In the UK, as in Greece and Spain, the liberal/progressive ideology took hold decades ago. And today, as those nations are discovering that social programs cannot sustain themselves as populations grow, and more and more people get "entitled", they are now faced with severe "austerity" actions - cut the benefits, big time.
And whenever you take something away that people have come to think of as their birthright, you will have trouble. Big trouble. Like the riots and strikes we are seeing.
That is why it surprises me that so many Americans seem intent on going down that same road. They all want their social programs, at taxpayer expense, even though 47% of working people pay zero taxes, and more and more are qualifying for the entitlements. And we, too, are going broke.
We have a choice, folks, and it's not an easy one. First, we need to choose between a future like Greece, or like we have had for 250 years. And if you choose the American way, then we must all be willing to give up the notion that the government owes us anything more than security from outside threats and the freedom to pursue happiness, without government trying to provide that happiness. That is OUR job, not theirs.
Yes, we pay into Medicare and Social Security - but nowhere near as much as we demand and get out of it. We should save those programs, but in a different format - currently they are based on the Ponzi Scheme. And Ponzi Schemes are a house of cards that will always fall apart.
I do not have the answers. Bt I do know we have to put on the brakes to socialism, or America will become just another brief mention in the history books.
/
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
They Just Don't Get It - EVERY Tax Is Paid By The Poor...
Look, some have a hard time understanding why "taxing the rich" is the worst thing that we can do, because only the poor will pay those taxes.
Think about this - you tax Bill Gates more. So Bill Gates raises the cost of Microsoft products. Bill does not pay the tax - YOU do!
So all the rich get taxed more, and ALL products increase in cost to cover them. So now you have to get a pay raise to fight the "inflation". And now YOUR boss has to increase the prices of HIS products.
Everyone passes his tax burden onto those below them. Everyone, that is, except the poor - there is no one below them to pass it off to.
Every tax that has ever been assessed on anyone has always been paid by the poorest among us.
/
Think about this - you tax Bill Gates more. So Bill Gates raises the cost of Microsoft products. Bill does not pay the tax - YOU do!
So all the rich get taxed more, and ALL products increase in cost to cover them. So now you have to get a pay raise to fight the "inflation". And now YOUR boss has to increase the prices of HIS products.
Everyone passes his tax burden onto those below them. Everyone, that is, except the poor - there is no one below them to pass it off to.
Every tax that has ever been assessed on anyone has always been paid by the poorest among us.
/
Petty Is As (Tom) Petty Does...
Michele Bachmann closed her presidential campaign announcement on Monday by playing Petty's hit single, "American Girl" only to have the Heartbreakers frontman, Tom Petty, respond with a cease-and-desist letter.
I guess the guy is aptly named.
/
I guess the guy is aptly named.
/
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Simple Difference Between Liberal & Conservative
Here was the story on HuffPost/AOL:
"TRENTON, N.J. -- The New Jersey Senate has given final approval to a bill raising pension and health benefits costs to the state's more than 500,000 government workers."
The headline read, "NJ Anti-Union Law Approved".
So, what did they leave out? Honesty, for one. While making it a point that this will "cost government (i.e. public union) workers money by having them actually pay up for some small part of their benefits (like everyone else already does), they also made it a point to NOT mention that this will save New Jersey taxpayers billions of dollars. They also neglected to mention that it will make balancing the NJ budget possible. In fact, they failed to mention ANY of the good things, and concentrated only on playing up the negative.
That's what the liberal media does. Thankfully, more and more people are beginning to see through media bias and they are losing readers fast. Only the hardcore fanatical nuts on the far left read their tripe anymore. The only reason I read it is a) so I can point things out, and b) I need good laugh every now and again.
Here's an idea - whenever you read or hear a story in the media, particularly if it has political impact, ask yourself what they are NOT telling you. Ask what the POSITIVES are. Don't settle for just reading about the downside, geared to make people angry. Anger is the #1 tool of the far left. They use it to fire up violent protesters, and to intimidate others with whom they disagree. You will never see conservatives storm the capital of Wisconsin, nor throw pies, books or other objects at liberal speakers. Nor will you see non-union workers beating up union workers.
I think it can be summed up in two words - REASON and EMOTION. Liberals tend to operate on an emotional level, while conservatives operate from reasoned analysis.
And therein lies the cause of all the friction. I understand that. What I have difficulty understanding is why the left feels a need to use trickery, deceit and anger in order to avoid actual debate.
"TRENTON, N.J. -- The New Jersey Senate has given final approval to a bill raising pension and health benefits costs to the state's more than 500,000 government workers."
The headline read, "NJ Anti-Union Law Approved".
So, what did they leave out? Honesty, for one. While making it a point that this will "cost government (i.e. public union) workers money by having them actually pay up for some small part of their benefits (like everyone else already does), they also made it a point to NOT mention that this will save New Jersey taxpayers billions of dollars. They also neglected to mention that it will make balancing the NJ budget possible. In fact, they failed to mention ANY of the good things, and concentrated only on playing up the negative.
That's what the liberal media does. Thankfully, more and more people are beginning to see through media bias and they are losing readers fast. Only the hardcore fanatical nuts on the far left read their tripe anymore. The only reason I read it is a) so I can point things out, and b) I need good laugh every now and again.
Here's an idea - whenever you read or hear a story in the media, particularly if it has political impact, ask yourself what they are NOT telling you. Ask what the POSITIVES are. Don't settle for just reading about the downside, geared to make people angry. Anger is the #1 tool of the far left. They use it to fire up violent protesters, and to intimidate others with whom they disagree. You will never see conservatives storm the capital of Wisconsin, nor throw pies, books or other objects at liberal speakers. Nor will you see non-union workers beating up union workers.
I think it can be summed up in two words - REASON and EMOTION. Liberals tend to operate on an emotional level, while conservatives operate from reasoned analysis.
And therein lies the cause of all the friction. I understand that. What I have difficulty understanding is why the left feels a need to use trickery, deceit and anger in order to avoid actual debate.
Monday, June 27, 2011
HuffPost/AOL Sure Likes To Distort Their Looks...
It never ceases to amaze me as to the lengths the liberal media (like Huffington Post and AOL) will use the ugliest, harshest pictures they can find (or create) of any Republican or conservative. Here is just one example - here is a true picture of Governor Nikki Haley (SC). And here is the one used by HuffPost/AOL.
On the other hand, when it comes to liberal democrats, they choose the most flattering photos - and then photoshop them to make them better. They even made Weiner look good!
And that is the biggest problem I have with the left - they stoop to a level that is not becoming of civilized people.
/
On the other hand, when it comes to liberal democrats, they choose the most flattering photos - and then photoshop them to make them better. They even made Weiner look good!
And that is the biggest problem I have with the left - they stoop to a level that is not becoming of civilized people.
/
Sunday, June 26, 2011
They keep chasing old men in diapers...
I just cannot wrap my head around the liberal mentality. Especially when it comes to crime.
Liberals wanted to just "forget about" any charges against that movie director convicted of child molestation, who ran and hid in France for so long. And again with the two cop killers who ran to Cuba. And now they don't see any point in jailing mob bosses who committed murder (19) and extortion, because "they are old".
"They keep chasing old men in diapers," said Rhode Island defense attorney and former Drug Enforcement Administration agent Raymond Mansolillo, who briefly represented Manocchio. "I think it's a waste of taxpayer resources."
And that is just how those idiots think.You can get away with murder, rape or extortion, literally, if you hide long enough, and return as an old man.
A note to Mr. Mansolillo - I think YOU are a waste of resources.
Nope - just can't get my head around their kind of thinking.
/
Liberals wanted to just "forget about" any charges against that movie director convicted of child molestation, who ran and hid in France for so long. And again with the two cop killers who ran to Cuba. And now they don't see any point in jailing mob bosses who committed murder (19) and extortion, because "they are old".
"They keep chasing old men in diapers," said Rhode Island defense attorney and former Drug Enforcement Administration agent Raymond Mansolillo, who briefly represented Manocchio. "I think it's a waste of taxpayer resources."
And that is just how those idiots think.You can get away with murder, rape or extortion, literally, if you hide long enough, and return as an old man.
A note to Mr. Mansolillo - I think YOU are a waste of resources.
Nope - just can't get my head around their kind of thinking.
/
Saturday, June 25, 2011
How To Win The Debate For "Make-Believe Rights"...
In New York, four so-called "Republicans" voted for gay marriage, making it the law in that state.A last-minute convert to support gay marriage, Sen. Mark Grisanti (R-Buffalo), gave the bill its fourth Republican backer.
"I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage," Grisanti said during floor debate. "Who am I to say that someone does not have the same rights that I have with my wife, who I love, or to have the 1,300-plus rights that I share with her."
According to Huffington Post, "The people at Stonewall went wild. Grisanti had recognized the logic of the phrase "marriage equality": Marriage was simply a right, one that no legal gymnastics could take away."
And that is the problem with electing idiots to office who do not even comprehend the difference between a "right", a "priviledge" or a "benefit".
Marriage is not a right, because you must be licensed to marry, and pay a fee. Just like driving, which is also not a right. Both are priviledges. And with those priviledges come "benefits", but no "rights". There are no "rights" because not everyone has them - only married persons, or those in a civil union. Single people do not have those benefits, so they are not "rights".
Once more - a RIGHT is something everyone is born with; it is always free; it cannot be licensed or purchased; it cannot be legislated in or out of existence. A PRIVILEDGE can be licensed, charged for, restricted to certain people, and you are not born with it. A BENEFIT is something that you often get by negotiation, such as collective bargaining, insurance, an employer funded 401K, sick pay - or spousal benefits.
But gay advocates, and those wanting to legalize drugs, or those fighting for the ability to enter collective bargaining insist on calling them rights, even though they are not. They figure that by calling them rights often enough, the masses will eventually think of them as rights, and once that happens, the battle is half won because no one wants to be guilty of taking away someone's "rights". That would be unAmerican.
And that is how liberals push their agenda on the rest of us. They change the language and control whart we believe by controlling the conversation. With word games. Semantics.
If you doubt that, take a moment to recall that to them, illegal immigrants are "undocumented workers". Abortion is simply "pro-choice". Homosexuality is "gay pride". Environmental terrorists who burn peoples homes and businesses are "environmental activists."
Whenever liberals want to push an unpopular (and usually immoral) agenda, the first thing they do is change the language in order to change people's perceptions. And once perceptions are changed, winning is much easier.
Don't be taken in by people who change the language in order to stack the deck. It's time we begin refusing to let them control the conversation and the debate through trickery and deceit. If they cannot win honestly, they should not win at all.
Now that we finally understand how it's done, whaddaya say we get together and lobby for our "right" to live tax free. After all, 47% of all workers pay zero taxes. So, according to liberal thinking that means they have a right we do not have. And we should demand equal "rights".
Of course, that will never happen because we are not as dishonest as those who fight for "make believe rights."
As a final note - people passing "gay marriage" laws are not thinking about the unintended consequences. It makes it legal for two men to marry, or two women, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT GAY! Why is that important? Because it allows millions of people to scam the system and dip into the taxpayer's pockets for benefits. Like the two old guys. They are single. Cannot find a good woman. So, they marry, intending only to be roommates - buddies. And collect all those great benefits on the taxpayer's dime.
It is not unlike those who marry just to get a green card to live here, and become a citizen. It's fraud. And in the case of gay marriage laws, there is no way to prove fraud. So, now taxpayers will begin getting soaked even more.
/
"I cannot legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage," Grisanti said during floor debate. "Who am I to say that someone does not have the same rights that I have with my wife, who I love, or to have the 1,300-plus rights that I share with her."
According to Huffington Post, "The people at Stonewall went wild. Grisanti had recognized the logic of the phrase "marriage equality": Marriage was simply a right, one that no legal gymnastics could take away."
And that is the problem with electing idiots to office who do not even comprehend the difference between a "right", a "priviledge" or a "benefit".
Marriage is not a right, because you must be licensed to marry, and pay a fee. Just like driving, which is also not a right. Both are priviledges. And with those priviledges come "benefits", but no "rights". There are no "rights" because not everyone has them - only married persons, or those in a civil union. Single people do not have those benefits, so they are not "rights".
Once more - a RIGHT is something everyone is born with; it is always free; it cannot be licensed or purchased; it cannot be legislated in or out of existence. A PRIVILEDGE can be licensed, charged for, restricted to certain people, and you are not born with it. A BENEFIT is something that you often get by negotiation, such as collective bargaining, insurance, an employer funded 401K, sick pay - or spousal benefits.
But gay advocates, and those wanting to legalize drugs, or those fighting for the ability to enter collective bargaining insist on calling them rights, even though they are not. They figure that by calling them rights often enough, the masses will eventually think of them as rights, and once that happens, the battle is half won because no one wants to be guilty of taking away someone's "rights". That would be unAmerican.
And that is how liberals push their agenda on the rest of us. They change the language and control whart we believe by controlling the conversation. With word games. Semantics.
If you doubt that, take a moment to recall that to them, illegal immigrants are "undocumented workers". Abortion is simply "pro-choice". Homosexuality is "gay pride". Environmental terrorists who burn peoples homes and businesses are "environmental activists."
Whenever liberals want to push an unpopular (and usually immoral) agenda, the first thing they do is change the language in order to change people's perceptions. And once perceptions are changed, winning is much easier.
