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.
/
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
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"?
/
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.
/
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.
Bill
/
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.
Bill
/
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.
/
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)