For 200 years, Americans, as a group, had one goal - to BUILD something better. Most people were wrapped up in being citizens of a free nation where their creativity could be unleashed, some on a large scale (think Henry Ford or Thomas Edison), and others on a smaller scale (think farmers and settlers). For 200 years, we were growing a nation, building things better.
But over the last 50 years, we have stopped being citizens and have become consumers. Instead of building something better, a large number of Americans can think of nothing else but how much they can consume. How many toys can I have? How many "super-sized" meals can I eat? How much can I TAKE?
And therein lies the difference. America used to be a nation of people willing to give their all to contribute to the growth and prosperity of the nation. And now we are far down the road to seeing how many freebies we can get from the government, paid for by those few who still want America to grow. We do not place the nation as a top priority. Instead, it's all about "me, me, me".
With 49% of all working Americans not paying ANY taxes, and with nearly half of all Americans living off government entitlements or salaries, we have reached a crossroads. It is like a see-saw - too much weight on one side will push things irrevocably in that direction. If government grows any further, America will be on a downward spiral from which we will not recover. After all, when more people are consuming than growing, the pot empties quickly.
Think of it this way - what do you think will happen if you withdraw more money from the bank than you put in?
America needs to re-evaluate its addiction to consumerism. Certainly, it is nice to have all the goodies, and that is not a problem. The problem arises when we take out more than we are willing to put in. We all want it all, but we are not all willing to do our share to PROVIDE it.
How much do YOU put back, for all that you use up? How self-sufficient are you? How would you fare if, suddenly, the government was gone?
If you keep harvesting crops year after year, but never replenish the soil by adding fertilizer, the crops will stop coming and a dust-bowl will replace the crops, which happened in the 1930's. If everyone is eating at the table, but they never get up from the table to go out and grow more, the table will soon be devoid of food.
Wake up, America. Go ahead and consume - but each and every man, woman and child has an obligation to put as much back in as they take out. If we do not, our account will soon be overdrawn and we will all suffer.
/
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Too Funny For Words
For 8 years we have heard the liberals cry and moan about the "Bush Tax Cuts."
Today, with the public wanting to have those cuts extended, Speaker Pelosi came out and said that "the Obama middle class tax cuts" will be extended.
My jaw dropped - the Bush tax cuts the liberals reviled for years are now suddenly the Obama tax cuts, merely because they are being extended.
Leave it to Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the liberal elite to rename everything to suit their own agenda, and to insure they get credit for anything that is good - even if they fought against it for years.
Never, ever have I seen such dishonesty in a political party as now infects the Democrat party. Not to be confused with the Democrats on the street. I'm talking about the Democratic politicians who use every type of deception to push their agenda.
/
Today, with the public wanting to have those cuts extended, Speaker Pelosi came out and said that "the Obama middle class tax cuts" will be extended.
My jaw dropped - the Bush tax cuts the liberals reviled for years are now suddenly the Obama tax cuts, merely because they are being extended.
Leave it to Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the liberal elite to rename everything to suit their own agenda, and to insure they get credit for anything that is good - even if they fought against it for years.
Never, ever have I seen such dishonesty in a political party as now infects the Democrat party. Not to be confused with the Democrats on the street. I'm talking about the Democratic politicians who use every type of deception to push their agenda.
/
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
They Just Are Not Gettin' it
Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats (i.e. the politicians) are both equally ignorant of what is going on in America this year. Neither understands what the Tea Party is doing, or, more to the point, why.
The Democrats in power, along with most of the liberal media still believe it is a bunch of angry, Bible-thumping white Americans, albeit a group that threatens the Democrats. But they still do not consider it a big threat, because they are jubilant that their candidates will be going up against Tea Party candidates instead of establishment Republicans. I think they have another shock coming...
The Republicans in power are making a different mistake, but theirs is even worse, i.e. dumber. They think the Tea Partiers are on their side, simply because they are running as Republicans. But they are not on their side, by any means. In fact, the Tea Partiers are just as frustrated with the GOP as they are with the Democrats.