Don't be taken in by people who change the language in order to stack the deck. It's time we begin refusing to let them control the conversation and the debate through trickery and deceit. If they cannot win honestly, they should not win at all.
Now that we finally understand how it's done, whaddaya say we get together and lobby for our "right" to live tax free. After all, 47% of all workers pay zero taxes. So, according to liberal thinking that means they have a right we do not have. And we should demand equal "rights".
Of course, that will never happen because we are not as dishonest as those who fight for "make believe rights."
As a final note - people passing "gay marriage" laws are not thinking about the unintended consequences. It makes it legal for two men to marry, or two women, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT GAY! Why is that important? Because it allows millions of people to scam the system and dip into the taxpayer's pockets for benefits. Like the two old guys. They are single. Cannot find a good woman. So, they marry, intending only to be roommates - buddies. And collect all those great benefits on the taxpayer's dime.
It is not unlike those who marry just to get a green card to live here, and become a citizen. It's fraud. And in the case of gay marriage laws, there is no way to prove fraud. So, now taxpayers will begin getting soaked even more.
/
NASA says "No Need To Worry." Really????
"PASADENA, Calif. -- NASA says a newly discovered asteroid will have a close encounter with Earth on Monday, but there's no need to worry."
No need to worry? Really?
Let's see if I have this right. An asteroid is coming very close to Earth and we only have 2 days warning. And NASA says we need not worry because it won't hit us. But that is not the worry here. The worry is that an asteroid could threaten our very existence and we would not have any substantial warning. Two days is barely enough time to bend over and kiss our butts good-bye.
THIS time it won't hit. But what about some other asteroid?
We need a better warning system, and we need to develop a method to attach rockets or small blasts onto an asteroid to gently change its direction without blowing it into a thousand smaller asteroids to rain on us.
We can spend billions on treadmills for shrimp, tunnels for turtles and an undeclared military action, but not one dime on a plan to protect us from a potential impact. An impact that WILL happen someday. It has happened before, and will happen again.
I've been to Crater Lake in the northwest, and Meteor Crater in the southwest. I am not anxious to have one closer to home to visit here in the northeast - assuming we even survive it.
And while it might do our nation a lot of good if it were to hit in one of the places where traditional American values have died out, I would much rather watch the asteroid veer off into space.
/
No need to worry? Really?
Let's see if I have this right. An asteroid is coming very close to Earth and we only have 2 days warning. And NASA says we need not worry because it won't hit us. But that is not the worry here. The worry is that an asteroid could threaten our very existence and we would not have any substantial warning. Two days is barely enough time to bend over and kiss our butts good-bye.
THIS time it won't hit. But what about some other asteroid?
We need a better warning system, and we need to develop a method to attach rockets or small blasts onto an asteroid to gently change its direction without blowing it into a thousand smaller asteroids to rain on us.
We can spend billions on treadmills for shrimp, tunnels for turtles and an undeclared military action, but not one dime on a plan to protect us from a potential impact. An impact that WILL happen someday. It has happened before, and will happen again.
I've been to Crater Lake in the northwest, and Meteor Crater in the southwest. I am not anxious to have one closer to home to visit here in the northeast - assuming we even survive it.
And while it might do our nation a lot of good if it were to hit in one of the places where traditional American values have died out, I would much rather watch the asteroid veer off into space.
/
Friday, June 24, 2011
Mixed Message From the GOP Vote On Libya? Not really...
According to many (unthinking) pundits who would like to know as much as they think they do, the GOP sent a mixed message today by voting against giving Obama the authority to continue the fighting with Libya, and then refusing to cut the funding for it.
While at first glance, and to those who can't see past their noses, that seems like a mixed message. But it is not.
You see, the GOP understands that 1) we need to get rid of Gadhafi now that Obama has declared war on him - there is no alternative, and b) Congress needed to slap Obama's hand for overstepping his authority. So, to accomplish both, the GOP first voted against Obama, the chose to keep funding it, anyway.
In this way they regain some power and control that belongs to Congress while still allowing us to help get rid of Gadhafi.
Frankly, we should never get involved in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation if it is not a direct threat to us. But since Obama did, we have no choice but to finish it.
After all, if another nation decides that our president is not what they want to see, should THEY intervene in OUR internal affairs and kill our president?
As much as it is a terrible thing Gadhafi does to his people, it is between him and his people. As Jefferson said, "Every person gets the government they deserve." The Libyans let Gadhafi into power. They sat by for 40 years as he dictated and terrorized. Most supported him when he was using terrorism against the West. So, they got what they deserved. Now they want better - and it is up to them, and them alone, to change things.
And anyone who thinks the Libyans will show any gratitude for our interference, that will only last as long as their war. Did we learn nothing from befriending and aiding the Taliban to kick the communists out of Afghanistan? Then when it was over, the Taliban turned on us.
Same thing will happen in Libya - it is the Muslim way.
/
While at first glance, and to those who can't see past their noses, that seems like a mixed message. But it is not.
You see, the GOP understands that 1) we need to get rid of Gadhafi now that Obama has declared war on him - there is no alternative, and b) Congress needed to slap Obama's hand for overstepping his authority. So, to accomplish both, the GOP first voted against Obama, the chose to keep funding it, anyway.
In this way they regain some power and control that belongs to Congress while still allowing us to help get rid of Gadhafi.
Frankly, we should never get involved in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation if it is not a direct threat to us. But since Obama did, we have no choice but to finish it.
After all, if another nation decides that our president is not what they want to see, should THEY intervene in OUR internal affairs and kill our president?
As much as it is a terrible thing Gadhafi does to his people, it is between him and his people. As Jefferson said, "Every person gets the government they deserve." The Libyans let Gadhafi into power. They sat by for 40 years as he dictated and terrorized. Most supported him when he was using terrorism against the West. So, they got what they deserved. Now they want better - and it is up to them, and them alone, to change things.
And anyone who thinks the Libyans will show any gratitude for our interference, that will only last as long as their war. Did we learn nothing from befriending and aiding the Taliban to kick the communists out of Afghanistan? Then when it was over, the Taliban turned on us.
Same thing will happen in Libya - it is the Muslim way.
/
Delta Bans Jews And Some Christians On Some Flights...
Delta has entered into an agreement with Saudi Arabia that would prevent Israeli's, Jews and anyone carrying or bearing any non-Islamic relgious item from flying on any Delta airplane that lands in Saudi Arabia.
The airline, which did not deny the new policy, insisted that it has no control over who may fly to Saudi Arabia.
Frankly, this is not only despicable, but may violate U.S. laws on discrimination.
Here's my take --- if Saudi Arabia wants to isolate themselves from persons of other faiths, then perhaps American airline companies should simply not fly to Saudi Arabia. Let the Saudi's suffer.
No country has the right to dictate policies to Americans or American companies. If they do not want some of our people to pass through their country, then they do not want ANY of our people to pass through. Let them suffer for their arrogance and their manic theocracy.
The way I see it, if my friends, family or associates are not welcome somewhere, then I am not welcome, either, and I simply will not go. If one American citizen is not allowed in their country, then none should go, and if they go, let them fly Saudi Air.
/
The airline, which did not deny the new policy, insisted that it has no control over who may fly to Saudi Arabia.
Frankly, this is not only despicable, but may violate U.S. laws on discrimination.
Here's my take --- if Saudi Arabia wants to isolate themselves from persons of other faiths, then perhaps American airline companies should simply not fly to Saudi Arabia. Let the Saudi's suffer.
No country has the right to dictate policies to Americans or American companies. If they do not want some of our people to pass through their country, then they do not want ANY of our people to pass through. Let them suffer for their arrogance and their manic theocracy.
The way I see it, if my friends, family or associates are not welcome somewhere, then I am not welcome, either, and I simply will not go. If one American citizen is not allowed in their country, then none should go, and if they go, let them fly Saudi Air.
/
Obama Gives A Glimpse Of What A Second Term Would Mean...
President Obama attented a gay rights rally on Thursday, and while he did not endorse gay marriage, he let it be understood that it is only because he is seeking re-election.
"I don't think he will stick his neck out this close to the election," said Lauree Feldman, a gala attendee. "Once he gets re-elected, he will drive that train as fast as he wants."
And that is what should frighten us all. Not simply that he would support gay marriage in a second term, having nothing to lose, since he cannot run for a third term. What is scary is that he would likely go "full bore" on the rest of his uber-liberal agenda for the same reason.
You may not think he is all that liberal, but trust me - he is purposely holding back in order to get a second term, which would require support of independents. Once re-elected, he no longer needs to coddle to independents - or anyone else.
And we know he would swing hard to the left because all of his policies to date have been to the left
If you find it hard to swallow that we are being led by an administration that sues every red state for being red while at the same time letting black militants get away with voter intimidation; and if you are troubled by an administration that has done so many end-runs around Congress using Executive Orders; and if you think it is wrong to over-ride our elected representatives and have unelected Czars and agencies like the EPA and FCC make laws - well, you ain't seen nothing yet if Mr Obama manages to get re-elected.
Frankly, I think we would be better off with Jimmy Carter, and he was the worst president in history. "Was" being the operative word.
/
"I don't think he will stick his neck out this close to the election," said Lauree Feldman, a gala attendee. "Once he gets re-elected, he will drive that train as fast as he wants."
And that is what should frighten us all. Not simply that he would support gay marriage in a second term, having nothing to lose, since he cannot run for a third term. What is scary is that he would likely go "full bore" on the rest of his uber-liberal agenda for the same reason.
You may not think he is all that liberal, but trust me - he is purposely holding back in order to get a second term, which would require support of independents. Once re-elected, he no longer needs to coddle to independents - or anyone else.
And we know he would swing hard to the left because all of his policies to date have been to the left
If you find it hard to swallow that we are being led by an administration that sues every red state for being red while at the same time letting black militants get away with voter intimidation; and if you are troubled by an administration that has done so many end-runs around Congress using Executive Orders; and if you think it is wrong to over-ride our elected representatives and have unelected Czars and agencies like the EPA and FCC make laws - well, you ain't seen nothing yet if Mr Obama manages to get re-elected.
Frankly, I think we would be better off with Jimmy Carter, and he was the worst president in history. "Was" being the operative word.
/
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
I Heard It On The News, But I Hope This Remains A Bad Rumor...
There is scuttlebutt going around that John McCain, now acting more like a candidate than a Senator, is eyeing another run at the White House.
Lord, I hope not. He lost last time because people caught on that he was not a true Republican, but a RiNO. Democrat Lite. Even as I write, McCain is standing with uber-liberal John Kerry, both advocating we keep kickin' the Hell out of Libya, even though 1) the military action has never been sanctioned by Congress, as required by the Constitution and the War Powers Act, and 2) the outcome in Libya has absolutely nothing of consequence to do with the security of the United States.
McCain also supported ObamaCare and other liberal moves to destroy this country. He's right up there with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins - so-called Republican senators from Maine, both of whom vote with Democrats more than they do Republicans.
McCain is not worthy of consideration - the Republican Party already told him that once. I hope we don't have to waste our breath telling him again.
/
Lord, I hope not. He lost last time because people caught on that he was not a true Republican, but a RiNO. Democrat Lite. Even as I write, McCain is standing with uber-liberal John Kerry, both advocating we keep kickin' the Hell out of Libya, even though 1) the military action has never been sanctioned by Congress, as required by the Constitution and the War Powers Act, and 2) the outcome in Libya has absolutely nothing of consequence to do with the security of the United States.
McCain also supported ObamaCare and other liberal moves to destroy this country. He's right up there with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins - so-called Republican senators from Maine, both of whom vote with Democrats more than they do Republicans.
McCain is not worthy of consideration - the Republican Party already told him that once. I hope we don't have to waste our breath telling him again.
/
Who Would Have Guessed - New Problem Found In Health Care Law ...
Fresh from the headlines -- "AP NewsBreak: A twist in Obama's health care law President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed."
Gee whiz! Who would have guessed that the health care law was secretly designed to bankrupt America?
Here is the real story, as yours truly sees it...
First, Socialists make no secret about wanting to bankrupt America. George Soros, the money man behind it, has said so outright. The reason --- only by bankrupting America can the socialists gain complete control. When people are panicked, they will sign on to just about any empty promises. Panicked people signed on with Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon...
Progressives are "modern" socialists who do not want to wear the stigma of the socialist label. Hillary admitted to being a Progressive. And so has Obama. And Pelosi.
ObamaCare is the single biggest boondoggle and drain on our resources in the history of this country. The bill, itself, was drawn up by the Center for American Progress (the Progressives) in the '90's. They waited until they controlled both Houses and the White House before wheeling it out. And it is, indeed, designed to bankrupt us.
And that's not all. The liberals (progressives) fully understand that, in order to bring America to a socialist state, more than 1/2 of the citizens must be made dependent upon the government. Currently, 47% are. And ObamaCare will guarantee many more.
You see, when more people are collecting than are paying in (whether as government employees or on some entitlement program like ObamaCare), they have a vested interest in keeping the goodies coming. And that means the rest of the folks will get drained more and more, to pay for more and more people getting on the dole.
Look at it this way - almost 1/2 of all WORKING Americans pay ZERO taxes. None. So they don't care if the taxes go up - it will not affect them. However, if the taxes DO go up they figure they can now get MORE benefits. So, they vote for more taxes.
And the wealth that is generated by those who actually work and contribute is siphoned off and redistributed to those who do not contribute.
