Proof Conservative Republicans Are Doing The Right Thing

Notice that the title says "the RIGHT thing" - it does not say "the POPULAR Thing."

There is a huge difference. The "right thing" is often unpopular. Conservative
/Republicans fight to constrain government's power over people and the excessive spending will adversely affect people on welfare, food stamps, government employees (almost half of all workers) and others. But everyone except liberals pretty much know it is the right thing to do.

That said, on to the proof that it is the right thing. Recent headlines in the news say things like...

• Teachers Union Ad Campaign Slams GOP For Shutdow 
• Media Blames Republicans For (whatever)
• Harry Reid (or any senate Democrat) calls Tea Partiers and conservatives names like "anarchist", "terrorist" etc..

 Unions, the media and liberal democrats all have one thing in common - they want to destroy the Republican party so they lose the House in 2014. And they want that more than anything else in the universe because they understand that, representing a small majority of this nation, it is the liberals last chance to push forth their agenda to turn America into a socialist (i.e. "social justice") nation. They know they will never again have a chance to control all three parts of government. It's now or never.

When the enemies of good, small, effective government rant against you as much as they are today, then you know conservative Republicans are on the right track.

Another Liberal Who Just Doesn't Get Economics

Seattle mayor Mike McGinn (D) came out as an avid supporter of the $15 per hour minimum wage idea.

These liberals should abstain from commenting on financial matters - none of them understand them. They can't. Science tells us liberals think primarily with the right (creative) side of the brain, while conservatives think primarily with the left (analytical) side. Liberals are very bad at understanding concepts such as economics, or anything that requires thinking or planning ahead.

And Mayor McGinn is just another liberal intent on proving that out.

A $15/hour minimum wage would completely destroy our economy, even though on the surface it sounds like it would be a boost. But, as liberals can never figure out, nothing is as it appears.

If the minimum wage is increased, people who provide products and services must increase their prices in order to pay the higher wages. A $3.00 loaf of bread becomes a $4.00 loaf of bread. A $15.00 meal at a restaurant becomes a $22.00 meal, to pay the higher wage of the waitstaff. Everything you buy will be more expensive. And what do you do when everything gets more expensive? You have to either cut back, which reduces consumption, which in turn reduces production resulting in layoffs which hurts the economy, or you have to ask for a raise to cover the increased cost of living, in which case the producers must again raise their prices and the cycle keeps churning upward. Either way, it harms the economy.

If there had never been a minimum wage law and we had allowed free markets to determine prices, values and wages, everything would be so much cheaper these days, and the economy would soar.

But you say, "But hey, Bill, wouldn't that keep those in menial jobs in poverty?"

My answer - they are in poverty, anyway. And they will stay there until THEY do something to push forward. Poverty is not caused by a lack of money. It is caused by a way of life; a lack of education; a lack of effort; a lack of determination. Being broke is a temporary condition. Being poor is a lifestyle choice. Yes, a choice. Don't feed me the bogus argument that uneducated people in ghettos don't have a choice. They do. They can put one foot in front of the other until they are out of the ghetto. They can seek grants for adult education, and spend time in the library learning, instead of wasting time on the couch watching dumbass reality shows. Just because they don't, or won't does not mean they can't.

In 1990, I was destitute and homeless. And it was determination, education and effort that put me into the upper middle class. It was not welfare, minimum wage or any form of "social justice".

The low wage jobs are necessary in a sound economy. It is a place where people can begin their own climb. That's why they call them "entry level" jobs. It affords anyone, even idiots, an opportunity to get ahead, provided they work at it.

What happens with a $15/hour minimum wage? For one thing, those people will stop trying to get ahead - the minimum wage has done that for them. Until the after effects come. Then, $15/hour will be no different from $7/hour is today, because economies level out. The reality - you can earn $7.00 an hour in a world where it costs $20,000 to live, or you can earn $15.00 an hour in a world that costs $40,000 to live. There is no difference. None.

Why do you think liberals have to keep raising the minimum wage? If it was doing what liberals believe it should do, then there should be no need to keep jacking it up.