So, for those politicians wise enough to grasp simple concepts, let me break it down for you...
Both the GOP and the Democrat parties see things through a political lens. To them, the important thing is for the party to win. Period. And that means if they need to set aside, or abandon their principles in order to win, that is exactly what they will do. To them, it is all about being the party in power. Nothing else matters - not ethics, not honesty, not principles, and obviously not the will of the American people.
But the Tea Party is different. They simply do not care about party. They care only about principles, and standing on them, win, lose or draw. They have no inclination to set aside their principles just to get elected. They believe, rightfully, that if you abandon your principles in order to win, then you have already lost. You may get elected that way, but you still lose what is important.
On Greta tonight, I listened to Mitch McConnell, whom I have always liked. But even he does not get it. He told Greta that he is not concerned with "tea party" politics because they are still running as Republicans and it means nothing more to him than being the leader of a larger group of Republicans after the election. In short, Mitch thinks the only thing that counts is winning, and standing on principle is optional.
It's not.
Assuming Mich manages to keep his seat, I think he and other "election survivors" will learn the hard way that the Tea Party Senators and Representatives will not be led around by the GOP. Rather, THEY will do the leading, and the Old Guard had better follow.
Here it is, GOP - the Tea Party Express is a powerful movement because it is made up of we, the people. And we, the people will no longer tolerate politics being more important that doing the people's business in an honest, ethical manner. So, GOP, you have a choice - you can get on the train, or you can get out of the way, or you can get run over. But what you cannot do is "business as usual".
/
The Democrats in power, along with most of the liberal media still believe it is a bunch of angry, Bible-thumping white Americans, albeit a group that threatens the Democrats. But they still do not consider it a big threat, because they are jubilant that their candidates will be going up against Tea Party candidates instead of establishment Republicans. I think they have another shock coming...
The Republicans in power are making a different mistake, but theirs is even worse, i.e. dumber. They think the Tea Partiers are on their side, simply because they are running as Republicans. But they are not on their side, by any means. In fact, the Tea Partiers are just as frustrated with the GOP as they are with the Democrats.
So, for those politicians wise enough to grasp simple concepts, let me break it down for you...
Both the GOP and the Democrat parties see things through a political lens. To them, the important thing is for the party to win. Period. And that means if they need to set aside, or abandon their principles in order to win, that is exactly what they will do. To them, it is all about being the party in power. Nothing else matters - not ethics, not honesty, not principles, and obviously not the will of the American people.
But the Tea Party is different. They simply do not care about party. They care only about principles, and standing on them, win, lose or draw. They have no inclination to set aside their principles just to get elected. They believe, rightfully, that if you abandon your principles in order to win, then you have already lost. You may get elected that way, but you still lose what is important.
On Greta tonight, I listened to Mitch McConnell, whom I have always liked. But even he does not get it. He told Greta that he is not concerned with "tea party" politics because they are still running as Republicans and it means nothing more to him than being the leader of a larger group of Republicans after the election. In short, Mitch thinks the only thing that counts is winning, and standing on principle is optional.
It's not.
Assuming Mich manages to keep his seat, I think he and other "election survivors" will learn the hard way that the Tea Party Senators and Representatives will not be led around by the GOP. Rather, THEY will do the leading, and the Old Guard had better follow.
Here it is, GOP - the Tea Party Express is a powerful movement because it is made up of we, the people. And we, the people will no longer tolerate politics being more important that doing the people's business in an honest, ethical manner. So, GOP, you have a choice - you can get on the train, or you can get out of the way, or you can get run over. But what you cannot do is "business as usual".
/
Friday, September 10, 2010
Almost Too Funny
As I listened intently to President Obama's speech today, it struck my funny bone when he said we should give Democrats more time to fix the economy.
Why did I find that humorous? Because the recession officially began in December, 2007. And the Congress - the lawmaking body - has been in Democrat hands since a year before that.