So now you can see the connection between the liberals' yen to redistribute the wealth, and why. It gives steam to the socialist movement, which, by it's nature, is designed to bankrupt our country. So the George Soros types can pick up all the marbles.
Our one hope is to elect a president, senators and representatives who will 1) get rid of ObamaCare, and 2) find better, more effective (and less socialist) ways to reduce health care costs.
We already have the best health care in the country. It's only problem is the high cost. And that can be dealt with easily, and without turning 1/6 of the entire U.S. economy over to the power-mad clowns in Washington.
Stop and think. Since the Progressives gained control, the unemployment rate skyrocketed to over 9% IN SPITE of $800 billion in stimulus. And the stimulus, itself, helps bankrupt us. And all these new regulations from the Labor Board, EPA, FCC and even by presidential Executive Order have ALL helped squelch business and economic growth. And the FED keeps devaluing the dollar by printing more fiat money. Have YOU seen anything at all to suggest things are getting better? Why not, after 4 years of recession (recessions usually last about 18 months)?
The socialist/Progressives are licking their chops...
Think about it. Hard. And when election day comes, think about it again...
/
Gee whiz! Who would have guessed that the health care law was secretly designed to bankrupt America?
Here is the real story, as yours truly sees it...
First, Socialists make no secret about wanting to bankrupt America. George Soros, the money man behind it, has said so outright. The reason --- only by bankrupting America can the socialists gain complete control. When people are panicked, they will sign on to just about any empty promises. Panicked people signed on with Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon...
Progressives are "modern" socialists who do not want to wear the stigma of the socialist label. Hillary admitted to being a Progressive. And so has Obama. And Pelosi.
ObamaCare is the single biggest boondoggle and drain on our resources in the history of this country. The bill, itself, was drawn up by the Center for American Progress (the Progressives) in the '90's. They waited until they controlled both Houses and the White House before wheeling it out. And it is, indeed, designed to bankrupt us.
And that's not all. The liberals (progressives) fully understand that, in order to bring America to a socialist state, more than 1/2 of the citizens must be made dependent upon the government. Currently, 47% are. And ObamaCare will guarantee many more.
You see, when more people are collecting than are paying in (whether as government employees or on some entitlement program like ObamaCare), they have a vested interest in keeping the goodies coming. And that means the rest of the folks will get drained more and more, to pay for more and more people getting on the dole.
Look at it this way - almost 1/2 of all WORKING Americans pay ZERO taxes. None. So they don't care if the taxes go up - it will not affect them. However, if the taxes DO go up they figure they can now get MORE benefits. So, they vote for more taxes.
And the wealth that is generated by those who actually work and contribute is siphoned off and redistributed to those who do not contribute.
So now you can see the connection between the liberals' yen to redistribute the wealth, and why. It gives steam to the socialist movement, which, by it's nature, is designed to bankrupt our country. So the George Soros types can pick up all the marbles.
Our one hope is to elect a president, senators and representatives who will 1) get rid of ObamaCare, and 2) find better, more effective (and less socialist) ways to reduce health care costs.
We already have the best health care in the country. It's only problem is the high cost. And that can be dealt with easily, and without turning 1/6 of the entire U.S. economy over to the power-mad clowns in Washington.
Stop and think. Since the Progressives gained control, the unemployment rate skyrocketed to over 9% IN SPITE of $800 billion in stimulus. And the stimulus, itself, helps bankrupt us. And all these new regulations from the Labor Board, EPA, FCC and even by presidential Executive Order have ALL helped squelch business and economic growth. And the FED keeps devaluing the dollar by printing more fiat money. Have YOU seen anything at all to suggest things are getting better? Why not, after 4 years of recession (recessions usually last about 18 months)?
The socialist/Progressives are licking their chops...
Think about it. Hard. And when election day comes, think about it again...
/
Now It Is Child Abuse To Raise Your Kids...
Here is a very troubling story. Troubling because some activist judges are interfering in how parents raise children.
It is not illegal in any state to spank your child, as long as it does not constitute abuse. And while Rosalina Gonzales wasn't put behind bars for spanking her toddler, prosecutors and a judge in Corpus Christie, Texas, let it be known that whacking a kid on the rear will land parents in hot water -- and possibly prison.
She is now serving five years probation after agreeing to take parenting classes and paying $50 to the Children's Advocacy Center.
"You don't spank children today," 214th District Court Judge Jose Longoria told Gonzales, KZTV reports. "You don't spank children. You understand?"
On my opinion, Judge Longoria is a liberal, unqualified moron who is abusing his authority to push the liberal agenda.
Gonzales is trying to regain custody of her two children, including the one who was spanked, but they will stay with their paternal grandmother until the state agrees her home is safe.
Since it was the grandmother who filed the complaint, I'd bet the kids are safer with Attilla the Hun than with grandma. She may not spank them, but would certainly spoil them so they grow up to be worthless. And THAT is abuse.
Imagine a court, a prosecutor and/or a state taking your kids away, breaking up the family, simply because the parent doles out sufficient discipline when needed. It seems the nutty liberals think there should never be any consequences for anything anymore. You can kill your baby, but cannot spank your child.
And I think that is exactly why so many of our youth are running wild and ending up in courts and prison - because liberals have made parents fear disciplining their children. Children are spoiled rotten, and when they do not get their way they have a tantrum.
To a liberal, child abuse is when a child does not get everything he or she wants, when they want it. A friend of mine had a 14 year old son who kept causing trouble on the schoolbus, and was kicked off. To teach the kid a lesson, Dad made him walk to school - 1 mile. But the dumb state authorities of North Carolina said that was child abuse. Really? I can remember having to walk to school more than a mile every day, even in winter, because our tiny hamlet only had one bus, and it did not come our way. Maybe we should have sued the town for child abuse. And what about the time before buses - were all parents guilty of child abuse? Of course not. And if it was not abuse yesterday, it's not abuse today.
Spanking is not child abuse. In the case of Rosalina Gonzales, the only ones guilty of abuse are the judge (abuse of power), the prosecutor (abuse of the law) and the state child protective agency (abuse of common sense). And grandma - abuse of family.
If any authority were to even attempt to bust me for spanking my child, I would sue them on Constitutional grounds. They may NOT interefer with the free practice of religion, and the Bible says "Spare the rod, spoil the child." If they choose to infringe on my 1st Amendment rights, they'll have a fight on their hands. And they will lose!
Unless there is actual abuse, stay out of family matters.
/
It is not illegal in any state to spank your child, as long as it does not constitute abuse. And while Rosalina Gonzales wasn't put behind bars for spanking her toddler, prosecutors and a judge in Corpus Christie, Texas, let it be known that whacking a kid on the rear will land parents in hot water -- and possibly prison.
She is now serving five years probation after agreeing to take parenting classes and paying $50 to the Children's Advocacy Center.
"You don't spank children today," 214th District Court Judge Jose Longoria told Gonzales, KZTV reports. "You don't spank children. You understand?"
On my opinion, Judge Longoria is a liberal, unqualified moron who is abusing his authority to push the liberal agenda.
Gonzales is trying to regain custody of her two children, including the one who was spanked, but they will stay with their paternal grandmother until the state agrees her home is safe.
Since it was the grandmother who filed the complaint, I'd bet the kids are safer with Attilla the Hun than with grandma. She may not spank them, but would certainly spoil them so they grow up to be worthless. And THAT is abuse.
Imagine a court, a prosecutor and/or a state taking your kids away, breaking up the family, simply because the parent doles out sufficient discipline when needed. It seems the nutty liberals think there should never be any consequences for anything anymore. You can kill your baby, but cannot spank your child.
And I think that is exactly why so many of our youth are running wild and ending up in courts and prison - because liberals have made parents fear disciplining their children. Children are spoiled rotten, and when they do not get their way they have a tantrum.
To a liberal, child abuse is when a child does not get everything he or she wants, when they want it. A friend of mine had a 14 year old son who kept causing trouble on the schoolbus, and was kicked off. To teach the kid a lesson, Dad made him walk to school - 1 mile. But the dumb state authorities of North Carolina said that was child abuse. Really? I can remember having to walk to school more than a mile every day, even in winter, because our tiny hamlet only had one bus, and it did not come our way. Maybe we should have sued the town for child abuse. And what about the time before buses - were all parents guilty of child abuse? Of course not. And if it was not abuse yesterday, it's not abuse today.
Spanking is not child abuse. In the case of Rosalina Gonzales, the only ones guilty of abuse are the judge (abuse of power), the prosecutor (abuse of the law) and the state child protective agency (abuse of common sense). And grandma - abuse of family.
If any authority were to even attempt to bust me for spanking my child, I would sue them on Constitutional grounds. They may NOT interefer with the free practice of religion, and the Bible says "Spare the rod, spoil the child." If they choose to infringe on my 1st Amendment rights, they'll have a fight on their hands. And they will lose!
Unless there is actual abuse, stay out of family matters.
/
The Sky Is Falling - Again! Another New "Report"...
Here's a new "sky is falling" warning from kooks on the left who feel they are losing the old "global warming" ruse.
Dan Laffoley of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and co-author of the report said in a press release for a new report that our oceans are dying because of the same things that were causing global warming (FYI - a new U.N. report says the Earth may now be cooling - go figure).
The report is confusing to say the least - it says this situation, if not "fixed with immediate action" would cause a "human extinction event within our lifetime." It then goes on to say this could affect not only us, but our "children and generations to come."
Huh? If humankind goes extinct "in our lifetime", exactly WHOSE "children and generations to come" are these people talking about. Last I knew, an extinct species is unable to have any "future generations" that could be affected by anything.
Look folks, I have no doubt we are doing substantial harm to our planet, and we need to be better stewards. But all this "we're gonna die if we don't stop living large and pay these people trillions to fix the problem" is pure garbage, motivated by a combination of politics, greed and supported by fools who will believe any claim that the sky is falling.
It isn't.
/
Dan Laffoley of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and co-author of the report said in a press release for a new report that our oceans are dying because of the same things that were causing global warming (FYI - a new U.N. report says the Earth may now be cooling - go figure).
The report is confusing to say the least - it says this situation, if not "fixed with immediate action" would cause a "human extinction event within our lifetime." It then goes on to say this could affect not only us, but our "children and generations to come."
Huh? If humankind goes extinct "in our lifetime", exactly WHOSE "children and generations to come" are these people talking about. Last I knew, an extinct species is unable to have any "future generations" that could be affected by anything.
Look folks, I have no doubt we are doing substantial harm to our planet, and we need to be better stewards. But all this "we're gonna die if we don't stop living large and pay these people trillions to fix the problem" is pure garbage, motivated by a combination of politics, greed and supported by fools who will believe any claim that the sky is falling.
It isn't.
/
Monday, June 20, 2011
Insanity Reigns Among A Certain Group...
There is a certain group of people who are pushing for an internet sales tax - a tax on every retail sale made on the internet. These people actually believe that taxing internet sales would raise revenues and boost the economy.
They never bothered to study the history of such a move. Each and every time that taxes were raised, revenues actually dropped, and resulted in slower econmic growth. Every time taxes were cut, revenues expanded, as did growth. The simple reason -- when you have more money, you spend more. Increased spending results in higher demand, resulting in increasing productivitry, usually resulting in more hiring (jobs).
And it seems this insane group also does not understand that in a recession, when most families are in a financial squeeze, increased taxes could ruin them, forcing more people into foreclosure and/or failure to pay their debts. It would put more people on food stamps, which costs taxpayers dearly.
And who is this insane group? Liberals, like those at HuffPost/AOL who are among those advocating this insanity.
According to the liberals pushing this, taxing internet sales would raise tax revenues by $23 billion a year. What they cannot seem to grasp is that it will cost us, the consumers, $23 billion a year. And if you take $23 billion away from us, that's $23 billion we no longer have for spending on consumer goods, resulting in fewer sales, less demand and a decrease in productivity (lay-offs). Is that what we really want? Just so our government can keep spending like drunken sailors, wasting money on tunnels for turtles?
Why do liberals never understand that? It is so easy to demonstate, right in their own homes. Take an extra 5% out of your take-home pay and set it aside, or give it away to charity. And then try to buy as many consumer goods as you did before your pay cut. Can't be done. Now multiply that by the hundred million families nationwide. You soon notice that there are many goods no longer being purchased. So businesses have to reduce production, resulting in lay-offs. That is how a recession begins, not ends.
Strange how liberals do not see that taking extra in taxes has exactly the same effect as making public union workers pay a larger share for their benefits. Both would reduce the money available for comsumer goods. Yet the liberals say it is wrong to make union workers pay more because it "makes them poorer". But they see no problem with taking more money from everyone in an internet tax.
So, public union workers -- when you gripe when more is taken from your paycheck to cover your benefits, don't forget to gripe when more is taken from you for taxes, courtesy of your "friends", the liberals. And be thankful that our government is getting the money (from you) to keep building turtle tunnels, or funding skateboard parks in some other state.
/
They never bothered to study the history of such a move. Each and every time that taxes were raised, revenues actually dropped, and resulted in slower econmic growth. Every time taxes were cut, revenues expanded, as did growth. The simple reason -- when you have more money, you spend more. Increased spending results in higher demand, resulting in increasing productivitry, usually resulting in more hiring (jobs).
And it seems this insane group also does not understand that in a recession, when most families are in a financial squeeze, increased taxes could ruin them, forcing more people into foreclosure and/or failure to pay their debts. It would put more people on food stamps, which costs taxpayers dearly.
