Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Tim Geithner & Ben Bernanke - Looting America...

Ben Bernanke (Fed chairman) and Tim Geithner (Treasury Secretary) gave banks a secret bailout of $7 TRILLION, without Congressional approval or oversight. And much of that money went to European banks, to help the European economy.

Those people should be arrested and imprisoned for life.

Think about this - if that money had been given to American citizens, each and every person - man, woman and child - would receive about $25,000. That's $100,000 for a family of four. Now think about that - they would spend that money. They would buy things - LOTS of things. And companies would have to hire millions of people in order to produce those "things". The GDP would go through the roof. And the debt would shrink.

But no! Those lying, theiving clowns with their liberal, socialist agenda preferred to redistribute America's wealth to the bankers, and to Europe. They want we, the taxpayers, to pay for the regrowth of Europe and other foreign nations, to "level the playing field". Which is liberal-speak for taking wealth away from America and giving it to some Third World country. Dragging America down while building others up.

The only way to level the playing field is if the rich nations become poorer. Is that really what we want for America? Do we really want to have less just so others can have more at our expense?

Socialist liberals say yes. I say "NO"!


Don't Listen To What They Say - Watch What They DO!...

It never ceases to amaze me that so many Republicans allow Democrats to lead them astray. I'm talking about those Republicans who BELIEVE Democrats when they say they would be happy to have Gingrich as the nominee because THEY think Romney would beat Obama.

BULL! They do not believe any such thing. One of the first tenets of the Democrat play book is to use reverse psychology. They know full well that if enough of them say Gingrich would be easy to beat, a lot of Republicans will think they are being sincere, and would then vote for Romney because they don't want to vote for someone who is supposedly easy to beat.

In other words, folks - the Democrats are deathly afraid of Gingrich and would rather run against Romney. They know Obama cannot stand against Gingrich in a debate. They know Obama would have a field day with all of Romney's flip-flops, and RomneyCare. And they have seen Romney get flustered more than once in the Republican debates.

And they saw Gingrich was solid, and had the right answers. They saw Gingrich will not allow the media or the Democrats to control the conversation. They saw he actually has solutions and that he is rising rapidly in the polls as people catch on to those solutions.

Yes, the Democrats know Gingrich can pummel Obama in the debates and election. So they try to convince Republicans to vote for Romney in the primaries. And they know the best way to do that is to convince Republicans that Romney would be the bigger threat.

I know - you say Gingrich has too much "baggage". But does he, really? Or is that another ploy to convince Repubs to abandon Gingrich?

Yes, Gingrich cheated on his wife 15 years ago and divorced her to marry his mistress. But most fair-minded people realize that WAS 15 years ago. Since then, Gingrich has matured, connected with a strong faith in God and has spent years seeking forgiveness. His actions of the last 15 years show that. And most people can forgive if a person is truly repentent.

And the money he got from Freddie Mac? He was a civilian at the time. Freddie Mac offered to pay him for consulting services. Most people understand that, when someone offers to pay you well for your services, it's fair to accept. Imagine if lawyers refused to represent the guilty! Their job is to represent the accused, regardless of guilt. It's the same here - Gingrich did not have to agree with Freddie Mac in order to provide services to them. And in no case was their any lobbying. They offered to pay for his services, and he accepted the job.

And his stance on immigration? Contrary to what some are wrongly saying, he is not proposing blanket amnesty, nor a path to citizenship. He has made that clear, but pundits who want Romney to win the primaries (both Dems and Repubs) are muddying up the water and trying to convince us that Gingrich wants amnesty and citizenship for illegals, which is blatantly false. He stated he wants a fence, wants the National Guard on the border and wants employers to be prosecuted for knowingly hiring illegals. But he also wants America to be compassionate when it comes to those who have been here a long time, whose kids are citizens and have been educated here. If they have a long history of being good people, the kind we want as neighbors and friends, then we should cut them some slack and make their residency legal - no, not citizenship, but a "guest worker" program. After all, Americans are generally fair, and it would be fair to treat good people with compassion. The rest would face deportation.