The Democrats have had control of the Congress for 4 years - one year longer than the recession. Tell me, Mr. President, just how much more time should we give them? In that 4 years the deficit has gone from $400 billion to over $1.5 trillion. Unemployment has gone from 6.5% to 9.6%. The Dow went from 14,000 to 10,000. And all of it since the Democrats took control of the wheel.
Mr. Obama likes to say Republicans drove us into the ditch. Frankly, that is not even close to the truth. We did not hit the ditch until a year into the Democrat Congress. More to the point, even Obama stated - three times - that Fannie Mae was the primary cause of the economic disaster.
Assuming Obama was telling it right...
Fannie Mae was created by FDR (D) in 1937. In 1967, LBJ (D) privatized it, giving it unlimited power to grow. In 1977, Carter (D) passed the Community Reinvestment Act (as put forth by ACORN and its "community organizers") that forced banks to make risky loans. In 1998, Clinton (D) signed the Bliley Bill that forced banks to make even more risky loans. In 2004, republicans tried to pass a bill to rein in Fannie Mae, but it was blocked by Frank (D) and Dodd (D), both of whom are on record as saying Fannie Mae was sound.
Considering Obama says Fannie Mae is the culprit, and every part of Fannie Mae was courtesy of Democrats, and considering Democrats have been in control since January 2007, I fail to see how it was the Republicans that drove the economy into the ditch.
But even if they did, that is no excuse for the Democrats to drive it out of the ditch and over the cliff...
/
Why did I find that humorous? Because the recession officially began in December, 2007. And the Congress - the lawmaking body - has been in Democrat hands since a year before that.
The Democrats have had control of the Congress for 4 years - one year longer than the recession. Tell me, Mr. President, just how much more time should we give them? In that 4 years the deficit has gone from $400 billion to over $1.5 trillion. Unemployment has gone from 6.5% to 9.6%. The Dow went from 14,000 to 10,000. And all of it since the Democrats took control of the wheel.
Mr. Obama likes to say Republicans drove us into the ditch. Frankly, that is not even close to the truth. We did not hit the ditch until a year into the Democrat Congress. More to the point, even Obama stated - three times - that Fannie Mae was the primary cause of the economic disaster.
Assuming Obama was telling it right...
Fannie Mae was created by FDR (D) in 1937. In 1967, LBJ (D) privatized it, giving it unlimited power to grow. In 1977, Carter (D) passed the Community Reinvestment Act (as put forth by ACORN and its "community organizers") that forced banks to make risky loans. In 1998, Clinton (D) signed the Bliley Bill that forced banks to make even more risky loans. In 2004, republicans tried to pass a bill to rein in Fannie Mae, but it was blocked by Frank (D) and Dodd (D), both of whom are on record as saying Fannie Mae was sound.
Considering Obama says Fannie Mae is the culprit, and every part of Fannie Mae was courtesy of Democrats, and considering Democrats have been in control since January 2007, I fail to see how it was the Republicans that drove the economy into the ditch.
But even if they did, that is no excuse for the Democrats to drive it out of the ditch and over the cliff...
/
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Middle East Peace?
Not likely. But it IS possible.
Unfortunately, a lasting, real peace in the Middle East, i.e. Israel, is not possible as long as the governments involved - including the United States - refuse to accept the basic core of the problem.
The Arab Palestinians claim the land as their own, because they were predominant in the land for two thousand years. The Palestinians effectively exiled the Jews, and centuries later Islam had marched against the Christian and Jewish world, and had all but overtaken it when, under King Richard of England the Crusades were launched. Richard lost, and Palestinian muslims ruled the land that had been bequeathed by God to the descendant of Abraham, through his son Isaac.
Isaac was the father of the Jewish nation, and according to the Bible in Genesis, God gave his son, Jacob, the land of Canaan as the "Promised Land". Canaan was the land now known as Israel, Lebanon and other coastal areas of the region.