And who is this insane group? Liberals, like those at HuffPost/AOL who are among those advocating this insanity.
According to the liberals pushing this, taxing internet sales would raise tax revenues by $23 billion a year. What they cannot seem to grasp is that it will cost us, the consumers, $23 billion a year. And if you take $23 billion away from us, that's $23 billion we no longer have for spending on consumer goods, resulting in fewer sales, less demand and a decrease in productivity (lay-offs). Is that what we really want? Just so our government can keep spending like drunken sailors, wasting money on tunnels for turtles?
Why do liberals never understand that? It is so easy to demonstate, right in their own homes. Take an extra 5% out of your take-home pay and set it aside, or give it away to charity. And then try to buy as many consumer goods as you did before your pay cut. Can't be done. Now multiply that by the hundred million families nationwide. You soon notice that there are many goods no longer being purchased. So businesses have to reduce production, resulting in lay-offs. That is how a recession begins, not ends.
Strange how liberals do not see that taking extra in taxes has exactly the same effect as making public union workers pay a larger share for their benefits. Both would reduce the money available for comsumer goods. Yet the liberals say it is wrong to make union workers pay more because it "makes them poorer". But they see no problem with taking more money from everyone in an internet tax.
So, public union workers -- when you gripe when more is taken from your paycheck to cover your benefits, don't forget to gripe when more is taken from you for taxes, courtesy of your "friends", the liberals. And be thankful that our government is getting the money (from you) to keep building turtle tunnels, or funding skateboard parks in some other state.
/
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Should I Say "I Told Ya So"?
A couple nights ago NASA reports a very large solar flare "grazed" Earth. It caused no noticeable harm, though it may have affected some GPS and communications slightly.
But here is the rest of the story - it was only by a stroke of luck that it did not hit dead-on. If it had, scientists say it could have wiped out the satellites, communications and electrical power for at least half the planet. And it could take 3-10 years to get it all back online.
I have posted about this possibility several times over the last few years. And now that the sun is entering it's "active" cycle, we need to be ready, just in case. NASA estimates this cycle will be particularly active, peaking in 2013.
The actual chance of a large flare hitting Earth directly is relatively small - but great enough to warrant being prepared!
Strange how this unusual activity will peak around the time of the supposed "2012 apocalypse" some say will occur on December 21, 2012. Not that I believe in that theory - I'm just sayin' it's quite a coincidence.
In any case, I am prepared - if there is no "extinction event", I am prepared to live through lesser disasters. If there is an EE, I'm prepared to meet my Maker. Prepared, no matter what. You?
/
But here is the rest of the story - it was only by a stroke of luck that it did not hit dead-on. If it had, scientists say it could have wiped out the satellites, communications and electrical power for at least half the planet. And it could take 3-10 years to get it all back online.
I have posted about this possibility several times over the last few years. And now that the sun is entering it's "active" cycle, we need to be ready, just in case. NASA estimates this cycle will be particularly active, peaking in 2013.
The actual chance of a large flare hitting Earth directly is relatively small - but great enough to warrant being prepared!
Strange how this unusual activity will peak around the time of the supposed "2012 apocalypse" some say will occur on December 21, 2012. Not that I believe in that theory - I'm just sayin' it's quite a coincidence.
In any case, I am prepared - if there is no "extinction event", I am prepared to live through lesser disasters. If there is an EE, I'm prepared to meet my Maker. Prepared, no matter what. You?
/
Jon Stewart Finally Loses It...
Jon Stewart was interviewed this morning by Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday. During the interview, he stated, "Who are the most misinformed viewers? Fox News viewers. By every poll."
I keep up with most polls, and I have not seen one that says Fox viewers are the most misinformed. On the contrary, all polls seem to indicate they are the best informed. In fact, two separate exit polls at the polling booths in 2008 asked people a number of questions concerning the people they voted for. They were then asked which media they get their news from. Fox News viewers got an average of 82% correct, the highest by far. In second place was CNN with barely 51% correct answers. The real losers were NBC, MSNBC and the New York Times - those poor folks only got an average of 18% of answers correct. And they are far-left media.
We realize you are a liberal, Mr. Stewart. But even you should have enough honesty to tell the truth, and not, as Sarah Palin says, "Make stuff up."
I personally check out all sources, from Limbaugh on the right, Fox in the center and Huffington Post on the left, and everything in between. Rush Limbaugh sticks ONLY to the right. HuffPost obviously ONLY to the left. The ONLY sources I have found that give both sides reasonably fairly are Fox, CNN & the Wall Street Journal - and Fox is generally quicker to report, and more thorough. They were the first (and in many cases the only) media to report the ACORN scandal, the Planned Parenthood scandal and the NPR scandal. Since those are all leftist organizations, is it any wonder liberals hate Fox?
I think the reason liberals such as Stewart don't like Fox is because they fully realize that the WHOLE truth will hurt their agenda. They do not want people to know the whole truth - only the part that puts the liberal agenda in a good light.
I like knowing the whole story. That is the only way to make good decisions. Fox gives me both sides (except Hannity, who is intentionally on the right).
/
I keep up with most polls, and I have not seen one that says Fox viewers are the most misinformed. On the contrary, all polls seem to indicate they are the best informed. In fact, two separate exit polls at the polling booths in 2008 asked people a number of questions concerning the people they voted for. They were then asked which media they get their news from. Fox News viewers got an average of 82% correct, the highest by far. In second place was CNN with barely 51% correct answers. The real losers were NBC, MSNBC and the New York Times - those poor folks only got an average of 18% of answers correct. And they are far-left media.
We realize you are a liberal, Mr. Stewart. But even you should have enough honesty to tell the truth, and not, as Sarah Palin says, "Make stuff up."
I personally check out all sources, from Limbaugh on the right, Fox in the center and Huffington Post on the left, and everything in between. Rush Limbaugh sticks ONLY to the right. HuffPost obviously ONLY to the left. The ONLY sources I have found that give both sides reasonably fairly are Fox, CNN & the Wall Street Journal - and Fox is generally quicker to report, and more thorough. They were the first (and in many cases the only) media to report the ACORN scandal, the Planned Parenthood scandal and the NPR scandal. Since those are all leftist organizations, is it any wonder liberals hate Fox?
I think the reason liberals such as Stewart don't like Fox is because they fully realize that the WHOLE truth will hurt their agenda. They do not want people to know the whole truth - only the part that puts the liberal agenda in a good light.
I like knowing the whole story. That is the only way to make good decisions. Fox gives me both sides (except Hannity, who is intentionally on the right).
/
Is It Time To Put McCain Out To Pasture?
Senator McCain may be a war hero. He may have even been a good senator once. But these last 3 years, it seems he has lost his way. He no longer adheres to conservative values, and he makes less sense every day.
Yesterday he blasted the GOP candidates by calling them "isolationists", simply because they no longer see any value in the many military actions we are involved in. They beleive that our military should not be engaged in any action unless it is in defense of our country or our country's best interests. If the action costs a billion a day, and our nation gets no value from it, then we have wasted our money and efforts at a time when we can ill afford to do so. What have we gotten from 90 days of spending billions bombing Libya? And Ghaddafi still in power? How does that benefit us?
While I do agree that it is wrong for other nations to involve themselves in genocide or slaughter, the United states is not the Police Force of the Earth. We do not have that much money, military or power to be everywhere. Nor do we have any right to interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations, whether they are right or wrong. By stretching ourselves as thin as we are, in four theaters, we will be unable to defend ourselves and protect our own interests if a real crisis arrives at our doorstep. These wars have weakened us considerably. Our troops are tired, our treasury is bare.
Mr. McCain, it is NOT "isolationism" to stay out of the affairs of other sovereign nations, no matter how bad they are. If that were the case, we should have been in Iran years ago. And Rwanda. And Somalia. And a dozen other places. Isolationism means not being involved in any world affairs - political, social, and/or military. So, senator, you are not only wrong in your assessment, you apparently are beginning to use "spin".
It does not become you. It's time to walk off in the sunset, sir, and retire gracefully.
/
Yesterday he blasted the GOP candidates by calling them "isolationists", simply because they no longer see any value in the many military actions we are involved in. They beleive that our military should not be engaged in any action unless it is in defense of our country or our country's best interests. If the action costs a billion a day, and our nation gets no value from it, then we have wasted our money and efforts at a time when we can ill afford to do so. What have we gotten from 90 days of spending billions bombing Libya? And Ghaddafi still in power? How does that benefit us?
While I do agree that it is wrong for other nations to involve themselves in genocide or slaughter, the United states is not the Police Force of the Earth. We do not have that much money, military or power to be everywhere. Nor do we have any right to interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations, whether they are right or wrong. By stretching ourselves as thin as we are, in four theaters, we will be unable to defend ourselves and protect our own interests if a real crisis arrives at our doorstep. These wars have weakened us considerably. Our troops are tired, our treasury is bare.
Mr. McCain, it is NOT "isolationism" to stay out of the affairs of other sovereign nations, no matter how bad they are. If that were the case, we should have been in Iran years ago. And Rwanda. And Somalia. And a dozen other places. Isolationism means not being involved in any world affairs - political, social, and/or military. So, senator, you are not only wrong in your assessment, you apparently are beginning to use "spin".
It does not become you. It's time to walk off in the sunset, sir, and retire gracefully.
/
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Lack Of Tort Reform Costs YOU & Each Family Member $1800 A Year...
In America today, anyone can sue for anything, no matter how frivolous or unwarranted. There was a time that lawyers filing frivolous suits were penalized, and such suits were simply tossed out without a thought.
Not any more. Today, a person can sue because they were not warned the coffee would be hot, or that a ball player could get hit with the ball.
The lawsuits that emerge simply because the plaintiff is stupid, ignorant or lacks common sense is costing each person in America $1800 a year in costs added to the products we buy. And a lot of good products we need will never be marketed for fear of litigation.
It's time for "we, the people" to stand and be counted. Tell your elected officials to stop the madness. Tell them we need a law that 1) prevents lawsuits founded from stupidity, ignorance or a lack of common sense from being allowed, and 2) place a $5000 fine on any lawyer who files such a suit. Any lawyer that presents more than three such frivolous lawsuits in any three year period would be disbarred.
If the people stand up and force the issue, we can do this. And the benefits would be huge. First, we all start saving money. But more important, businesses can grow and produce jobs, without threat of dumb litigation that would cost them huge amounts. And, finally, it could result in a lessening of the over-regulation we now see - every regulation costs consumers money.
So, folks - what will it be? Will you fight to take back your country, or simply sit back and lose?
/
Not any more. Today, a person can sue because they were not warned the coffee would be hot, or that a ball player could get hit with the ball.
The lawsuits that emerge simply because the plaintiff is stupid, ignorant or lacks common sense is costing each person in America $1800 a year in costs added to the products we buy. And a lot of good products we need will never be marketed for fear of litigation.
It's time for "we, the people" to stand and be counted. Tell your elected officials to stop the madness. Tell them we need a law that 1) prevents lawsuits founded from stupidity, ignorance or a lack of common sense from being allowed, and 2) place a $5000 fine on any lawyer who files such a suit. Any lawyer that presents more than three such frivolous lawsuits in any three year period would be disbarred.
If the people stand up and force the issue, we can do this. And the benefits would be huge. First, we all start saving money. But more important, businesses can grow and produce jobs, without threat of dumb litigation that would cost them huge amounts. And, finally, it could result in a lessening of the over-regulation we now see - every regulation costs consumers money.
So, folks - what will it be? Will you fight to take back your country, or simply sit back and lose?
/
The Absurdity - and Unconstitutionality - Of Many Zoning Laws...
In Coral Gables, Florida, you can be ticketed for owning a truck and parking it anywhere after 7 pm. Even at your own home. That's the "law" that certain elitist liberals (in my day they were called snobs) passed, in an effort to ban vehicles THEY believe have no place in an elite neighborhood such as Coral gables.It is bigotry. And it is unconstitutional.
The spokesperson for Coral Gables says it helps to keep the "aesthetic value" of the neighborhood. But that excuse is absurd because "aesthetic value" implies beauty. Not only is beauty in the eye of the beholder, but they violate their own "aesthetic values" every hour of every day. How? Because a beautiful $50,000 truck is banned while a rusted out 1972 Ford Pinto is perfectly acceptable. ONLY trucks are targeted. Not ugly SUV's. Not ugly cars. Not ugly or loud motorcycles. Only trucks.
And that is why these elitists are wrong, and their bigoted law is unconstitutional.
Bear in mind - Coral Gables is a coastal community, and almost everyone goes boating. And for most, transporting your boat requires a truck. To ticket truck owners is to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs - tourists.
Folks, these things are happening everywhere - elitists passing ordinances to regulate every aspect of our lives. Banning the flag, banning trucks, prohibiting smoking in a city park while bus & truck fumes fill the air. Ordinances that prohibit homeowners to let their grass get over 2" tall, or prohibit growing wildflowers or herbs. And in some cases, prohibiting backyard gardeners from GIVING AWAY their extra produce.