Mayor McGinn, WAKE UP! You do not have a clue, so unless you are willing to think things through to the unintended consequences, perhaps you should just stay out of the conversation. You can be quiet and be thought a fool, or open your mouth and prove it.

When Will Mankind Become Extinct - The Doomsday Argument Refuted

Most people wonder at some point in their life whether or not Man will become extinct, and if so, when. While no one knows the answer, there are some good possibilities based on several factors.

According to the well-known "Doomsday Argument", Mankind has a 95% chance of having reached our half-way point, which in layman's terms means we will be around for another 10,000 years. Hm-m-m.

According to some scientists, however, who have calculated the number of people the planet can reasonably support (food, water and other resources), they seem to think the maximum population could be around 10 billion. And based on current levels and projections, the Earth will hit 7 billion on or around Oct. 31, and, if its projections are correct, we'll reach a population of 9 billion by 2050, and 10 billion by 2100.

The reason for the slow-down can be attributed to a decreasing reproduction rate among humans.

Those scientists figure when the population hits that mark, it will result in a mass, world-wide famine that would wipe us out, as there will be too many mouths open and not enough groceries to shove down all those necks.

I doubt that, for several reasons. First, if a famine did hit, and it wipes out large portions of the population, it would reach the point where there will be more resources left for those who remain. It would be a set-back, like the black plague, but doubtful it would be an extinction event. But I doubt even that will be what happens (though it could well be a part of it).

As we approach saturation of humankind, and long before we hit 10 billion, the growing scarcity of resources - water, fuel, food etc. - will cause nations to go to war. Wars that would kill millions, perhaps billions. And this, too, would reduce the burden on resources.

But setting all of that aside, there is still another scenario. According to the original Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible, when we reach the point where there are as many people living as the number of all those that have passed, that will be the end. Why? Maybe because the Earth and all of its creatures have a finite amount of materials, and once humankind takes up those materials, there is nothing left to sustain us. Or maybe there is just so much "life force" available - that it, too, is limited.

For example, let's say your family of 4 has 1000 kernels of corn. There is no more, anywhere. That's it! Normally, you could each only eat 200 (800 in all) and save the remaining 200 for growing more. Sustainability. But now lets say you have one more child, and that child also eats 200. Now all the corn is being consumed, with nothing left over to grow another crop. Starvation instead of sustainability.

Once mankind, itself, makes up most of the Earth's resources, extinction follows. The fact remains that the laws of physics state that matter can be converted, but it cannot be created nor destroyed. There is a finite amount of matter on Earth. When it is all being used simultaneously, we're in BIG trouble. Once you have used up every grape, there can be no more wine.

Estimates show that the living population and the past population should equal out sometime in the next 50-400 years, give or take a day or so.

And that is precisely why Man has been looking to - and trying to get to - the stars ever since the Tower of Babel. It is our only hope of staving off extinction. Colonizing, mining and otherwise obtaining more matter - food, water, fuel etc. And ROOM. We take up a lot of space - not just our bodies, but also our homes, schools, roads, businesses, utilities - and even cemeteries. If you think rush-hour traffic is a b*itch now, wait until the population doubles, but the amount of land does not!

So, what do I think we have time for?

I think we have time for another martini. Seriously, though, I would not want to make a prediction because there are too many unknown variables. Will we get hit with a new plague? What about a nuclear war? Or slammed by a space rock the size of Manhattan? Will our rate of infertility keep increasing? Or the rate of non-child-producing gays grows exponentially? Ice age? Global warming?

I'll be satisfied if I just make it through another April 15th tax deadline...

/

Is Truth An Unknown Concept For Pelosi?

Many liberals, particularly Nancy Pelosi, seem to be unable to tell, or even recognize the truth. It's all about spin.

Closing in on the debt ceiling fight, Pelosi just told the media that "there are no more cuts to make in government."

Really? With the CBO stating our government wastes more taxpayer money in one hour than most people earn in a lifetime? No more cuts are possible?

