal rights and protections, and sanctified by the state would, indeed, be a human right that we would all be entitled to, provided unions are still limited to two consenting adults. Marriage, however, would be a religious ritual for the express purpose of uniting people sanctified by the church, in the eyes of God, and would have no legal status or "extra" rights other than any provided by the church for its parishioners. In other words, marriage would be an option available to those who qualify for it, like a college degree, or a low-interest credit card.
Simple. Reasonable. But most importantly, it is fair to all, and preserves human rights without sacrificing our personal religious freedoms or beliefs.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Isn't it strange that the politicians and Washington elites do not do the first thing that common sense dictates - ASK THE INVESTORS why they keep selling. Perhaps they are afraid of the answer.
But as an investor, I am not afraid to speak up. It's simple, really. Ask yourself, what is an investor? He is someone who puts money on the table in the hope or anticipation that tomorrow it will be worth more. In other words, investors do not gamble on yesterday. They do not gamble on today. They gamble only on tomorrow.
This is mid October. In four short weeks we will elect another president. Normally cause for some concern, since Wall Street knows that a Democrat win always historically harms capitalism, as Democrats tend to be somewhat socialist. Nothing new there. But what is new is Obama. He is not the typical Democrat. He has already proposed huge tax increases on all the people who are responsible for the generation of wealth. He has proposed a hefty tax increase on capital gains. And right now, there is a better than even chance he will win.
And not a single investor that I know - and I know quite a few - want to be heavily vested in the market if that happens. So, they are pulling out, regardless of any petty attempts put forward by ignorant politicians.
And here is something else - if Obama does win, the money will not go back into the markets, and the economy will continue to tank. But if by some chance McCain happens to squeak out a victory, most investors will begin to slowly reinvest, and the economy will slowly regain its footing.
So, all those politicians should simply stop wasting their time and our money trying to stop the bleeding. It will not stop until investors have only the bare amounts in the markets to maintain a position of strength for "if and when" McCain wins. If he does not win, I think you should prepare for a long, deep hurtin' spell. Not because I am against Obama, but because that is simply how investors react.
In short, if you have reason to believe someone is going to take shots at you, get the Hell out of the way. Obama has already said he plans on shooting at investors, so what does anyone expect?
There are those who do not understand that believe investors are at fault here. Some people hate investors because they think we are "predators" of some sort. They are not. The backbone of America is its workers and its investors. The workers create the products and perform the services. The investors provide the money that makes it possible to work. Without investors, companies cannot sell stock to raise money for the business. If they cannot sell stock, they go broke. No business, no jobs, no products or services. It costs money to operate a business. And the money comes from investors. Investors would have no money to invest if not for work. But there would be no work if not for investors. They need each other. When one falters, they both take the hit.
This is why it is important that voters consider the ramifications of their vote. They should understand that their vote will choose either a socialist direction, or a capitalist direction. If capitalism fails, America fails. Not one single nation that ever turned to socialism has ever succeeded nor have any prospered. And the ultimate socialism was reflected in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.