Many centuries later, Muhammed wrote the Quran and started the Islamic religion. The religion grew primarily because of its violent nature and requirement that all non-muslims either be converted, subjugated or killed. Over the next 6 centuries, Islam virtually took over the civilized world. Even Constantinople, the center of Christianity, was overtaken and a mosque built on top of the Christian cathedral where it stands to this day.
After World War II, the Jewish people, in need of a home after the persecution by the Nazis, were granted permission by Britain to settle in Palestine, which later became Israel.
So, Canaan became Israel the Promised Land, which then was taken by Arabs who named it Palestine. And after a couple of thousand years, the Jews were allowed to take it back.
In both essence and reality, both the Palestinians and the Jews have a right to the land. The problem stems from the fact that Islam wants the total destruction of the Jews, so any compromise is unlikely unless and until Islam accepts the right of Jews to exist.
Many Palestinians are willing to co-exist, but only as equals. The problem is that Hamas pretty much controls the Palestinian government, and Hamas does not want co-existence. It wants only the complete destruction of Israel.
Perhaps there will never be peace, but if there is ever to be a serious effort to that end, as yet no one has taken into consideration the most essential first step, without which nothing else can begin. And that crucial first step absolutely must be to change the name of the country.
The name Israel says the land belongs to the Jews. The name Palestine says it belongs to the Arabs. Sine history and reality says it belongs to both, only a new, non-denominational name would promote a sense of co-existence. I would propose that the name of Israel/Palestine revert back to it's original name - Canaan. A name that both peoples can claim, allowing both peoples to simply be "equal citizens of Canaan".
Once the name is changed to something that does not elicit anger and hate, perhaps then the two sides can begin to agree on peace. There is no reason that Arab and Jew cannot live together in a combined land. We do it here - Irish, Native American, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Italians, Mexicans - we all live together in this land. It did not have to be divided into separate nations. And the big "secret" is our name - America. It is a benign name, and does not favor any one race or people.
I suspect if our nation had been named to favor one religion or sect, we, too would be having our own "Middle East Crisis" right here in the U.S.A.
/
Unfortunately, a lasting, real peace in the Middle East, i.e. Israel, is not possible as long as the governments involved - including the United States - refuse to accept the basic core of the problem.
The Arab Palestinians claim the land as their own, because they were predominant in the land for two thousand years. The Palestinians effectively exiled the Jews, and centuries later Islam had marched against the Christian and Jewish world, and had all but overtaken it when, under King Richard of England the Crusades were launched. Richard lost, and Palestinian muslims ruled the land that had been bequeathed by God to the descendant of Abraham, through his son Isaac.
Isaac was the father of the Jewish nation, and according to the Bible in Genesis, God gave his son, Jacob, the land of Canaan as the "Promised Land". Canaan was the land now known as Israel, Lebanon and other coastal areas of the region.
Many centuries later, Muhammed wrote the Quran and started the Islamic religion. The religion grew primarily because of its violent nature and requirement that all non-muslims either be converted, subjugated or killed. Over the next 6 centuries, Islam virtually took over the civilized world. Even Constantinople, the center of Christianity, was overtaken and a mosque built on top of the Christian cathedral where it stands to this day.
After World War II, the Jewish people, in need of a home after the persecution by the Nazis, were granted permission by Britain to settle in Palestine, which later became Israel.
So, Canaan became Israel the Promised Land, which then was taken by Arabs who named it Palestine. And after a couple of thousand years, the Jews were allowed to take it back.
In both essence and reality, both the Palestinians and the Jews have a right to the land. The problem stems from the fact that Islam wants the total destruction of the Jews, so any compromise is unlikely unless and until Islam accepts the right of Jews to exist.
Many Palestinians are willing to co-exist, but only as equals. The problem is that Hamas pretty much controls the Palestinian government, and Hamas does not want co-existence. It wants only the complete destruction of Israel.