No, I don't think Gingrich has baggage that will do him any harm among the fair-minded, informed folks.

But I trust the Democrats will do their best to tear Gingrich down - and bear in mind, they only do that to people they view as a real threat to the liberal agenda.

When Democrats put more effort into tearing down Gingrich than Romney, THAT tells the real story. Don't listen to what they say - watch what they DO!


Thursday, November 24, 2011

Is Gingrich Advocating Amnesty? Not Really - And Here's Why...

When most folks think "amnesty" they are thinking a "path to citizenship." But Newt Gingrinch specifically stated there would be no path to citizenship for those who came here illegally. However, if they have been here a long time, have kept their noses clean, raised a family etc., they would have the opportunity to be classed as legally here - a permanent visa, so to speak. But not citizenship.

In other words, it seems Newt took a page from my blog from last year. I had suggested that, since we cannot (and should not) deport all illegals as it could break up families, we should, instead, make the most of what we have - when life gives ya lemons, make lemonade.


If a person has been here at least 5 years, has been employed and has not committed any crimes (other than illegally entering the country), we should offer that person a choice - if they eventually want citizenship, they must go home and return legally, as that is the ONLY path to citizenship. But if they can live without citizenship and want to stay to give a better future to their family without the benefits of citizenship, they can choose to stay on a permanent visa (which can be revoked for criminal acts). Anyone choosing the latter would never be permitted to apply for citizenship - they made their choices. Their children, however, if brought here as minors would be apply to apply for citizenship upon reaching maturity.

Anyone choosing the latter would receive a special I.D. that they can use to procure a driver's license, etc. However, EVERY piece of identification issued to a non-citizen would be visibly different from that of citizens - perhaps a special color. This would preclude them from being able to vote. Any non-citizen who is caught using any ID that is not so colored or easily defined would immediately lose their visa and be deported.

Non-citizens who desire a permanent visa must adhere to certain conditions - for example, they must remain employed, and not be involved in anything criminal.

I think this is pretty much what Gingrich is advocating. If someone is an honest, productive resident (though not a citizen), and they have been here a long time, raised a family and been a "good neighbor", why on Earth would we WANT to deport them?

That is what Gingrich said. And, frankly, as conservative as I am, I agree. I would also add that any illegal immigrant who volunteers for active duty and serves this country faithfully and well should be placed on a "short list" for a path to citizenship.

I'm just sayin'...


Saturday, November 19, 2011

Why "Redistribution Of Wealth" Would Never Work...

The "Occupy Wall Street" protesters (and most liberals and Democrats) want "income equality" - a redistribution of wealth. What they apparently are not bright enough to comprehend is that it could never work.

For the sake of argument, let's say we redistribute all the wealth - everyone has the same amount of bucks. How long do you think it would be before the previously rich are rich once again, and the previously poor are poor once again?

The fact is, most of the poor and low income folks are in that predicament not because of a lack of money, but because of a lack of a) education, b) know-how, c) ambition, and d) desire.

The poor do not know how to make money or create wealth - they only know how to spend it. Give a broke, homeless guy $100 and odds are 99.9% that he will be broke within 2-3 days. He will spend the money, and that $100 will find its way into the hands of people who provide goods and services (the "rich").

What needs to be redistributed is not the wealth, but the ability to create it. If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime.

The Occupy bunch only want to be given a fish. They have no interest in earning it, nor in cultivating an ability to do so. They will simply eat the fish, throw the bones and leavings on the ground and extend their hand for yet another fish. Any seal can do that.

As Jesus illustrated in his parable of the talents, any person who does not use what he already has to increase his own wealth deserves no wealth.


Friday, November 18, 2011

Barney Frank Makes Outrageous Claim About Fannie Mae...

Senator Barney Frank today said that Republicans are responsible for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle - you know, the stuff that brought down the economy.

