The lamestream media, and more especially the loons on the far left, really have a good time trying to paint Sarah Palin as being just a dumb broad. They point at the satire of Saturday Night Live, with Tina Fey actually playing the part of a dumb broad, and point to how she was flustered when ambushed by the elitist liberals in the media, like Katie Couric.
Fine. I get it. Liberals hate Palin. But NOT because she is dumb. On the contrary - folks tend to try and destroy only those who pose a real threat. So obviously, the liberals realize that the truth about Palin is the polar opposite of what they try to convince the rest of us.
So, just for the record, here are a few actual, documented facts about Sarah Palin - facts that even the Republicans are not talking about, because the Republicans in power also see Palin as a threat - where they have chosen to be "liberal lite", Palin is a staunch conservative - the kind of person the tea partiers love.
And here is why (originally posted by an Alaska fisherman on Greta's blog):
"When you can say that you have done more than Sarah, then you can call her dumb. Until then the dumb one is in the mirror you look at.---By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman.
"The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska . I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
"1- Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits.. The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
"2- Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES." Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, "don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
"3- The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
"4- Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
"5- For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started... This summer, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
"6- President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewable by 2025. We are already at 25%.
"I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.
"By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screeches are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.
"You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents' wives.
"So "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals."
__________
1-6 are documented facts, and in the history of the U.S., no other governor ever did more, in less time, and fought both parties in order to get the job done. And as Dick Martin once said of Goldie Hawn, "She's dumb as a fox."
Do I think she should be president? Not really, though I would not object. I would much rather see her take charge of reforming the Republican party back to its conservative "tea party" roots, where the party would actually stand for all the right things, and not compromise our values just to try and win over some moderates. The de facto RNC chairperson, so to speak - particularly since Michael Steele is apparently inept. He could not even get the Repubs in Congress to stop adding their pork to every bill that comes along.
Look at it this way - in every job-lot manufacturing plant, there are always two leaders - the formal leader, with title of "Supervisor", and the informal leader, chosen by his or her fellow workers. The workers silently follow the informal supervisor. And he or she will informally "assist" the Supervisor by adding the strength of his or her own influence. Much like a union. And the supervisor realizes that his department will only run smoothly with the help of the informal leader. I have seen a good many supervisors fall from Management's grace because he crossed the informal leader.
So, the Republican party can nominate whomever they wish. But I would hope Sarah Palin decides to be the "informal leader" who actually makes things work.
'Nuff said.
/
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
My Response To Socialism
There is much ado these days about the "need" for America to become more socialistic in nature, "for the betterment of the world." As "world citizens", some believe we have an obligation to lower our own standard of living in order to share with others, and raise them up. Level the field. Redistribute the wealth.
The theory almost sounds logical - until you actually THINK about it.
The first law of nature is "survival of the fittest." Survival of the strongest, to perpetuate the race. When we strive to weaken ourselves in an effort to strengthen others, we only serve to weaken the entire race.
Think about this for a moment: In what counties have almost all innovations and progress in technology, medicine, food and every other area of life come from? They have all come from CAPITALIST countries. No socialist country has ever been able to contribute substantially to the greater good because their resources are so thinly spread out (wealth redistribution), and incentive is non-existent. After all, why try harder, work harder or think harder if you are only going to end up with the same as the lazy oafs who contribute little or nothing?
In a socialist state the incentive is gone. And there are no "rich" people to invest in research and development of products and services. In capitalist nations, there is great incentive and competition because there is the promise of wealth and prosperity for those who achieve. And it is that competition and incentive that begets innovation.
Had it not been for Capitalist America, the world would be far worse off. Even the poorer people and nations would be worse off. Our capitalism gave birth to the innovations that raise us all. Yes, the poor are still with us, but they are not AS poor, thanks to our capitalistic nature. Capitalism has given rise to great and powerful medicines and technology, and even the poor tend to own cellphones and computers.
No, America does not need to lower itself with socialism in order to make the world better. Instead, we need to strengthen our capitalist free markets that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, because it is only through those that we can raise up the standards for all people.
/
The theory almost sounds logical - until you actually THINK about it.
The first law of nature is "survival of the fittest." Survival of the strongest, to perpetuate the race. When we strive to weaken ourselves in an effort to strengthen others, we only serve to weaken the entire race.
Think about this for a moment: In what counties have almost all innovations and progress in technology, medicine, food and every other area of life come from? They have all come from CAPITALIST countries. No socialist country has ever been able to contribute substantially to the greater good because their resources are so thinly spread out (wealth redistribution), and incentive is non-existent. After all, why try harder, work harder or think harder if you are only going to end up with the same as the lazy oafs who contribute little or nothing?