And now, bills presented in statehouses across the country would ban taking photos of farms without the explicit consent of farm owners, in some instances, even if such photos are taken from a public right-of-way. Such bills have been introduced recently in Florida, New York and Iowa. In addition, several states already have similar laws on the books. Distributing of photos of farms, even if taken legally, would result in a penalty of 10 years in prison in Iowa, if the law passes. The only other type of photo that can get you in prison is child pornography! So elitist legislators are putting farms right up there with child porn...yes, I understand they are trying to stop "whistle-blowers" concerning animal cruely etc., but that, in itself, is unconstitutional, and whistle-blowers help us determine when there are criminal activities. So, it seems legislators are now passing laws to protect criminals.
When are we, the sheeple going to stop allowing this? When will YOU stand against the taking away of your liberties? Or will you just wait for someone else to do it? That won't work, because too many of "those others" are waiting for YOU to do it.
We have lost huge amounts of our personal freedoms because the individual encroachments were "small", not worth complaining about. But add 100's small encroachments and before you know it we are no longer a free people. We must stop, even reverse the small ones before they get too big to tackle.
Start now. Study the zoning ordinances of your community and pinpoint at least one that curtails people's freedoms without truly good cause (it can actually and reasonably bring harm to someone, for example). Then get a petition going to repeal it. Push it. WORK at it. As Larry the Cable Guy says, "GIT-R-DUN".
And when you have successfully got back a little bit of freedom, tackle another one. And keep doing it until all the unreasonable elitists "rules" are thrown out.
And if your public officials fight you, VOTE THEM OUT. Rally the community. Impress upon the community the importance of taking our country back, community by community.
/
The spokesperson for Coral Gables says it helps to keep the "aesthetic value" of the neighborhood. But that excuse is absurd because "aesthetic value" implies beauty. Not only is beauty in the eye of the beholder, but they violate their own "aesthetic values" every hour of every day. How? Because a beautiful $50,000 truck is banned while a rusted out 1972 Ford Pinto is perfectly acceptable. ONLY trucks are targeted. Not ugly SUV's. Not ugly cars. Not ugly or loud motorcycles. Only trucks.
And that is why these elitists are wrong, and their bigoted law is unconstitutional.
Bear in mind - Coral Gables is a coastal community, and almost everyone goes boating. And for most, transporting your boat requires a truck. To ticket truck owners is to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs - tourists.
Folks, these things are happening everywhere - elitists passing ordinances to regulate every aspect of our lives. Banning the flag, banning trucks, prohibiting smoking in a city park while bus & truck fumes fill the air. Ordinances that prohibit homeowners to let their grass get over 2" tall, or prohibit growing wildflowers or herbs. And in some cases, prohibiting backyard gardeners from GIVING AWAY their extra produce.
And now, bills presented in statehouses across the country would ban taking photos of farms without the explicit consent of farm owners, in some instances, even if such photos are taken from a public right-of-way. Such bills have been introduced recently in Florida, New York and Iowa. In addition, several states already have similar laws on the books. Distributing of photos of farms, even if taken legally, would result in a penalty of 10 years in prison in Iowa, if the law passes. The only other type of photo that can get you in prison is child pornography! So elitist legislators are putting farms right up there with child porn...yes, I understand they are trying to stop "whistle-blowers" concerning animal cruely etc., but that, in itself, is unconstitutional, and whistle-blowers help us determine when there are criminal activities. So, it seems legislators are now passing laws to protect criminals.
When are we, the sheeple going to stop allowing this? When will YOU stand against the taking away of your liberties? Or will you just wait for someone else to do it? That won't work, because too many of "those others" are waiting for YOU to do it.
We have lost huge amounts of our personal freedoms because the individual encroachments were "small", not worth complaining about. But add 100's small encroachments and before you know it we are no longer a free people. We must stop, even reverse the small ones before they get too big to tackle.
Start now. Study the zoning ordinances of your community and pinpoint at least one that curtails people's freedoms without truly good cause (it can actually and reasonably bring harm to someone, for example). Then get a petition going to repeal it. Push it. WORK at it. As Larry the Cable Guy says, "GIT-R-DUN".
And when you have successfully got back a little bit of freedom, tackle another one. And keep doing it until all the unreasonable elitists "rules" are thrown out.
And if your public officials fight you, VOTE THEM OUT. Rally the community. Impress upon the community the importance of taking our country back, community by community.
/
Friday, June 17, 2011
AARP Willing To Negotiate On Social Security Retirement Age...
Of all the arrogance and audacity! Since when did AARP become a part of Congress? It matters not if they are "willing to negotiate", as they really are not in any position to do so - Congress will do what Congress does, and AARP has no choice but to go along. What are they going to negotiate?
AARP funds a lot of far-left liberal causes, which is why I never signed up - I chose another, conservative organization that provides the same benefits. I simply cannot pay money knowingly to any company or group that will use my money to support things I an opposed to.
I also do not do business with Progressive, Geico or Ben & Jerry's, nor do I subscribe to the New York Times, TIME, or the New Yorker, all of whom fund far-left liberal causes. It's just a matter of principle.
/
AARP funds a lot of far-left liberal causes, which is why I never signed up - I chose another, conservative organization that provides the same benefits. I simply cannot pay money knowingly to any company or group that will use my money to support things I an opposed to.
I also do not do business with Progressive, Geico or Ben & Jerry's, nor do I subscribe to the New York Times, TIME, or the New Yorker, all of whom fund far-left liberal causes. It's just a matter of principle.
/
Thursday, June 16, 2011
A Better Stimulus Plan? Check it out...
Eric Bolling of Fox Business News suggested a stimulus plan that would actually help beat the recession and get us on track.
Businesses are holding a little over 3 TRILLION dollars overseas. They will never bring that money back to America because the I.R.S. would hit them with a 35% tax rate - the highest in the free world.
But what if businesses were granted "tax amnesty" on that money PROVIDED that, instead of paying 35% to the government, they are contractually bound to re-invest a minimum of 25% into jobs and equipment? After all, if we do NOT do this we would not get the 35% in taxes, anyway, because they would leave that money overseas. We lose nothing with this plan, and gain 3 trillion dollars back to America, and a trillion invested in expansion and new jobs.
Every company wants to expand - it increases their profits. So, every company with money overseas would bring it back home. And nearly a trillion dollars would be punped into creating jobs.
Best of all, that trillin dollars would not be coming out of the taxpayers pocket...
I realize that many liberals would simply complain that this is another "tax break for the rich", because they simply do not understand. So here it is - they are not going to pay any tax on that money in any case, whether we do this plan or not - they would just leave that money overseas. And the stipulation tio reinvest 25% would provide America and unemployed people with far greater benefit that the taxes would have. After all, if the government could tax that money at 35%, are you really so naive as to believe the government would use it to directly create jobs? Of course not - it would - it would be wasted on a research center for the arts, or tunnels for turtles, or $14.8 million as payback to Level 3 Corporation for getting Obama $500,000 in campaign contributions.
Frankly, I think this idea is so good that we should consider giving businesses tax amnesty altogether, provided they use the equivalent to create jobs. If not, they pay their taxes.
Imagine, if corporations were required to reinvest 35% of their net profits directly into new hires and the equipment and facilities to put them to work, instead of paying that 35% to a wasteful government? We would be out of this recession in a month.
/
Businesses are holding a little over 3 TRILLION dollars overseas. They will never bring that money back to America because the I.R.S. would hit them with a 35% tax rate - the highest in the free world.
But what if businesses were granted "tax amnesty" on that money PROVIDED that, instead of paying 35% to the government, they are contractually bound to re-invest a minimum of 25% into jobs and equipment? After all, if we do NOT do this we would not get the 35% in taxes, anyway, because they would leave that money overseas. We lose nothing with this plan, and gain 3 trillion dollars back to America, and a trillion invested in expansion and new jobs.
Every company wants to expand - it increases their profits. So, every company with money overseas would bring it back home. And nearly a trillion dollars would be punped into creating jobs.
Best of all, that trillin dollars would not be coming out of the taxpayers pocket...
I realize that many liberals would simply complain that this is another "tax break for the rich", because they simply do not understand. So here it is - they are not going to pay any tax on that money in any case, whether we do this plan or not - they would just leave that money overseas. And the stipulation tio reinvest 25% would provide America and unemployed people with far greater benefit that the taxes would have. After all, if the government could tax that money at 35%, are you really so naive as to believe the government would use it to directly create jobs? Of course not - it would - it would be wasted on a research center for the arts, or tunnels for turtles, or $14.8 million as payback to Level 3 Corporation for getting Obama $500,000 in campaign contributions.
Frankly, I think this idea is so good that we should consider giving businesses tax amnesty altogether, provided they use the equivalent to create jobs. If not, they pay their taxes.
Imagine, if corporations were required to reinvest 35% of their net profits directly into new hires and the equipment and facilities to put them to work, instead of paying that 35% to a wasteful government? We would be out of this recession in a month.
/
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The "Greenies" Want Us To Become Vegetarian, But...
I keep hearing "greenies" and far-left folks saying the way to save our planet from "climate change" is to become vegetarians. They claim it would reduce carbon emissions dramatically.
I find several HUGE flaws in their (un)reasoning... #4 is the greatest flaw
1) Man was designed by nature to be an omnivore (both meat and plants). It is what our bodies are designed for. The tooth structure of an animal determines the natural diet - herbivores (plant eaters) do not have canine teeth. Carnivores (meat eaters) have primarily canine teeth. Omnivores, like Man, have both types of teeth.
2) Only meats have complete proteins, and only meats have all the necessary amino acids required by the human body
3) Studies that have shown no difference in health between meat eaters and vegetarians were based on meats raised commercially. But in studies where the meat eaters consumed naturally raised lean meats, the meat eaters were substantially healthier with fewer medical issues. Naturally raised meats have far less fat, and the fat it does have is of a healthier type.
4) If our society were to become vegetarian, the "unintended consequences" that liberals never consider include all of the following:
a) the meat industry employs millions of people - all of whom would suddenly be unemployed
b) all farm crops require fertilizer. Except for the "un-green" and unhealthy chemical fertilizers, the ONLY source of fertilizer is animal manure - which comes from animals raised for meat. Vegetarians = no meat animals = no fertilizer = no crops = world-wide starvation.
c) if every acre of available land were used to produce crops, it would not produce enough to feed us all
d) it takes a lot more fossil fuels to raise crops than meat.
If these nutcases would at least take the time out from pushing their agenda long enough to consider the consequences (not to mention facts), they might still be vegetarians - but might not be so quick to try and pidgeon-hole the rest of us.
As for me - bring the cow and pass the A-1.
/
I find several HUGE flaws in their (un)reasoning... #4 is the greatest flaw
1) Man was designed by nature to be an omnivore (both meat and plants). It is what our bodies are designed for. The tooth structure of an animal determines the natural diet - herbivores (plant eaters) do not have canine teeth. Carnivores (meat eaters) have primarily canine teeth. Omnivores, like Man, have both types of teeth.
2) Only meats have complete proteins, and only meats have all the necessary amino acids required by the human body
3) Studies that have shown no difference in health between meat eaters and vegetarians were based on meats raised commercially. But in studies where the meat eaters consumed naturally raised lean meats, the meat eaters were substantially healthier with fewer medical issues. Naturally raised meats have far less fat, and the fat it does have is of a healthier type.
4) If our society were to become vegetarian, the "unintended consequences" that liberals never consider include all of the following:
a) the meat industry employs millions of people - all of whom would suddenly be unemployed
b) all farm crops require fertilizer. Except for the "un-green" and unhealthy chemical fertilizers, the ONLY source of fertilizer is animal manure - which comes from animals raised for meat. Vegetarians = no meat animals = no fertilizer = no crops = world-wide starvation.
c) if every acre of available land were used to produce crops, it would not produce enough to feed us all
d) it takes a lot more fossil fuels to raise crops than meat.
If these nutcases would at least take the time out from pushing their agenda long enough to consider the consequences (not to mention facts), they might still be vegetarians - but might not be so quick to try and pidgeon-hole the rest of us.
As for me - bring the cow and pass the A-1.
/
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Why Last Nights Debate Was Disappointing...
As I watched the Republican debate in New Hampshire last evening, I almost felt sick - it was a disgusting display.
The questions were downright stupid and had little or nothing to do with substance. For example, each candidate was asked a "this or that" question. SAMPLE: Pawlenty was asked if he preferred Coke or Pepsi.
Excuse me, but how is that relevant?
I so very much wanted to hear at least one of the candidates say, "If you wish to ask a question that pertains to why we are here, I'll gladly answer. But if you are going to waste everyone's time with your childish drivel, count me out."
And when a solid question was asked, the answers were always "canned" - no specifics or substance. Call me old-fashioned, but I would have liked to hear solutions - exactly how would they deal with these issues? Instead, we got the obvious sound bytes like, "Obama will be a one-term president."
Hey, politicians - Americans are sick and tired of hype and BS. We want to hear SOLUTIONS. If someone asks your thoughts on illegal immigration, we don't want to hear, "I will crack down." Instead, we want to hear HOW you would crack down.
So far, the only one putting out actual solutions is Gingrich. Too bad he is so GOP and not grass-roots conservative.
I hope future debates will actually be debates, and not just Q&A Bull Sessions with canned responses that mean nothing.
/
The questions were downright stupid and had little or nothing to do with substance. For example, each candidate was asked a "this or that" question. SAMPLE: Pawlenty was asked if he preferred Coke or Pepsi.
Excuse me, but how is that relevant?
I so very much wanted to hear at least one of the candidates say, "If you wish to ask a question that pertains to why we are here, I'll gladly answer. But if you are going to waste everyone's time with your childish drivel, count me out."