I think Mr. Frank needs his head examined - or at the very least, he needs a basic history lesson.

1) Fannie Mae was created by FDR (D) in 1938

2) LBJ (D) privatized Fannie Mae in 1968

3) Jimmy Carter (D) signed the Community Reinvestment Act which literally forced banks to make risky loans to people of limited means and poor credit. Of course, these loans were transferred to Fannie & Freddie

4) Bill Clinton (D) signed the Bliley Bill in 1998 which reinforced the Community Reinvestment Act by mandating that banks had to make at least 50% of all loans to low income/bad credit folks

5) Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D) were in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Just months before they went broke, Frank stated on the record that Fannie & Freddie were sound and not in need of the regulation proposed by Republicans.

If you are observant, you might have noticed that everything about Fannie & Freddie, from its inception until this very day, has been pushed by Democrats.

And true to the form of liberals who can't open their mouths without spinning, Frank says Republicans are responsible.

Hey, Massachussetts - when are you going to dump that stupid bum and elect a Senator worthy of representing you?


"Patriotic Millionaires" - NOT!

A group calling itself the Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength traveled to Capitol Hill during the week of Nov. 14 to ask Congress to raise their taxes.

Sounds patriotic, eh?

But when reporter Michelle Fields approached each with the IRS donation form, and asked them to make a donation to the I.R.S. so they could "lead by example", each and every one of those phony "patriotic millionaires" refused to pony up a dime. Not a one!

Here's the REAL story - each one of those phony hypocites knows that even if Congress raises taxes on the wealthy, THEY will still avoid taxes, as they usually do, because of all the loopholes. So, they don't want to pay Uncle Sam any more money, not by a long shot. What they DO want to do is push the socialist/progressive agenda that they all ascribe to.

Folks, it's not about taxes. It's about "fundamentally changing" America. And we can see what that is doing to us.


Thursday, November 17, 2011

HuffPost/AOL Really Shows Its Far-Left Bias...

Today on HuffPost/AOL they ran a story about a young girl suspended from school for wearing a sweatshirt with the Confederate flag. At the end of the story, they had a ridiculously biased poll, as follows - see if you can find what is wrong with it:

"Is this a case of ignorance or a mother defending her daughter's racism under the guise of the first amendment?

1) Just a case of ignorance. But she needs brush up on her history

2) It's totally racist and the mother should know better."

If you noticed that choosing EITHER response results in making the mother out to be wrong, congrats. Basically, HuffPost, in their own ignorance and arrogance have already assumed that everyone believes the mother was wrong in allowing her daughter to wear the sweats. They seem to think that the only question to be resolved is whether or not the mother was either ignorant or racist.

Here's a clue for ya, HuffPost - maybe she is neither. Perhaps YOUR insistence that she is wrong makes YOU ignorant and/or racist.

While some uneducated, or otherwise thin-skinned people may believe that the Confederate flag is somehow "evil", most educated and more tolerant folks understand it is nothing more than a symbol of a part of our history. And history, if we do not wish to repeat it, must be remembered.

Frankly, I think it is incredibly ignorant to think that ANY symbol should be banned as being "evil". For example, there are many who believe the swastika should never again be represented because it is associated with Hitler. But most of those people are not aware that Hitler "stole" the symbol - before he (mis)used it, the swastika was a symbol of good fortune in several cultures for over a thousand years - even the Hopi Indians used that symbol as good luck. I used to have a pre-war American token that had the swastika, and in each "cup" was yet another good luck symbol - a 4 leaf clover, a horseshoe, a wishbone and one other I do not recall. The theory behind it was that no matter which way it turned, the good fortune would never pour out.

So, if the swastika is evil because Hitler used it, by the same token it is good because the Hopi's and others used it.

The point is - it's ONLY A SYMBOL. The ONLY meaning any symbol has is the meaning each of us gives to it. And if you allow ANY symbol to have that kind of power over you, you may as well roll over and croak, because you have no control over your own life.