Perhaps there will never be peace, but if there is ever to be a serious effort to that end, as yet no one has taken into consideration the most essential first step, without which nothing else can begin. And that crucial first step absolutely must be to change the name of the country.
The name Israel says the land belongs to the Jews. The name Palestine says it belongs to the Arabs. Sine history and reality says it belongs to both, only a new, non-denominational name would promote a sense of co-existence. I would propose that the name of Israel/Palestine revert back to it's original name - Canaan. A name that both peoples can claim, allowing both peoples to simply be "equal citizens of Canaan".
Once the name is changed to something that does not elicit anger and hate, perhaps then the two sides can begin to agree on peace. There is no reason that Arab and Jew cannot live together in a combined land. We do it here - Irish, Native American, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Italians, Mexicans - we all live together in this land. It did not have to be divided into separate nations. And the big "secret" is our name - America. It is a benign name, and does not favor any one race or people.
I suspect if our nation had been named to favor one religion or sect, we, too would be having our own "Middle East Crisis" right here in the U.S.A.
/
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Pathetic
OK, so everyone heard about Glenn Beck's rally to Restore Honor in DC last Saturday. And, despite the left trying to minimize the number of participants, the latest figures show somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 people.
One man made this happen. And one man insisted it not be political - and it was not.
And here is where things begin to get pathetic...
The liberal media today tried to say, "on any given day at the Washington Mall you would have 80,000 people, anyway." Now, I have spent many days, weeks and long months in DC. I have walked the mall at least a hundred times. And, except when there was a big to-do, like the pot-smoking sit-in back in the '70's, I have never seen more than a couple hundred people on the mall at any given point.
But it gets worse. Now the hard left loons are going to hold their own march on Washington on 10/10/2010. They are attempting to draw at least as big a crowd as Beck drew. But here is the really pathetic part - a total of 17 different far left organizations are rallying together to try and make this happen. Not just one man. 17 organizations, including the powerful AFL-CIO, SEIU and 15 other member orgs, and they are pressuring their membership to show up.
Frankly, even with such a vast machine exerting its power, I seriously doubt the left can bring that many people together. And that is the most pathetic thing of all - with their huge memberships and coordinated efforts they should be able to draw millions. But they are unlikely to draw more than 30,000 because the vast majority of their members are not in lock-step with the far-left agenda of the leadership.
And I would bet the farm that, unlike Beck, the left will not leave out the politics, the smears or the hatred they have for anyone who dares to disagree with their socialist agenda.
I'm looking forward to watching it - from a distance - and compare it to the peacefulness and love, devoid of politics that was present on 8/28.
/
One man made this happen. And one man insisted it not be political - and it was not.
And here is where things begin to get pathetic...
The liberal media today tried to say, "on any given day at the Washington Mall you would have 80,000 people, anyway." Now, I have spent many days, weeks and long months in DC. I have walked the mall at least a hundred times. And, except when there was a big to-do, like the pot-smoking sit-in back in the '70's, I have never seen more than a couple hundred people on the mall at any given point.
But it gets worse. Now the hard left loons are going to hold their own march on Washington on 10/10/2010. They are attempting to draw at least as big a crowd as Beck drew. But here is the really pathetic part - a total of 17 different far left organizations are rallying together to try and make this happen. Not just one man. 17 organizations, including the powerful AFL-CIO, SEIU and 15 other member orgs, and they are pressuring their membership to show up.
Frankly, even with such a vast machine exerting its power, I seriously doubt the left can bring that many people together. And that is the most pathetic thing of all - with their huge memberships and coordinated efforts they should be able to draw millions. But they are unlikely to draw more than 30,000 because the vast majority of their members are not in lock-step with the far-left agenda of the leadership.
And I would bet the farm that, unlike Beck, the left will not leave out the politics, the smears or the hatred they have for anyone who dares to disagree with their socialist agenda.
I'm looking forward to watching it - from a distance - and compare it to the peacefulness and love, devoid of politics that was present on 8/28.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)