And when a solid question was asked, the answers were always "canned" - no specifics or substance. Call me old-fashioned, but I would have liked to hear solutions - exactly how would they deal with these issues? Instead, we got the obvious sound bytes like, "Obama will be a one-term president."
Hey, politicians - Americans are sick and tired of hype and BS. We want to hear SOLUTIONS. If someone asks your thoughts on illegal immigration, we don't want to hear, "I will crack down." Instead, we want to hear HOW you would crack down.
So far, the only one putting out actual solutions is Gingrich. Too bad he is so GOP and not grass-roots conservative.
I hope future debates will actually be debates, and not just Q&A Bull Sessions with canned responses that mean nothing.
/
QUESTION: Which Party Most Supported Civil Rights? Facts May Surprise you...
Every now and again some liberal comes out and praises the Democrat party for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and calling Republicans racist for opposing it. And that always ticks me off because it is so blatantly untrue, as the Congressional Record shows. As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]
As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their own lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again - here are the actual facts...
The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the life-long senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr..
In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; with 92 of the 103 southern Democrats votong against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
The ONLY reason the Democrats claim to be the party of Civil Rights is because the president who signed the bill happened to be a Democrat (Johnson). But it was the Republicans who broke the filibuster and got the bill passed because of the wide majority of them that voted for it.
Before the Senate could even consider the bill, it had to pass in the House. In the House, the Democrats had an overwhelming majority (248 to 172), yet the Democrats could not come up with a 2/3 majority in favor of Civil Rights. It was the 80% of Republicans that got the bill pushed through.
The short take - in both the House and the Senate, only 61-69% of the Democrats favored Civil Rights, while 80-82% of Republicans favored it. And it was Democrats who filibustered against it - for a whopping 74 days.
/
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]
As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their own lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again - here are the actual facts...
The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the life-long senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr..
In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; with 92 of the 103 southern Democrats votong against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
The ONLY reason the Democrats claim to be the party of Civil Rights is because the president who signed the bill happened to be a Democrat (Johnson). But it was the Republicans who broke the filibuster and got the bill passed because of the wide majority of them that voted for it.
Before the Senate could even consider the bill, it had to pass in the House. In the House, the Democrats had an overwhelming majority (248 to 172), yet the Democrats could not come up with a 2/3 majority in favor of Civil Rights. It was the 80% of Republicans that got the bill pushed through.
The short take - in both the House and the Senate, only 61-69% of the Democrats favored Civil Rights, while 80-82% of Republicans favored it. And it was Democrats who filibustered against it - for a whopping 74 days.
/
Monday, June 13, 2011
More (Very) Bad News For The Palin Haters...
The liberal media, in an attempt to discredit Ms Palin, hired to "independent analysts" (Democrats, of course) to analyze Palin's emails for communication and writing skills, expecting to be able to prove once and for all that Ms Palin is as dumb as they have been portraying her. And that is when they got the bad news...
According to one of the analysts, 2tor Chief Executive Officer John Katzman, "If she were a student and showing me her work, I'd say 'It's fine, clear writing,'" he said, admitting that emails he wrote scored lower than Palin's on the widely used Flesch-Kincaid readability test. I'm a centrist Democrat, and would have loved to support my hunch that Ms. Palin is illiterate. However, the emails say something else."
"She came in as a solid communicator," said Paul J.J. Payack, president of the Global Language Monitor. The emails registered as an 8.2 on his version of the test. "That's typical for a corporate executive."
"She's very concise. She gives clear orders. Her sentences and punctuations are logical," Payack said. "She has much more of a disciplined mind than she's given credit for."
Although it's like comparing apples to oranges, Payack said that famous speeches like Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was a 9.1 and Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" oration rated a 8.8 on the scale.
Oh, my. It seems the media, the democrats and all who have been spouting that Sarah Palin is dumb may have to stop by for a serving of crow.
But as I have always said, how dumb can a person be if they get elected mayor, elected governor, have an 82% approval rating as governor (highest in the nation), nominated for VP, authors two best-sellers, did a successful reality show, and packs the political power to sway elections all over the country.
Hey there, Tina Fey - maybe it's time for you to mock someone more deserving. Can you do Michael Moore?
/
According to one of the analysts, 2tor Chief Executive Officer John Katzman, "If she were a student and showing me her work, I'd say 'It's fine, clear writing,'" he said, admitting that emails he wrote scored lower than Palin's on the widely used Flesch-Kincaid readability test. I'm a centrist Democrat, and would have loved to support my hunch that Ms. Palin is illiterate. However, the emails say something else."
"She came in as a solid communicator," said Paul J.J. Payack, president of the Global Language Monitor. The emails registered as an 8.2 on his version of the test. "That's typical for a corporate executive."
"She's very concise. She gives clear orders. Her sentences and punctuations are logical," Payack said. "She has much more of a disciplined mind than she's given credit for."
Although it's like comparing apples to oranges, Payack said that famous speeches like Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was a 9.1 and Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" oration rated a 8.8 on the scale.
Oh, my. It seems the media, the democrats and all who have been spouting that Sarah Palin is dumb may have to stop by for a serving of crow.
But as I have always said, how dumb can a person be if they get elected mayor, elected governor, have an 82% approval rating as governor (highest in the nation), nominated for VP, authors two best-sellers, did a successful reality show, and packs the political power to sway elections all over the country.
Hey there, Tina Fey - maybe it's time for you to mock someone more deserving. Can you do Michael Moore?
/
Saturday, June 11, 2011
The Media Is Going Nuts Over This...
For three long years the media, with few exceptions, spent millions trying to excoriate and smear Sarah Palin. And when it was announced that 24,000 of her emails would be released, the media licked their chops in anticipation of finally having solid evidence that Palin is the evil dum-dum they believe she is. The New York Times and Washington Post even solicited the assistance of readers in trying to dig dirt from the emails.
Suddenly, the media seems to be rather quiet on the subject. Except for AP which, in spite of their obvious liberal bent, at least had enough honor to print this today:
"JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — There are no bombshells, no "gotcha" moments.
"The emails of Sarah Palin — more than 24,000 pages of them released Friday by the state of Alaska from her first two years as governor — paint a picture of an image-conscious, driven leader, closely involved with the day-to-day duties of running the state and riding herd on the signature issues of her administration.
"The messages give a behind-the-scenes look at a politician who burst onto the national stage after serving as Wasilla mayor and less than two years as Alaska governor. They show a woman striving to balance work and home, fiercely protective of her family and highly sensitive to media coverage. She expressed a sometimes mothering side with aides but also was quick to demand answers or accountability."
WOW! The article goes on to point out that she was hard-hitting on important issues, and dealt with them effectively. Apparently, she EARNED her 80% approval rating while governor.
It must really grate on the lamestream media that instead of finding proof that they were right about Palin, it appears the opposite is true - that she is a hard-working, dedicated, solid leader.
What do you wanna bet that Tina Fey does not do a skit about these new revelations
/
Suddenly, the media seems to be rather quiet on the subject. Except for AP which, in spite of their obvious liberal bent, at least had enough honor to print this today:
"JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — There are no bombshells, no "gotcha" moments.
"The emails of Sarah Palin — more than 24,000 pages of them released Friday by the state of Alaska from her first two years as governor — paint a picture of an image-conscious, driven leader, closely involved with the day-to-day duties of running the state and riding herd on the signature issues of her administration.
"The messages give a behind-the-scenes look at a politician who burst onto the national stage after serving as Wasilla mayor and less than two years as Alaska governor. They show a woman striving to balance work and home, fiercely protective of her family and highly sensitive to media coverage. She expressed a sometimes mothering side with aides but also was quick to demand answers or accountability."
WOW! The article goes on to point out that she was hard-hitting on important issues, and dealt with them effectively. Apparently, she EARNED her 80% approval rating while governor.
It must really grate on the lamestream media that instead of finding proof that they were right about Palin, it appears the opposite is true - that she is a hard-working, dedicated, solid leader.
What do you wanna bet that Tina Fey does not do a skit about these new revelations
/
Friday, June 10, 2011
Palin vs Obama - If Easy Win For Obama, Why Are They So Afraid Of Her?
To hear the Democrats and liberal media tell it, they say they would like "nothing better than for Palin to win the Republican nomination", because it would "insure an Obama win."
But if that is true, then why are they so deathly afraid of Palin?
Today the New York Times and Washington Post openly "deputized" their readers to seek out dirt on Palin. Never in the history of the free press has any media actively solicited their readers to dig up dirt on someone. That is supposed to be what reporters are for.
But the important point here is that these bastions of liberal ideology are desperate to knock Palin OUT of the race, even before she decides whether she will run. So it is painfully obvious the liberals really and truly do NOT want Palin to have a chance to be the nominee.
But if Palin is as stupid as they claim, and if she would have no chance at beating Obama, why on Earth are they tripping over themselves to destroy her and prevent a Palin nomination?
I think it is because Palin, if she were to win the nomination, would galvanize not only the Republican base, but also the Tea Partiers and many independents, regardless of what current polls show. The fact that Palin cannot sneeze without media coverage is a sure sign of the raw power of the woman.
So, I am torn - one the one hand, I don't think Palin is ready to lead our great nation (yet). But on the other hand, I would love to hear the lamestream media wail and moan and watch as they implode if she were to become president despite their best concerted efforts to destroy her. It would be poetic justice.
/
But if that is true, then why are they so deathly afraid of Palin?
Today the New York Times and Washington Post openly "deputized" their readers to seek out dirt on Palin. Never in the history of the free press has any media actively solicited their readers to dig up dirt on someone. That is supposed to be what reporters are for.
But the important point here is that these bastions of liberal ideology are desperate to knock Palin OUT of the race, even before she decides whether she will run. So it is painfully obvious the liberals really and truly do NOT want Palin to have a chance to be the nominee.
But if Palin is as stupid as they claim, and if she would have no chance at beating Obama, why on Earth are they tripping over themselves to destroy her and prevent a Palin nomination?
I think it is because Palin, if she were to win the nomination, would galvanize not only the Republican base, but also the Tea Partiers and many independents, regardless of what current polls show. The fact that Palin cannot sneeze without media coverage is a sure sign of the raw power of the woman.
So, I am torn - one the one hand, I don't think Palin is ready to lead our great nation (yet). But on the other hand, I would love to hear the lamestream media wail and moan and watch as they implode if she were to become president despite their best concerted efforts to destroy her. It would be poetic justice.
/
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Raising the minimum wage - what is it they just don't get????
Once again liberals are harping to raise the minimum wage. They think it is fair, and they believe it will help the economy. Wrong on both counts.
First, the myth that it is "fair". The only thing that is fair is to allow free market to do its job.It is fair to pay more only when someone earns more. It is never, ever fair to manipulate the economy for all, simply to benefit the few. A manipulated economy always - ALWAYS - fails.
But the more important point is that it would actually harm, not help the economy.Why is it that liberals cannot grasp the simple fact that every increase in cost to business, whether higher taxes, more regulation or forced increases in wages, must be passed on to consumers. No business has a money tree, nor can they print their own money. In order to pay employees more, the business must add those costs into the price of their products and services.
And when costs of goods rise, the economy suffers. So, if the minimum wage is raised by 10%, for example, most of the products they use will also rise, and collectively those cost increases not only wipe out their increase, but often reduces the value of the rest of their income.
Don't believe it? Consider...
Let us say you own a widget company. You sell 1000 widgets a month for $10 each. You gross is $10,000 per month. After costs, your net (about the national average) is 20%, or $2,000. It takes 3 employees to make those, and you pay each employee $1000/month.
Now you are forced to pay those employees $1100 per month. This reduces your net to only $1700. You cannot afford to take a pay cut just to increase the wages for your employees - you, too, have bills to pay. So, to continue getting your $2000 per month, the cost of each widget must be increased to $10.30.
But no - it must go up more, because the vendors who supply you the materials, and your advertising, and everything else has also gone up because they, too, had to increase wages and pass on costs. So, your $10 widget now costs $11.00.
You employees, who think they got a raise, are now paying more for their widgets, their Ramen, their clothes, their food and everything else. And so do the rest of us, who already earn more than minimum. This reduces the availability of cash to invest, save or otherwise boost the economy.
So much for the raise. The only thing that was raised was inflation and false hopes.
Let free market work. Assume there is only one dishwasher. If Joe's restaurant pays his dishwashers $8/hour, then Mike's restaurant must pay more in order to get the dishwasher to work for him. Then Joe must offer more, to keep his diswasher. And this competition in a free market will raise wages to where they are most efficient. As pay increases because of competition for dishwashers, more and more people will be willing to wash dishes. Eventually there will be enough dishwashers for both restaurants, paying a wage that is fair.
Capitalism works - but only if the governments stays out of it and stops trying to manipulate it.
/
First, the myth that it is "fair". The only thing that is fair is to allow free market to do its job.It is fair to pay more only when someone earns more. It is never, ever fair to manipulate the economy for all, simply to benefit the few. A manipulated economy always - ALWAYS - fails.
But the more important point is that it would actually harm, not help the economy.Why is it that liberals cannot grasp the simple fact that every increase in cost to business, whether higher taxes, more regulation or forced increases in wages, must be passed on to consumers. No business has a money tree, nor can they print their own money. In order to pay employees more, the business must add those costs into the price of their products and services.