What if, in the future, some evil despot such as Hitler were to adopt the cross as his symbol. Should we then ban it from ever being represented again, simply because some idiot misused it? Lest we forget - there are already those who truly believe the Cross is a symbol of evil and ignorance, and should be banned. Bill Maher comes to mind. What do you suppose would happen if someday the majority of folks begin to think like Maher? You guessed it - the cross would be banned.
Ironic how many people who think it stupid to believe in an unseen God do not think it stupid to believe a symbol has power.

But I digress. The real tragedy here is that there are people like those at the Huffington Post who actually believe their own crap, and think that it is somehow "racist" to wear a flag - any flag.
Just for the record, HuffPost - slavery was not the only issue behind the attempted secession of the south. It was much more complicated than that and had been brewing for decades. But then, I don't expect you to know that - or even care. After all, you have an agenda to push.


Wednesday, November 16, 2011

The Super Committee Farce

Here's a little tidbit that most Americans do not know - if Congress does NOTHING at all on the debt, it will automatically grow by another $9 trillion in the next 10 years. That is the level of growth.

Now, the Super Committee is trying (?) to find ways to "cut" $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, even if they succeed, the debt will still GROW by another $8 trillion.

Um -- hey Congress, that is not "cutting spending". That's cutting GROWTH of spending.

In order to cut spending by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, we actually have to cut $9 trillion - in other words, we have to freeze growth for 10 years so nothing more is added to the debt, PLUS cut $1.2 trillion.

Unless we do that, we are doing nothing.

To put this in lay terms, it's like going on a diet. If you are consistently increasing your caloric intake by a 100,000 calories a year, you will gain about 50 pounds. If you then promise to "cut" your intake by by 10,000 calories, you would STILL be increasing intake by 90,000, and would still pack on another 45 pounds.

If you want to actually LOSE weight, you have to give up the increases altogether, PLUS cut some calories.

Got it?


Please Remind Me Why We Need Unions?

Back at the turn of the 20th century, businesses would often take undue advantage of workers, offering low wages, no benefits and even the use of child labor. To protect themselves from such abuses, workers began to form unions. A good thing.

At first.

Today, unions have trespassed far beyond the bounds of preventing abuse of the worker, and is now guilty of abusing the businesses - and dues payers and tax payers.

Today, we have laws that prevent too-low wages. We have laws to prevent child labor. We have laws that, for all intents and purposes do what the unions were created to do. So, now that we have those laws protecting laborers and preventing abuse, exactly WHY do we still need unions, and why do we allow them to control us all, and steal our wealth?

Here is just one example: In Michigan the SEIU (union) pressured the Democratic legislature to pass a law that requires special needs kids to pay union dues - to the tune of $6 million a year. The state checks issued to special needs families to help support special needs kids are being automatically deducted of union dues. Why? What benefit is the union providing to these kids? And why should anyone too young to even work be required to pay union dues?

$6,000,000 that was supposed to help special needs kids is ending up in union coffers each year. And that is only one, small example of union abuse in just one state!

If there is a legitimate need for unions today, I fail to see what it is. They have become highwaymen, robbing everyone - businesses, taxpayers and dues payers alike - to fulfill their own agenda of stuffing themselves with our money while turning America into a socialist state.

It is time to break up and ban ALL unions. If workers need protection, that is the job of Congress to provide those protections, as they have done.


Do Nothing Congress? Really? An Honest Look...

President Obama and the Democrats are campaigning heavily on the "do nothing Congress" platform. The liberal media (which is 87% of all media) are playing the same tune, trying to convince the public that the President is doing all the right things, but "Congress" won't do their part - mainly because of those darned Republicans who block everything.

But let's take an honest look for a change.

The Republican controlled house has passed 22 bills - including budgets and bills to help businesses create jobs - this year. Those bills have been sent to the Democrat controlled Senate. Where they sit, while the crickets chirp. Not one of those bills was even put to the floor for a vote. In fact, in the three plus years the Democrats have controlled the Senate, they have not even passed a single budget. Not one.