That's incredible! But that is nothing more than lib-speak for, "I want more taxpayer money to spend but those pesky Republicans have a lock on the purse."

Consider - the government just furloughed 800,000 non-essential (i.e. "not needed") employees. If they are not necessary, then why wewre we paying them in the first place?

If only there were some way to force politicians to tell the truth, and those who do not would be rendered permanently mute. Now THERE'S an idea!

/

Obama Administration To Colleges - Free Speech Is Out

On May 9 the Department of Education, in concert with the (in)justice Department sent a letter to the University of Montana. that declares that, from now on, freedom of speech will be curbed, or else.

Concerning "sexual assault", the Obama Administration, without consent, declared that from now on, even offensive speech can be considered sexual assault. Until May 9, sexual harassment had to be "objectively offensive", using the standard of a "reasonable person." The Administration removed those requirements. Now, according to the DOE and DOJ, you can be found guilty of sexual harassment if you SAY anything that offends someone else.

It seems the Obama Administration has decided arbitrarily to insert a new "Constitutional Right" where it does not exist - a right to not be offended.

Well, Mr Obama, Holder and the rest of you liberal tyrants - YOU and YOUR actions OFFEND ME! So maybe you should STOP offending me.

Frankly, there is, and never can be a "right to not be offended", simply because everything on the planet offends someone, somewhere. Atheists offend religious people - should we make it a crime to be an atheist? That sculpture of the Madonna covered in elephant dung offends many - should the sculptor go to prison?

This is a direct attack on the First Amendment right to free speech. Liberals seem to like free speech only when it is speech they approve of. By definition, that is the opposite of free speech.

So, according to the Obama Administration, if you ask someone for a date and they are offended by your request, you are guilty of sexual harassment.

Such restrictions on "offensive" speech attempts in the past have been rejected by the courts, simply because, as stated earlier, anyone can consider anything "offensive."

The DOE and DOJ do not want to adhere to the decision of the Supreme Court (davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 1999) that determined the definition of harassment is "a targeted pattern of serious onlgoing discriminatory behavior". Instead, the Obama Administration, true to their practice of tyranny, have decided that harassment can be any innocent remark.

People of America, it is time to stop the dictatorial, illegal actions coming out of Washington and out of agencies run by unelected officials. It's time to kick these bums to the curb and take our country back. After all, this is supposed to be the "land of the free", but we will lose that if we do not again become "home of the brave." Stand up and be counted!

/

ObamaCare Screws Young Folks BIG Time

Checked out the "exchanges" and what ObamaCare really offers. Man, the Democrats are really putting the screws to young people - the same young fools who elected him, so perhaps it is poetic justice.

It appears that anyone under the age of 34 will pay higher premiums, in order to "level the playing field" and picking up the tab for older, sicker folks. But that's only the beginning! Those same young people who will be paying more for insurance will have a deductible of as much as $5,000 each year!

Most young people never have $5000 in medical expenses every year, so the result is that young people will pay all, or almost all of their own medical care costs out of pocket, even though they are paying higher premiums for insurance that covers nothing for them. They are getting screwed at both ends!

But, Hey!~ They elected this socialist moron, expecting him to be some sort of "new" politician.

Yeah, he's new alright. He's a corrupt, Chicago-mob-style politician who dares to be king, instead of president. He will tell any lie to fulfill his socialist agenda, and young people are so much easier to fool than older, wiser people (like the Tea Party).

As for me, I will not be participating in ObamaCare no matter what. Even if they offered to PAY me to take the insurance, I would refuse, for two reasons.

#1 - I do not believe entitlements are good, and certainly do not believe a government we know we cannot trust (i.e. I.R.S scandal, NSA scandal, Benghazi scandal etc.) would have control over my health

#2 - I will not provide every ounce of personal info to the government - medical records, financial records etc.- because the government cannot keep any info safe. Need I remind anyone of WikiLeaks, Snowden and the Pentagon getting hacked?

Nope. This dude is not going to play Obama's game.

/