Democrats compare the OCCUPY WALL STREET (OWS) protesters with the Tea Party (TP). Let's REALLY compare, based on known facts:
TP - focused on a single premise - less government, lower taxes, more liberty for people
OWS - every protester has a different gripe and reason for protesting
TP - most are employed, majority college educated
OWS - mostly unemployed, few college educated
TP - quiet, polite
OWS - Noisy, unruly
TP - peaceful, light-hearted protests
OWS - angry
TP - clean, orderly, never leave a mess. They leave the place cleaner than it was
OWS - always leave a huge mess, disorderly. Parks have been closed due to the mess they leave
TP - non-violent, no arrests
OWS - violent, numerous arrests. Have stormed bridges, the Air & Space Museum, blocked roads etc
TP - no "special interest" funding
OWS - some funding by George Soros and labor unions
I could go on, of course. But any sane person (I guess this excludes Pelosi and other supporters) can easily see that there is NO comparison between the two groups. One is a peaceful protest. The other is an unruly, disorganized mob.
There is one thing the two groups have in common - both are dissatisfied with the way our government runs things, and believe government is out of control. The big difference there is that the TP believes there is too much government that is too costly, and the OWS believes there is not enough government and cost ids no object.
Of course, the reason they feel cost is no object is because the OWS group aren't paying the tab. It's easy to choose the most expensive stuff on the menu when you aren't the one paying the bill. Most pay zero taxes, which is precisely why they want the "wealthy" to pay more taxes.
The OWS bunch can be compared to another protest group, however, with alarming similarities - they are nearly identical to the radical, unruly, violent mobs of the "Arab Spring". And near as I can tell, none of those have turned out well - they are simply "useful idiots" that allow a different group of tyrants to take charge. Exchanging the enemy you know for an enemy you do not know.
/
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Anti-American Jerry Brown of California Strikes Again...
On Saturday, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 131, the second bill of the two-part California Dream Act, allowing undocumented immigrant students to apply for state-funded financial aid for college.
First, they are not "undocumented immigrants" - they are illegal immigrants, by law. Federal law. But now, thanks to the socialist Jerry Brown, who has no use for the Constitution and no love for America is burdening taxpayers with funding college for people who aren't even legally allowed to be here. Taxpayer funds. YOUR kid can't get into UCLA because some illegal immigrant is getting paid to take that spot in the classroom.
So now we have a state that makes it a POINT to bring more illegals in over the border - INVITES them, and then PAYS them to be here. Of course, California is already bankrupt because they give way too much to far too many, but Hell, that does not stop Brown from squeezing the taxpayer even more. It matters not how much you hurt and punish honest citizens with a birthright to be here, as long as you coddle lawbreakers who have no right at all to be here.
Look, I am not "mean" because I want to "deprive" hapless Mexicans who have no resprect for our laws. I am sympathetic to the fact that Mexico cannot provide what we provide. I understand the humanity angle. But not at the expense of those of us who BELONG here.
A college can hold just so many students. Every illegal who takes up a space is depriving an American student from using those educational resources. And every dollar we give to illegals is another dollar we have to take away from some American working stiff trying to get by.
Liberals and socialists like Jerry Brown don't care about how Americans are affected, or what it costs us. They only care about some warped sense of "social justice" that is anti-American and anti-Christian at its core.
It is the government's role to protect our equal rights. It is not the role of government to provide equal things. Things must be earned, by following the rules (and laws), and earning them by the sweat of your brow.
If ANYONE should get a free ride, it certainly is not those who don't even belong here. Only when every American child has the best education should we then open up any "extra" space in the classrooms to others. But as long as even ONE American child cannot afford college, I don't want to see any illegal immigrant taking up space in the classrooms at taxpayer expense. Why should an illegal immigrant prosper at the expense of an American?