Meanwhile, the Republican controlled house keeps trying to get things done. And all the while the Democrats in the Senate, led by Sir Harry Reid, sit on their thumbs, making believe that they are seriously trying to get things done.

So the fact is, we do not have a "do nothing Congress". What we have is a "do nothing Senate". We should not be blaming everyone for the refusal of the few to let things get done. And we certainly should not let the President, the Democrats or the media to lie to us about who is responsible for the gridlock.

The Republicans are passing bills. The Democrats are not. And that is a fact you will never hear in the "mainstream media". Go to the Congressional Record and see for yourself.

If we, the people want our government to get back to work and do the right thing by us, what we really need to do is replace those who are responsible for inaction - the Democrat Senate and the President. And if you REALLY want more honesty being reported so you actually have the facts, each of us should boycott EVERY branch of the mainstream media. Don't by the liberal newspapers, or watch the liberal news stations. Do that, and they will be forced to become more honest and objective, or go bankrupt. Then, and only then will Americans be able to make the best decisions, because then the decisions will be based on truth, and not political spin.


Tuesday, November 15, 2011

A Timely Message That Bears Repeating --- Often...

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina).. Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'YE SHALL REAP WHAT YE SOWETH.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussionof God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks

If you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

Monday, November 14, 2011

A New Huffington Post/AOL Lie Exposed...

Today the HuffPost ran a story with the headline, "New Witness In Cain Controversy." However, the "witness" is not even close to having witnessed anything at all. In fact, the story later states, "Later that year, Zuckerman said, Bialek told him that Cain inappropriately touched her when, at Zuckerman's suggestion, she met him in Washington to seek employment help."

So, HuffPost, along with the ambulance-chasing Gloria Allred both seem to think that someone who was not there, and could not have witnessed anything, is somehow a "witness".

Here is the real truth behind this liberal attempt to smear a conservative - Allred knows the accusation is phony, but does not care. She only wants to discredit someone that liberals view as a threat - just as she did with Meg Whitman. By bringing this non-witness out, she is merely attempting to drag this non-story out for as long as she can, knowing that, eventually, if she drips and drabs it, people will begin to believe it.

The longer she can keep it - and herself - in the news, the better she likes it.


Friday, November 11, 2011

Is Mitt Romney The John McCain of 2012?...

Every day I hear Democrat pundits and strategists telling everyone that Romney would be the Republicans' best bet to beat Obama. In fact, they push it to the extreme, and belittle every other Republican candidate. It's as if the are actually rooting for Romney to win the Republican primary.

They are.

The Democrats fully understand that Obama would easily beat Romney in the general election, regardless of what the polls say, because Obama would tear Romney apart in debates. He would thank Romney for helping design ObamaCare. He would point out that Romney was pro-choice until he decided he could win votes by becoming pro-life. And it has not escaped Obama's attention that no matter what has transpired, Romney's poll numbers have never varied from the low to mid 20's. No matter what. And that makes Romney the John McCain of 2012 - a far-too-moderate who cannot galvanize the conservatives. A RiNO (Republican in Name Only).

Remember - Romney was governor of the bluest of all states. A Republican doesn't get elected in Kennedy country unless he is Democrat lite, and willing to flip-flop at the toss of a voting lever.

The horror of it is that too many Republican pundits BELIEVE what the Democrat pundits are saying, and rally around Romney as though he were the second coming of Reagan. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hey Republicans, get your heads outta your butts and stop believing what the Democrat pundits are pushing. If Romney wins the primary, Obama will be president for 4 more years.

So, who should Republicans consider? Far be it from me to pick one out of the crowd. I just know who I think would be most apt to a) beat Obama in any and all debates, b) have solutions for fixing what's wrong, and c) has demonstrated enough leadership ability to make it happen. OK, so he has baggage from 15 years ago, but if he can mend this country, I really don't give a damn if he used to be a womanizer. Hell, if he'll fix things, I'd vote for Attilla the Hun. Time enough to seek out a "perfect" person after we get things back on track.