And when costs of goods rise, the economy suffers. So, if the minimum wage is raised by 10%, for example, most of the products they use will also rise, and collectively those cost increases not only wipe out their increase, but often reduces the value of the rest of their income.
Don't believe it? Consider...
Let us say you own a widget company. You sell 1000 widgets a month for $10 each. You gross is $10,000 per month. After costs, your net (about the national average) is 20%, or $2,000. It takes 3 employees to make those, and you pay each employee $1000/month.
Now you are forced to pay those employees $1100 per month. This reduces your net to only $1700. You cannot afford to take a pay cut just to increase the wages for your employees - you, too, have bills to pay. So, to continue getting your $2000 per month, the cost of each widget must be increased to $10.30.
But no - it must go up more, because the vendors who supply you the materials, and your advertising, and everything else has also gone up because they, too, had to increase wages and pass on costs. So, your $10 widget now costs $11.00.
You employees, who think they got a raise, are now paying more for their widgets, their Ramen, their clothes, their food and everything else. And so do the rest of us, who already earn more than minimum. This reduces the availability of cash to invest, save or otherwise boost the economy.
So much for the raise. The only thing that was raised was inflation and false hopes.
Let free market work. Assume there is only one dishwasher. If Joe's restaurant pays his dishwashers $8/hour, then Mike's restaurant must pay more in order to get the dishwasher to work for him. Then Joe must offer more, to keep his diswasher. And this competition in a free market will raise wages to where they are most efficient. As pay increases because of competition for dishwashers, more and more people will be willing to wash dishes. Eventually there will be enough dishwashers for both restaurants, paying a wage that is fair.
Capitalism works - but only if the governments stays out of it and stops trying to manipulate it.
/
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Who Says Schools Do Not Exploit Or Indoctrinate Our Children...
A North Carolina lawmaker's daughter and her third-grade class were instructed by their teacherr to write to him and other elected officials protesting possible cuts in state education spending.
Republican state Rep. Mike Stone says his daughter asked in her note to "please raise the budget, dad" and help keep two teacher assistants employed.
Republican lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue are at odds over the budget that is on her desk to either sign or veto.Some in education say the proposed spending plan could eliminate 9,300 positions in the public schools. Republicans have said those numbers are exaggerated.
Lee County Schools Superintendent Jeff Moss told WRAL-TV he didn't see the writing exercise as a problem.
OK - so the Superintendent sees nothing wrong with exploiting children, indoctrinating children, or brainwashing them with only one side of a story. So I guess he also would not find a problem with the fact that his teachers are teaching the kids WHAT to think (propaganda) rather than HOW to thing (education).
Is it any wonder our great country is rotting from within?
/
Republican state Rep. Mike Stone says his daughter asked in her note to "please raise the budget, dad" and help keep two teacher assistants employed.
Republican lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue are at odds over the budget that is on her desk to either sign or veto.Some in education say the proposed spending plan could eliminate 9,300 positions in the public schools. Republicans have said those numbers are exaggerated.
Lee County Schools Superintendent Jeff Moss told WRAL-TV he didn't see the writing exercise as a problem.
OK - so the Superintendent sees nothing wrong with exploiting children, indoctrinating children, or brainwashing them with only one side of a story. So I guess he also would not find a problem with the fact that his teachers are teaching the kids WHAT to think (propaganda) rather than HOW to thing (education).
Is it any wonder our great country is rotting from within?
/
Monday, June 6, 2011
It's Not The Lewd Pix, Or Even The Lies - the REAL Reason Weiner Should Resign...
Congressman Weiner should resign immediately. Not just because he sent lewd pictures to young women, and not just because he told so many lies about it, and tried to lay the blame on others. No, it's much more than that. It is more than a violation of honor and respectability.
Consider this - a Congressman writes the laws for our nation, and decides where our tax money will go. The most deangerous thing that any Congressman can do is put himself in a position where he could be blackmailed. Blackmailed into betraying his constituents, or his country.
What Mr Weiner did placed every one of us at risk. If anyone in receipt of those emails and pix were to say to Weiner, "I'll take these to the press unless you vote this way or that," just what do you think he would do? Bear in mind - the ONLY reason he admitted his guilt today is because more - and worse - pictures showed up, and he had no choice but to confess.
Then there is the matter of JUDGEMENT. Anyone who judgement is so atrocious that he would do something this stupid - and do it multiple times - does not have the judgement necessary to help lead our nation, write our laws or spend our money.
Mr. Weiner - do the honorable thing - resign quietly.
/
Consider this - a Congressman writes the laws for our nation, and decides where our tax money will go. The most deangerous thing that any Congressman can do is put himself in a position where he could be blackmailed. Blackmailed into betraying his constituents, or his country.
What Mr Weiner did placed every one of us at risk. If anyone in receipt of those emails and pix were to say to Weiner, "I'll take these to the press unless you vote this way or that," just what do you think he would do? Bear in mind - the ONLY reason he admitted his guilt today is because more - and worse - pictures showed up, and he had no choice but to confess.
Then there is the matter of JUDGEMENT. Anyone who judgement is so atrocious that he would do something this stupid - and do it multiple times - does not have the judgement necessary to help lead our nation, write our laws or spend our money.
Mr. Weiner - do the honorable thing - resign quietly.
/
Sunday, June 5, 2011
HuffPost/AOL - the place to go if you want to watch ignorance in action...
More laughs from the less-than-educated folks at HuffingtonPost/AOL:
Sarah Palin made comments about Paul Revere, stating that, prior to his famous ride, he had warned the British they would not take away our arms.
Some of the folks at HuffPost/AOL made the following comments - each is followed by my own, more factual comments:
JohnTheMac
"They weren't going to take our arms away"???
huh?
Where is that from?
That was a time when common people needed guns! What a jack@ss!
I never read anything like that!
She's smoking a peace pipe, and blowing the smoke up NRA members butts!
[EDITOR - I really hate to break this to you, JohntheMac, but the British had already begun confiscating arms from the colonists under the order of the King. Just prior to the start of the Revolution, colonists had to attack Fort William & Mary to retreive the confiscated weapons. So perhaps you should brush up on your history before spouting tripe. And for the record, "common people" still need guns. A lot of "common folk" would starve if they could not hunt and fish. And in our cities, the unarmed citizen is what is known as "prey".]
Reincarnation TPS
Is folksy another way of saying dvmb................
[EDITOR - Is "dvmb" a liberal's way of spelling "dumb'? Anyone who cannot spell "dumb" should not be calling anyone else dumb.]
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR HarukoHaruhara
Here is the difference between PaIin and Obama, troIIs.
If you were to ask Obama about "57 states," he would say, "Of course I misspoke. I know there are 50. I meant 57 states and territories."
When Sarah PaIin is asked about her ignorant Paul Revere comments, she doubles down on the ignorance.
[EDITOR - Wow - one of Huffpost's "moderators"! So pleasant and civil, calling those who disagree as "trolls". As for Obama "meaning" 57 states and territories, that is bogus - he said he had CAMPAIGNED in 57 states. And he never campaigned in the territories, because they do not vote for President. So, HuffPost Moderator, you are spinning, as usual. And for the record, Palin's comments were factually correct.]
Jeff Klenck
goodbye Sarah we've finally "gotcha".......you can't rewrite history and no sane person would ever allow you too.
[EDITOR - First, the word you are looking for is "to", not "too", and we learn in 3rd grade grammar that you do not end a sentence with a preposition. Not that you would know what a preposition is, however. Strange how all you libs call Palin dumb... And it is very telling that you seem to be admitting that you libs are actively trying to get Palin with "gotcha" questions. As for rewriting history, these posts by the HuffPost libs prove that no one can rewrite history like the liberals. Palin is factually correct.
floridanorm
Shame on you people giving Sarah a hard time about her Paul Revere Statement. She witnessed the whole Paul Revere episode on her porch in Alaska while patroling for Russians on their shoreline!
[EDOTOR - this is the same kind of lame attempt at sarcastic comedy that SNL used to propagate the story that Palin said she could see Russia from her house. The fact that it was only Tina Fey and not Palin who made that comment seems to elude liberals. So now can we expect libs to start saying Palin patrols for Russians on the shore? Why is it impossible for liberals to be civil, and try to argue their points based on the merits of their argument, and not just write this claptrap?]
HUFFPOST SUPER USERDimplezzz2002
What she (Sarah) should do is just keep her mouth shut. Don't speak in public, don't answer any questions, don't provide any commentary.
She uttered this nonsense in front of her daughter. As they say, "It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
[EDITOR - You should have stuck to being thought a fool rather than remove all doubt. A heads up - this is America, where everyone has the right to speak out - even you. Conservatives never attempt to shut liberals up, but libs are always trying to shut up conservatives. If you doubt that, look at the record - every time a conservative speaks in public, they get pies thrown at them, rushed onstage, or heckled. I have yet to see that happen to libs. And once more - Palin was factually correct. If libs were not so intent on rewriting history, you would know that.]
HUFFPOST SUPER USERStephen Babin
It's bad enough that Sarah is the stupidest politician in history , but she won't even admit
when she is wrong, which is most of the time. She can't even get basic facts on basic
history. If we got attacked, she wouldn't know which country to attack, so she's like Bush.
[EDITOR - People so full of hate and ignorance. Let's see - there is no such word as "stupidest", so who is the most stupid? And she is not wrong. As for her intellect, it obviously far exceeds yours, since she got through college, got elected mayor, got elected governor and had an 82% approval rating, got chosen for VP nominee, wrote two best sellers, had a hit reality show - and does not say "stupidest" - um, may I ask what YOU have accomplished in just 15 years? By the way - Bush graduated Yale. How 'bout you?]
Look, folks, although I respect Palin I am not a big fan. But anyone who says she is stupid, dumb etc. is being nothing less than stupid, themselves. Palin is VERY bright - you have to be in order to accomplish what she has, and in such a short time. Who else can command 24/7 media attention without even trying? Not even Obama. And unlike Obama, she does not need a teleprompter, and is not befuddled when it breaks down.
I remember when Palin warned Tea Partiers "not to party like the Tea Partiers in 1773", and the liberal media excoriated her for getting the date wrong. They insisted it was 1776. But upon checking, they later discovered, to their horror of ignorance, that the Tea Party did, indeed, take place in 1773. The Revolution did not begin for another three years - 1776. So, it seems the lib media rewrites history simply because they do not KNOW history, so they make it up as they go along.
As for rewriting history - it is the liberals who have written books and produced movies that cheer the greatness of Che & Mao. And despite actual letters written by the founders, it is liberals who keep rewriting history to say they were atheists, or did not want religion in the public square or in government.
Frankly, the one thing in this world that could make this world 100% better would be for liberals to be honest, and stop spinning everything to push their agenda. The truth is far more important than any agenda. If you have to spin in order to make your point, then you really don't have a point.
/
Sarah Palin made comments about Paul Revere, stating that, prior to his famous ride, he had warned the British they would not take away our arms.
Some of the folks at HuffPost/AOL made the following comments - each is followed by my own, more factual comments:
JohnTheMac
"They weren't going to take our arms away"???
huh?
Where is that from?
That was a time when common people needed guns! What a jack@ss!
I never read anything like that!
She's smoking a peace pipe, and blowing the smoke up NRA members butts!
[EDITOR - I really hate to break this to you, JohntheMac, but the British had already begun confiscating arms from the colonists under the order of the King. Just prior to the start of the Revolution, colonists had to attack Fort William & Mary to retreive the confiscated weapons. So perhaps you should brush up on your history before spouting tripe. And for the record, "common people" still need guns. A lot of "common folk" would starve if they could not hunt and fish. And in our cities, the unarmed citizen is what is known as "prey".]
Reincarnation TPS
Is folksy another way of saying dvmb................
[EDITOR - Is "dvmb" a liberal's way of spelling "dumb'? Anyone who cannot spell "dumb" should not be calling anyone else dumb.]
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR HarukoHaruhara
Here is the difference between PaIin and Obama, troIIs.
If you were to ask Obama about "57 states," he would say, "Of course I misspoke. I know there are 50. I meant 57 states and territories."
When Sarah PaIin is asked about her ignorant Paul Revere comments, she doubles down on the ignorance.
[EDITOR - Wow - one of Huffpost's "moderators"! So pleasant and civil, calling those who disagree as "trolls". As for Obama "meaning" 57 states and territories, that is bogus - he said he had CAMPAIGNED in 57 states. And he never campaigned in the territories, because they do not vote for President. So, HuffPost Moderator, you are spinning, as usual. And for the record, Palin's comments were factually correct.]
Jeff Klenck
goodbye Sarah we've finally "gotcha".......you can't rewrite history and no sane person would ever allow you too.
[EDITOR - First, the word you are looking for is "to", not "too", and we learn in 3rd grade grammar that you do not end a sentence with a preposition. Not that you would know what a preposition is, however. Strange how all you libs call Palin dumb... And it is very telling that you seem to be admitting that you libs are actively trying to get Palin with "gotcha" questions. As for rewriting history, these posts by the HuffPost libs prove that no one can rewrite history like the liberals. Palin is factually correct.
floridanorm
Shame on you people giving Sarah a hard time about her Paul Revere Statement. She witnessed the whole Paul Revere episode on her porch in Alaska while patroling for Russians on their shoreline!