/
First, they are not "undocumented immigrants" - they are illegal immigrants, by law. Federal law. But now, thanks to the socialist Jerry Brown, who has no use for the Constitution and no love for America is burdening taxpayers with funding college for people who aren't even legally allowed to be here. Taxpayer funds. YOUR kid can't get into UCLA because some illegal immigrant is getting paid to take that spot in the classroom.
So now we have a state that makes it a POINT to bring more illegals in over the border - INVITES them, and then PAYS them to be here. Of course, California is already bankrupt because they give way too much to far too many, but Hell, that does not stop Brown from squeezing the taxpayer even more. It matters not how much you hurt and punish honest citizens with a birthright to be here, as long as you coddle lawbreakers who have no right at all to be here.
Look, I am not "mean" because I want to "deprive" hapless Mexicans who have no resprect for our laws. I am sympathetic to the fact that Mexico cannot provide what we provide. I understand the humanity angle. But not at the expense of those of us who BELONG here.
A college can hold just so many students. Every illegal who takes up a space is depriving an American student from using those educational resources. And every dollar we give to illegals is another dollar we have to take away from some American working stiff trying to get by.
Liberals and socialists like Jerry Brown don't care about how Americans are affected, or what it costs us. They only care about some warped sense of "social justice" that is anti-American and anti-Christian at its core.
It is the government's role to protect our equal rights. It is not the role of government to provide equal things. Things must be earned, by following the rules (and laws), and earning them by the sweat of your brow.
If ANYONE should get a free ride, it certainly is not those who don't even belong here. Only when every American child has the best education should we then open up any "extra" space in the classrooms to others. But as long as even ONE American child cannot afford college, I don't want to see any illegal immigrant taking up space in the classrooms at taxpayer expense. Why should an illegal immigrant prosper at the expense of an American?
/
Friday, October 7, 2011
The New "Black Death"...
From AOL: "It's been dubbed the "21st century equivalent of the Black Death." In the U.K., it's the most common reason employees take long-term sick leave. It costs American companies $300 billion a year. In Japan, it's a fatal epidemic."
The story goes on to accuse STRESS. But "they" are wrong.
The problem is not, and never has been stress. The problem is the DISTRESS that is caused by ignoring stress.
Stress is to the human body as a smoke alarm is to a fire-prone tenement in the Bronx. It is nothing more than a warning. When we fail to heed the warning and take the necessary steps to eliminate the problem, the stress becomes distress. And THAT is what harms us.
The cure? Listen to the warnings, and take the steps necessary to eliminate that which is causing the warning - just like you would seek out and eliminate whatever is causing your smoke alarm to go off.
Stress only occurs when we find ourselves face-to-face with a situation for which we are not adequately or properly prepared. You then have three choices:
1) ignore the problem and hope it goes away (it won't)
2) learn whatever you have to learn to cope with the situation, or
3) take a 3 martini lunch
When stress comes, simply ask yourself what is it about the situation that you are not capable of handling. Then go out and learn whatever you must in order to BECOME capable.
EXAMPLE: Both Bob and Joe are up for promotion to supervisor. Bob has studied the job, has taken night classes on supervision and is prepared for the job. When he is promoted, there is no stress and he succeeds. Joe, on the other hand did not study the job, or take classes. When he gets promoted, he faces situations he is not prepared to deal with, and he feels stress. If he continues to ignore the warnings and does not learn what he must, the stress will become distress. And Joe will soon be replaced (causing even more distress, I'm sure).
The first line of defense against stress is to try and prepare in advance for situations that may arise. The second line of defense is to actively seek learning when a stressful situation does arise.
Of course, you could go for the martinis - but that will just add other stresses...
/
The story goes on to accuse STRESS. But "they" are wrong.
The problem is not, and never has been stress. The problem is the DISTRESS that is caused by ignoring stress.
Stress is to the human body as a smoke alarm is to a fire-prone tenement in the Bronx. It is nothing more than a warning. When we fail to heed the warning and take the necessary steps to eliminate the problem, the stress becomes distress. And THAT is what harms us.
The cure? Listen to the warnings, and take the steps necessary to eliminate that which is causing the warning - just like you would seek out and eliminate whatever is causing your smoke alarm to go off.