And, thankfully, recent polls indicate that more and more voters are starting to catch on. A year ago I wrote that it would be unwise to write Gingrich off. And last month when everyone was saying he was toast, I wrote that he was apt to be the "last man standing."

And he may well be. OK, so he's not perfect. But he has 10 times the chance of beating Obama than Romney has. And you know where he stands.


Thursday, November 10, 2011

Proof That "Social Justice" Is A Threat To Us All...

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's "social justice" worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan"..

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A....
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they did not bother to study.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F, because no one studied.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward and incentive away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there is a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

Bank of America Has A New Way To Screw Unemployed...

Bank of America has yet another sneaky, insidious way to put the screws to people - this time, the unemployed.

You see, BofA has a contract with the government in many states, whereby a person's unemployment benefits are deposited into the bank, and the person gets a prepaid debit card.

And this is where it gets rotten...

To draw their own money out, an unemployed person must actually visit a BofA branch, or they can use an ATM.

And therein lies the problem - most small communities do not have a BofA branch, so the unemployed must use ATM's - and BofA charges a fee for using any non-BofA ATM.

If you are unemployed, live in a rural community that does not have a BofA branch or a BofA ATM, then you pay heavy fees to get your unemployment benefits.

Yes, the person could drive to a city that has BofA, but the gas for that would eat even more heavily into their already-too-small benefits.

For many years BofA, CitiBank and other large banking institutions have been mercilessly raping the public financially. And in this case, they are aided by the government, which awards these contracts.

When America was founded, banks were not even allowed to operate here. The founders knew they were dangerous to a person's wealth.

Pretty smart guys, those Founding Fathers.


Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Do we now have Obama's "civilian security force"?

On July 17, 2008, while campaigning, Mr. Obama stated that he intended to establish a "civilian national security force", a civilian army.

I look at the Occupy Wall Street mobs all over the country and the union mobs in Wisconsin, Ohio and Washington state and it appears he has done just that.

This is right out of Saul Alinski's book, and the writings of Karl Marx.


Monday, November 7, 2011

Where vegans are going wrong...

While I readily admit to being a "meat & potatoes" man, I do understand the health benefits of fruits and veggies, and I try to consume my share. But I have a real problem with vegetarians who seem to think everyone should adhere to THEIR diet. Mainly because "their" diet is unnatural. Here's why...

If we travel space, we will never find a planet similar to Earth where there is only vegetation and no animals. Vegetation breathes carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen. Without animals to produce carbon dioxide, eventually the plants would use up all CO2 and become extinct. Plants need animals as much as animals need plants.

So, imagine for a moment that you are the "intelligent design" behind all of this, here on Earth. What would you do to create a balance?

First, you would create plant life, without which a planet would remain forever barren. But unless you do something to prevent excessive proliferation, plants would, as described earlier, use up all the CO2 and die off. So, as a thinking person, you introduce herbivores - plant-eating animals. This not only prevents over-proliferation of plants, but the animals also convert oxygen to CO2, so the plants will have an endless supply. But now you have a new problem - unless you figure a way to prevent over-proliferation of herbivores, they will become so plentiful that they would consume all vegetation. Vegetation becomes extinct, and so do the herbivores that need vegeation for food.

What to do?

You introduce carnivores - meat eaters. Now you have plant life, in balance and under control; herbivores in balance and under control, and things are balancing. But what keeps carnivores under control? Frankly, it is availability of food.

If too many carnivores are born, they consume too many herbivores. As herbivores become less readily available, the carnivores start to die off from starvation. This creates the "cycle" often seen in nature - every few years there is an abundance of rabbits. This leads to an abundance of predators, which leads to a shortage of rabbits, which leads to a shortage of predators. The new shortgage of predators allows more rabbits to mature and reproduce, causing a new glut of rabbits, and the cycle goes on.