[EDOTOR - this is the same kind of lame attempt at sarcastic comedy that SNL used to propagate the story that Palin said she could see Russia from her house. The fact that it was only Tina Fey and not Palin who made that comment seems to elude liberals. So now can we expect libs to start saying Palin patrols for Russians on the shore? Why is it impossible for liberals to be civil, and try to argue their points based on the merits of their argument, and not just write this claptrap?]
HUFFPOST SUPER USERDimplezzz2002
What she (Sarah) should do is just keep her mouth shut. Don't speak in public, don't answer any questions, don't provide any commentary.
She uttered this nonsense in front of her daughter. As they say, "It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
[EDITOR - You should have stuck to being thought a fool rather than remove all doubt. A heads up - this is America, where everyone has the right to speak out - even you. Conservatives never attempt to shut liberals up, but libs are always trying to shut up conservatives. If you doubt that, look at the record - every time a conservative speaks in public, they get pies thrown at them, rushed onstage, or heckled. I have yet to see that happen to libs. And once more - Palin was factually correct. If libs were not so intent on rewriting history, you would know that.]
HUFFPOST SUPER USERStephen Babin
It's bad enough that Sarah is the stupidest politician in history , but she won't even admit
when she is wrong, which is most of the time. She can't even get basic facts on basic
history. If we got attacked, she wouldn't know which country to attack, so she's like Bush.
[EDITOR - People so full of hate and ignorance. Let's see - there is no such word as "stupidest", so who is the most stupid? And she is not wrong. As for her intellect, it obviously far exceeds yours, since she got through college, got elected mayor, got elected governor and had an 82% approval rating, got chosen for VP nominee, wrote two best sellers, had a hit reality show - and does not say "stupidest" - um, may I ask what YOU have accomplished in just 15 years? By the way - Bush graduated Yale. How 'bout you?]
Look, folks, although I respect Palin I am not a big fan. But anyone who says she is stupid, dumb etc. is being nothing less than stupid, themselves. Palin is VERY bright - you have to be in order to accomplish what she has, and in such a short time. Who else can command 24/7 media attention without even trying? Not even Obama. And unlike Obama, she does not need a teleprompter, and is not befuddled when it breaks down.
I remember when Palin warned Tea Partiers "not to party like the Tea Partiers in 1773", and the liberal media excoriated her for getting the date wrong. They insisted it was 1776. But upon checking, they later discovered, to their horror of ignorance, that the Tea Party did, indeed, take place in 1773. The Revolution did not begin for another three years - 1776. So, it seems the lib media rewrites history simply because they do not KNOW history, so they make it up as they go along.
As for rewriting history - it is the liberals who have written books and produced movies that cheer the greatness of Che & Mao. And despite actual letters written by the founders, it is liberals who keep rewriting history to say they were atheists, or did not want religion in the public square or in government.
Frankly, the one thing in this world that could make this world 100% better would be for liberals to be honest, and stop spinning everything to push their agenda. The truth is far more important than any agenda. If you have to spin in order to make your point, then you really don't have a point.
/
Saturday, June 4, 2011
What's Wrong With This Picture (Congressman Weiner)
You have undoubtedly heard about the lewd twitter from Congressman Anthony Weiner's Twitter account to a 21 year old college girl. It included a picture of Weiner in his undershorts.
Weiner says he did not send it - that someone hacked into his account. But he will not permit an investigation by authorities to determine who is responsible.
Weiner has hired an attorney and a private firm to investigate. But Twitter's policy states it will not provide information about postings without a subpoena, court order or other legal documents, raising questions about why law enforcement wasn't investigating a possible cybercrime against a member of Congress.
Kimberly Schneider, a spokeswoman for the Capitol Police, said Thursday the department was not probing the incident, because "we have not been asked to investigate."
By hiring a private firm, Weiner controls the release of information about the investigation.
This begs the question, "WHY?"
If someone hacks into a sitting (and newly married) congressman's account and sends lewd images to unsuspecting young girls, and compromises his integrity, his marriage and his chance of being elected mayor of New York City, why would he go to such lengths to actually prevent finding out who the responsible person is? Wouldn't he want to prove, as quickly as possible, that HE did not send it?
And another point to ponder - the image actually is of Mr. Weiner in his undershorts - actually, just a close-up. And a reasonable person would wonder why Weiner took such a picture of himself and put it on his computer to begin with.
A shrink would say it is a sign of dire narcissism. And that same shrink would probably say anyone who is that narcissistic would eventually send that picture to someone.
I would like to give Weiner the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, it is Weiner, himself, that fosters the doubt.
Authorize an investigation by the Capitol police or the FBI, Mr. Weiner. Otherwise, accept responsibility for being the culprit.
/
Weiner says he did not send it - that someone hacked into his account. But he will not permit an investigation by authorities to determine who is responsible.
Weiner has hired an attorney and a private firm to investigate. But Twitter's policy states it will not provide information about postings without a subpoena, court order or other legal documents, raising questions about why law enforcement wasn't investigating a possible cybercrime against a member of Congress.
Kimberly Schneider, a spokeswoman for the Capitol Police, said Thursday the department was not probing the incident, because "we have not been asked to investigate."
By hiring a private firm, Weiner controls the release of information about the investigation.
This begs the question, "WHY?"
If someone hacks into a sitting (and newly married) congressman's account and sends lewd images to unsuspecting young girls, and compromises his integrity, his marriage and his chance of being elected mayor of New York City, why would he go to such lengths to actually prevent finding out who the responsible person is? Wouldn't he want to prove, as quickly as possible, that HE did not send it?
And another point to ponder - the image actually is of Mr. Weiner in his undershorts - actually, just a close-up. And a reasonable person would wonder why Weiner took such a picture of himself and put it on his computer to begin with.
A shrink would say it is a sign of dire narcissism. And that same shrink would probably say anyone who is that narcissistic would eventually send that picture to someone.
I would like to give Weiner the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, it is Weiner, himself, that fosters the doubt.
Authorize an investigation by the Capitol police or the FBI, Mr. Weiner. Otherwise, accept responsibility for being the culprit.
/
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Time To Tick Off Millions Again...
The way I see it, the drug cartels are committing murders on a daily basis. They are able to do this because of the vast sums of cash they make from drugs, which provides their source of power. So, if a person were to add one and one and come up with two, then it appears anyone who buys drugs that originated south of the border are, in reality, accessories to murder. It is the drug user who provides the cartels with the cash, and therefore the power and means to commit all those murders.
Anyone who doubts this should ask themselves if there would be any murdering drug cartels if no one was using - or buying - their drugs. No market means no money. Mo money means no power. No power means no cartels.
Folks, you can color it any way you wish. And you can even try to dismiss this. But that does not change the facts. And the hard, cold fact here is that by buying drugs, a person enables and empowers - supports - the drug cartels. And that makes any buyer of drugs an accessory to the crimes they commit.
Hey, I said I was going to tick off a lot of folks. But it is not my fault if people who use illegal drugs refuse to accept the responsiblity of the consequences of their choices. A person can close their eyes to the havoc created from drug money, but that does not make it any less real.
Anyone who doubts this should ask themselves if there would be any murdering drug cartels if no one was using - or buying - their drugs. No market means no money. Mo money means no power. No power means no cartels.
Folks, you can color it any way you wish. And you can even try to dismiss this. But that does not change the facts. And the hard, cold fact here is that by buying drugs, a person enables and empowers - supports - the drug cartels. And that makes any buyer of drugs an accessory to the crimes they commit.
Hey, I said I was going to tick off a lot of folks. But it is not my fault if people who use illegal drugs refuse to accept the responsiblity of the consequences of their choices. A person can close their eyes to the havoc created from drug money, but that does not make it any less real.
I don't get this, about the Democrats & Medicare...
Everyone is aware that, in its present form, Medicare will be bankrupt in 13 years or less. That is a fact. The Republicans are trying to deal with it, to keep it solvent by offering options for those under age 55 (no elderly folks are affected).
But the Democrats demonize the Republican plan. Yet, they offer none of their own except, as one Democrat Congressman said this morning, "We will insist to the President that he not change Medicare; to keep it a guaranteed benefit."
In other words, the Democrat plan seems to be "Let's do nothing - yeah, we know it will collapse in 13 years, but not messing with Medicare will help get us re-elected next year. We don't care about America - we care about getting elected."
Think about that last statement for a moment. Then think about the huge risk Republicans are taking by taking on the Medicare issue. They KNOW that messing with Medicare will cost them votes. Still, they are trying to fix it. In other words, where the Democrats are more concerned with their own personal success and getting re-elected, Republicans are obviously more concerned with the welfare of the nation, even if it means losing elections. That said, which type of politician would you rather have in office?
I really do not mind if Democrats - or anyone - do not agree with the Republican plan. But to demonize it without offering an alternative is disingenuous and hypocritical. But the Democrats are doing the same thing with Medicare that they did with the annual budget - nothing. For two years while holding the House, they did not pass any budget. Why? Because to do so would have prevented the ability to spend like drunken sailors, which would have cost them their seats. They wanted to be able to rob the Treasury to buy votes with their pork, stimulus and political payback. You just cannot do that when you are on a budget.
If Obama or Democrat senators don't like the "Ryan Plan", then they need to offer a plan of their own. And doing nothing is not a plan.
I do not necessarily think the Ryan plan is perfect, but two things to think about - 1) at least the Republicans HAVE a plan that will save Medicare, and 2) it gives 13 years to tweak it to make it better.
Of course, there is always the alternative being proposed by the Democrats - do nothing, and in 13 years hope the Republicans are in power to take the heat when Medicare goes belly up.
/
But the Democrats demonize the Republican plan. Yet, they offer none of their own except, as one Democrat Congressman said this morning, "We will insist to the President that he not change Medicare; to keep it a guaranteed benefit."
In other words, the Democrat plan seems to be "Let's do nothing - yeah, we know it will collapse in 13 years, but not messing with Medicare will help get us re-elected next year. We don't care about America - we care about getting elected."
Think about that last statement for a moment. Then think about the huge risk Republicans are taking by taking on the Medicare issue. They KNOW that messing with Medicare will cost them votes. Still, they are trying to fix it. In other words, where the Democrats are more concerned with their own personal success and getting re-elected, Republicans are obviously more concerned with the welfare of the nation, even if it means losing elections. That said, which type of politician would you rather have in office?
I really do not mind if Democrats - or anyone - do not agree with the Republican plan. But to demonize it without offering an alternative is disingenuous and hypocritical. But the Democrats are doing the same thing with Medicare that they did with the annual budget - nothing. For two years while holding the House, they did not pass any budget. Why? Because to do so would have prevented the ability to spend like drunken sailors, which would have cost them their seats. They wanted to be able to rob the Treasury to buy votes with their pork, stimulus and political payback. You just cannot do that when you are on a budget.
If Obama or Democrat senators don't like the "Ryan Plan", then they need to offer a plan of their own. And doing nothing is not a plan.
I do not necessarily think the Ryan plan is perfect, but two things to think about - 1) at least the Republicans HAVE a plan that will save Medicare, and 2) it gives 13 years to tweak it to make it better.
Of course, there is always the alternative being proposed by the Democrats - do nothing, and in 13 years hope the Republicans are in power to take the heat when Medicare goes belly up.
/
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Can You Guess Who Said This? Check it out...
I was watching an interview with a powerful political figure. The question was, "What do you think about giving billions in foreign aid to contries that do not like us, in an effort to help bring about a democracy, or to buy their help in certain matters?"
The person being interviewed said the opposite of what every other powerful political figure has said. This person said, "We should give aid based on results, not promises. If a country acts in such a way as to prove they are deserving of our aid, we should give it. But to just hand them money and HOPE they will use it correctly, or to be our ally is a fool's game. I would gladly pay for results. But I would not waste our precious resources on promises that will probably never materialize."
I was shocked to hear any political figure take that stand - but I heartily agree. As a business owner, I understand that it is wise to pay only for results - not excuses, or unfulfilled promises. In other words, if you want the horse to move, you dangle a carrot ahead of him. You do not give him the carrot, then expect him to walk for you. But our politicians never learned that simple strategy.
So, who was the person with such matter-of-fact common sense?
Sarah Palin, interviewed by Greta Van Susteren.
And the liberals have spent two years and millions of their dollars trying to convince us she is an idiot. But those who believe them are the real idiots.
Granted, she may not have the depth of knowledge of history of policies that is necessary to make a good president. But whatever you do, do not underestimate her. And do not assume she is dumb!
/
The person being interviewed said the opposite of what every other powerful political figure has said. This person said, "We should give aid based on results, not promises. If a country acts in such a way as to prove they are deserving of our aid, we should give it. But to just hand them money and HOPE they will use it correctly, or to be our ally is a fool's game. I would gladly pay for results. But I would not waste our precious resources on promises that will probably never materialize."
I was shocked to hear any political figure take that stand - but I heartily agree. As a business owner, I understand that it is wise to pay only for results - not excuses, or unfulfilled promises. In other words, if you want the horse to move, you dangle a carrot ahead of him. You do not give him the carrot, then expect him to walk for you. But our politicians never learned that simple strategy.
So, who was the person with such matter-of-fact common sense?
Sarah Palin, interviewed by Greta Van Susteren.
And the liberals have spent two years and millions of their dollars trying to convince us she is an idiot. But those who believe them are the real idiots.
Granted, she may not have the depth of knowledge of history of policies that is necessary to make a good president. But whatever you do, do not underestimate her. And do not assume she is dumb!
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)