Stress only occurs when we find ourselves face-to-face with a situation for which we are not adequately or properly prepared. You then have three choices:
1) ignore the problem and hope it goes away (it won't)
2) learn whatever you have to learn to cope with the situation, or
3) take a 3 martini lunch
When stress comes, simply ask yourself what is it about the situation that you are not capable of handling. Then go out and learn whatever you must in order to BECOME capable.
EXAMPLE: Both Bob and Joe are up for promotion to supervisor. Bob has studied the job, has taken night classes on supervision and is prepared for the job. When he is promoted, there is no stress and he succeeds. Joe, on the other hand did not study the job, or take classes. When he gets promoted, he faces situations he is not prepared to deal with, and he feels stress. If he continues to ignore the warnings and does not learn what he must, the stress will become distress. And Joe will soon be replaced (causing even more distress, I'm sure).
The first line of defense against stress is to try and prepare in advance for situations that may arise. The second line of defense is to actively seek learning when a stressful situation does arise.
Of course, you could go for the martinis - but that will just add other stresses...
/
Pelosi Continues To Amuse...
In reference to the socialist protests called "Occupy Wall Street", Nancy Pelosi said that they were "spontaneous and focused..."
Excuse me for pointing this out, Ms Pelosi, but it's not spontaneous if they plan it months in advance - these lazy troublemakers started advertising this months ago. As for "focused", several investigative reporters interviewed over 200 of the protesters, and asking them what they were protesting. For the first three weeks, there were over 200 different responses to that question. It was not until the unions got involved this week that anything began to come into "focus."
But then, we're talking about Ms Pelosi here. And that means the spin never stops, and usually spins out of control. In any case, she is always good for a laugh.
Yes, I said "lazy troublemakers". When asked if they had jobs, they said "no" (one, in fact, had QUIT his job to attend), and when asked if they would ACCEPT a job, they said "no". So, they are lazy, and only want to take away from those who are not, and live on the public teat. As for being "troublemakers" --- the Tea Party has had hundreds of gatherings without a single arrest. But these socialists have had over 200 arrests already, with more to come, I'm sure. They have attempted to close off a major bridge and major roads in an attempt to hurt the city and the innocent people in it - closing off the G.W Bridge does not hurt the "Wall Street Capitalists" - it hurts everyone trying to get to and from work.
Yes, lazy troublemakers..
/
Excuse me for pointing this out, Ms Pelosi, but it's not spontaneous if they plan it months in advance - these lazy troublemakers started advertising this months ago. As for "focused", several investigative reporters interviewed over 200 of the protesters, and asking them what they were protesting. For the first three weeks, there were over 200 different responses to that question. It was not until the unions got involved this week that anything began to come into "focus."
But then, we're talking about Ms Pelosi here. And that means the spin never stops, and usually spins out of control. In any case, she is always good for a laugh.
Yes, I said "lazy troublemakers". When asked if they had jobs, they said "no" (one, in fact, had QUIT his job to attend), and when asked if they would ACCEPT a job, they said "no". So, they are lazy, and only want to take away from those who are not, and live on the public teat. As for being "troublemakers" --- the Tea Party has had hundreds of gatherings without a single arrest. But these socialists have had over 200 arrests already, with more to come, I'm sure. They have attempted to close off a major bridge and major roads in an attempt to hurt the city and the innocent people in it - closing off the G.W Bridge does not hurt the "Wall Street Capitalists" - it hurts everyone trying to get to and from work.
Yes, lazy troublemakers..
/
Thursday, October 6, 2011
President's Approval Is Not The Only Thing That Is Down...
It has been tentatively reported that crime rates are down across the board. Assuming this is true, there are two schools of thought - that of the Huffington Post and its liberal followers, and mine. Obviously, the two schools of thought differ.
According to the Huffington Post/AOL crowd, "Obama may be responsible. Essentially, the argument is that Obama's election has created such collective inspiration that it has changed the thinking and the behavior of would-be criminals." Sounds a little ethereal if you ask me.