So, as intelligent designer, you would create plants, plant-eaters and meat eaters, to keep everything in balance.

Man, by design, is an omnivore - we are designed to eat both plants and animals. This is easy to see just by looking in the mirror and smiling. Nature gives each animal the teeth it needs for the diet it is supposed to have. Man has both kinds of teeth - molars, as well as canines. Mother Nature (or God) says we are supposed to consume a diet of both meat and vegeatables.

Vegetarians say we should eliminate meat from our diets. Assuming Mankind could do so and still achieve optimal health, what about the unintended consequences? If we no longer consume meat several really bad things would happen, some of which would cause our own extinction.

First, millions of people would loose their jobs - anyone who raises, processes or sells any meat items. Next, vegetables, themselves would suffer, as roughly 90% of real fertilizer would disappear - livestock currently produces the fertilizer necessary to grow vegeatables. No livestock means no fertilizer, which means no veggies.

And we also face the dilemma of a serious reduction of CO2. Livestock produces much of the CO2 that plants require in order to breathe. If plants start to die off due to a lack of CO2, WE start to die off, because it is those plants that produce the oxygen we need, as well as the food we require.

So, here is the short take why Man should consume both meat and plants - SURVIVAL. We cannot survive if nature loses its balance, which is what would happen if we stop consuming meat.

As a final note, it is precisely nature's well-thought-out balance that helps proves the existence of "intelligent design". Could a dummy figure all that out? If not, then what are the odds that it all happened by "chance"?


Saturday, November 5, 2011

Gotta Give Huffington Post Credit - For Idiocy...

Earlier this week HuffPost/AOL ran a story that praised Nancy Pelosi for saying "Our unemployment rate is 9%, but if not for what Obama has done, it would be 15%."

And today they follow up with a story that says, "The jobs crisis has left so many people out of work for so long that most of America's unemployed are no longer receiving unemployment benefits." Of course, if they do not collect benefits, they are no longer counted in the government unemployment figures.

What this means is, our actual unemployment rate is closer to 20% than 9% - and well above the 15% Pelosi said it "would be" if not for Obama.

I don't blame liberal Democrats for spinning, because without spin they can't get elected. But I think we should draw the line at outright lying - a trait for which Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Barack Obama are becoming famous for.


The song most radio stations are banning...

The following song, sung in Las Vegas at a Diamond Rio concert, is a wonderful piece. Unfortunately, you are unlikely to hear it on any radio station because it is "politically incorrect."

Give it a listen - and then either tell your friends about this (or retweet it), or copy it and email it to everyone you know.

This song NEEDS to be heard.



Here is an intriguing question for thinking people to dwell upon...

While this question may seem superfluous, please understand that it is relevant to today, as you will see below.

So here's the situation, and the question:

You and your friends do not like, or approve of, a certain activity being performed by ACME Company, so you pressure your lawmakers to make it illegal. As it turns out, making it illegal results in unintended consequences that hurt you. Who do you blame?

If you blame ACME, note that ACME is only doing what was ordered by the lawmakers. If you blame the lawmakers, bear in mind they only did what you and your friends pressured them into. So, if you are a person who believes in personal responsibility, you would have to blame yourself and your friends - you instigated everything.

Fast forward to Occupy Wall Street and their uninformed cronies.

They are angry at BANKS and WALL STREET and blame them for their economic troubles. But let's look at it honestly...

STEP 1: In the 1970's, liberal activists and community organizers (most notably ACORN) forced lawmakers to enact the Community Reinvestment Act, signed by Jimmy Carter. This law literally forced banks to make loans to people who were poor credit risks. It was "social justice".

STEP 2: In 1998 Bill Clinton signed the Bliley Bill, which literally ordered banks to issue at least 50% of all mortgages and loans to people with poor credit and little income. Again, this was because liberals wanted the poor to have the same as the rich. "Social Justice." The problem, of course, is that the poor could not afford to pay for it.

STEP 3: Banks are in business to make money. That is their only purpose. No one goes into business saying, "Gee, let's lose money!". But being forced to make risky loans placed banks in a position to lose a lot of money, since many of those low income borrowers would default. Now, as any business knows, you can reduce your overall risk by "bundling". In other words, if you hold one risky mortgage and it defaults, you lose 100%. But if you hold 100 of them, and ten default, you only lose 10%. So, to protect themselves, they turned those mortgages over to Fannie Mae to be bundled, creating "derivatives" that investors on Wall Street could invest in.

STEP 4: Eventually, the house of cards collapses, and too many of those risky loans are going into default, and foreclosures rise dramatically. The economy collapses.

Instead of going back to the beginning to find what really caused it, liberal activists had to find a scapegoat to blame, since they did not want to blame their "social justice" Driven by the activists, both lawmakers and the folks only went back one or two steps, and blamed Wall Street and the banks.

But as we saw in the earlier scenario, Wall Street and banks were only doing what they are supposed to do, and required to do by law. So, if you go back a third step you would blame lawmakers - had they not passed the Bliley Bill and the Community Reinvestment Acts, this could not have happened, because those risky loans would never have been made.

But we really need to go back to the first step - where liberal community organizers pressured Congress into passing those laws. THEY are the real culprits here. Had the commu nity organizers not forced Congress into their warped sense of "social justice", none of this would have happened. None of it.

So, now we have these same idiot "social justice" liberals at Occupy Wall Street who are so misinformed and downright ignorant that they are holding Wall Street and Banks responsible for what THEY, THEMSELVES caused. It was they, and those like them that forced lawmakers to pass the laws that forced banks to make risky loans, which forced banks and Wall Street to bundle them, which in turn helped collapse the House Of Cards created by FDR (when he created Fannie Mae, who was, after all, the "bundler" of record).

Wall Street is responsible only to the extent that they have, like all businesses, one reason to exist - making profits. That is the very nature of business. No one would go into business to lose money.

Banks are responsible only to the extent that, by nature, they had to protect themselves from defaults.

Lawmakers are responsible only to the extent that they are driven by the next election, and not by what is good for America.

But ultimately, it is the people who caused it all - those liberal community organizers and rabble-rousers like ACORN and Occupy Wall Street that are responsible. Their quest for "social justice" is what caused every ounce of this.

So I find it more than ironinc that the liberal "social justice" set who caused this are now blaming the victims of what their "social justice set" has done.

If the morons at OWS had half a brain and would actually take a few moments to find out the real reason for todays' economic mess, they would not be blaming the banks or Wall Street. They would, instead, understand that they, and their quest for "social justice" are to blame.

We are all "created equal". But nature does not permit us all to remain that way. In life there must be winners, so that the species can survive (survival of the fittest). In order to have winners, you must also have losers. That is a fact of life. But "social justice" idiots don't think anyone should be a loser - everyone has to win.

And that just is not possible. If no one loses, what can possibly be won? Anyone who has ever played a hand of poker, or purchased a lottery tickets understands that.


Friday, November 4, 2011

Mother Nature Is Warning Us Again...

After years of quiet, the sun is coming alive with solar storms in a big way. The sun shot off a huge flare Thursday afternoon from a region that scientists say is the most active part of the sun since 2005.

Thursday's flare wasn't aimed at Earth. However, this active region is now slowly turning toward Earth, and scientists say it will be directly facing Earth in about five days. And it will face us for two weeks.

Odds of a direct hit by a large flare is still relatively small, but high enough to cause concern if you are wise enough to understand the potential damage that can be caused.

Moreover, the sun will grow increasingly active over the next two years, increasing the chances of a direct hit.

For those of you coming late to the party, a direct hit by a large flare can destroy the satellites, knocking out virtually all communications. It can also knock out the entire power grid of an entire hemisphere.

Just so ya know...