Now for my school of thought, which, as it happens, is based on known facts. Since Obama got elected, sales of guns and ammo have gone through the roof. In fact, it is nearly impossible to buy ammo in some areas as they just cannot make it fast enough. Now, since so many people are arming themselves - and are angry enough to be prepared to use them - criminals are having second thoughts about committing crimes, knowing it is likely they will be shot by their proposed victim.
Of course, feel free to believe whichever school of thought appeals to you, or develop your own. It could simply be that, since Obama has kept the nation broke, no one has anything left to steal.
/
According to the Huffington Post/AOL crowd, "Obama may be responsible. Essentially, the argument is that Obama's election has created such collective inspiration that it has changed the thinking and the behavior of would-be criminals." Sounds a little ethereal if you ask me.
Now for my school of thought, which, as it happens, is based on known facts. Since Obama got elected, sales of guns and ammo have gone through the roof. In fact, it is nearly impossible to buy ammo in some areas as they just cannot make it fast enough. Now, since so many people are arming themselves - and are angry enough to be prepared to use them - criminals are having second thoughts about committing crimes, knowing it is likely they will be shot by their proposed victim.
Of course, feel free to believe whichever school of thought appeals to you, or develop your own. It could simply be that, since Obama has kept the nation broke, no one has anything left to steal.
/
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
If you don't think your vote counts, or that elections matter, check this out...
FREMONT, Neb. -- A 12 year old girl who wears a Rosary necklace was banned from wearing it by her school district after police told officials it's also being worn by gang members.
So, let me get this straight - if a criminal decides to wear a cross, the cross must be banned. If a criminal decides to have pierced ears, then pierced ears will be banned. And if someone else misuses the American flag, then that, too, would be banned. This is exactly the absurd, warped mentality of officials who ban the Rosary necklace from being worn by a religious person for no other reason than it is also worn by less desireable folks.
So, what does this have to do with voting and elections? Think about it - in NO case have conservative officials ever banned religious items. In NO case have conservatives ever taken away a Christmas tree or a Nativity display, or banned Silent Night from a school Christmas concert, or ban public Christmas decorations, as was done in certain liberal-run communities lately.
It is not conservatives who try to tell you how to live, what to eat and whether or not you can have salt on your food. It is not conservatives who try to dictate whether or not you can pass on having health insurance. And it is not conservatives who tell you that you cannot grow herbs because they look too much like weeds (as was the case in a liberal Colorado community). And it was not conservatives who fined a Georgia man for giving away his extra veggies from his garden to his neighbors, or closed down a child's lemonade stand. Or prevent Girl Scouts from selling cookies, or Boy Scouts from using a public area.
Yes, voting - and elections - matter. And we see proof of that every day, in every community. Not just national elections, but also state and even community elections.
Only you can decide whether or not you want others directing and controlling your every move (liberal nanny state), or whether you prefer to have the freedom to make the choices that are right for you. No matter which side of the street you are on, you need to get out and stand up for your beliefs by going to the voting booth and casting a ballot to protect YOUR interests. If you do not, you will end up at the mercy of SPECIAL interests that will make your life miserable.
Just one thing - regardless of actual issues, when you walk into that voting both, think about ONE thing - do you want to be free, or do you want to be a drone? If you answer that question honestly, and vote accordingly, you will automatically be voting for the issues that are right for you.
Yes, voting to be free does have consequences. As a free person, you can win or you can lose. You can get rich, or go broke. You will starve if you refuse to work. Such are the possible outcomes of FREE CHOICE. By the same token, voting to be a nanny-state drone also has its consequences - the loss of freedom being the biggie. Maybe you won't "lose" in the classic sense, but you will lose. You will lose the opportunity to win. You will lose the incentive to excel. You will lose self-esteem. You will lose individual rights in exchange for group rights.
You decide. But do so at the voting booth, because that is the only place it matters.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)