In a socialist state the incentive is gone. And there are no "rich" people to invest in research and development of products and services. In capitalist nations, there is great incentive and competition because there is the promise of wealth and prosperity for those who achieve. And it is that competition and incentive that begets innovation.
Had it not been for Capitalist America, the world would be far worse off. Even the poorer people and nations would be worse off. Our capitalism gave birth to the innovations that raise us all. Yes, the poor are still with us, but they are not AS poor, thanks to our capitalistic nature. Capitalism has given rise to great and powerful medicines and technology, and even the poor tend to own cellphones and computers.
No, America does not need to lower itself with socialism in order to make the world better. Instead, we need to strengthen our capitalist free markets that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, because it is only through those that we can raise up the standards for all people.
/
Deaf To Reality
A couple weeks ago when Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson sold his vote on the health care bill, I immediately wrote that I did not believe he understands Nebraskans - that they would be insulted by his actions.
Today, a new Rasmussen poll shows only 17% of Nebraskans agree with Nelson. Here's a hint, Senator - in the history of the United States, NO ONE ever got elected with 17% of the vote. I suggest you dust off your resume, because you will not be sitting in the Senate next time around.
It is totally amazing that our politicians have become such elitists that they are completely deaf to the reality around them. Nelson voted for the health care bill even though Nebraskans are strongly opposed to it. And the rest of the Democrat Congress is shrugging off the "tea party" folks, thinking it isn't real. That is a HUGE mistake on their part, because it is very real. The polls show the tea party is favored well above either the Democrats or Republicans.
I started saying this in my blogs over two years ago, long before Glenn Beck and others jumped on the train: come election time, look on the ballot for the incumbents, then vote for the other person, regardless of party. If all of Congress is fired, the message will be loud and clear - that we, not them, hold the power, and they serve at our convenience. And the newly elected will notice that message, and realize if the old-time powerhouse Senators and Representatives can be fired, so can they if they do not do the bidding of the people.
Then we have a chance of regaining control of our out-of-control government.
/
Today, a new Rasmussen poll shows only 17% of Nebraskans agree with Nelson. Here's a hint, Senator - in the history of the United States, NO ONE ever got elected with 17% of the vote. I suggest you dust off your resume, because you will not be sitting in the Senate next time around.
It is totally amazing that our politicians have become such elitists that they are completely deaf to the reality around them. Nelson voted for the health care bill even though Nebraskans are strongly opposed to it. And the rest of the Democrat Congress is shrugging off the "tea party" folks, thinking it isn't real. That is a HUGE mistake on their part, because it is very real. The polls show the tea party is favored well above either the Democrats or Republicans.
I started saying this in my blogs over two years ago, long before Glenn Beck and others jumped on the train: come election time, look on the ballot for the incumbents, then vote for the other person, regardless of party. If all of Congress is fired, the message will be loud and clear - that we, not them, hold the power, and they serve at our convenience. And the newly elected will notice that message, and realize if the old-time powerhouse Senators and Representatives can be fired, so can they if they do not do the bidding of the people.
Then we have a chance of regaining control of our out-of-control government.
/
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Food For Thought
Success depends strongly upon being prepared for whatever might come down the pike.
But did you know that it is estimated the world's oil reserves will have peaked by next year? That means that instead of pumping more oil to meet increasing demand, they can only pump LESS.
Supply and demand will drive prices up - way up! And prices will continue to rise until the oil is gone.
Think about this - the countries that have most of the oil are all looking to build nuclear power plants. Why do you suppose that is? Because they know two things - 1) the folks who own the power source will rule the world, and 2) oil is running out. They also know that America's environmentalists and leftist government will not build nuclear power plants.
What this means is simple - the only ones without sufficient, inexpensive fuel with be the USA. We will be at the mercy of countries that hate us - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Russia, Venezuela etc.
And when that day comes, we will no longer have our freedoms, because we will be at the mercy of our enemies, literally. You cannot even mobilize an army of crash dummies without fuel.
As a country, we need for the folks (that means you) to pressure Congress to push for nuclear power production - and lots of it. It is the only source currently available that can meet the lion's share of our needs. Not as a permanent solution, but as a temporary solution until we can innovate into something better. And that innovation will take time - more time than we have if we remain dependent on foreign oil.
As individuals, it may be wise to begin planning for a home in a warm climate, if you do not already live there, as fuel for heat will become rare and pricey - and when that begins to happen, there will be a land rush to the south, pushing up prices in the south, and destroying values of homes to the north. So if you wait too long, be prepared to take a big hit.
Personally, I like the idea of buying a little vacation retreat in a rural part of Mexico - you can buy a nice spread there for a fraction of what it would cost in the U.S., and with all the Mexicans flooding into America, you would have the place virtually to yourself (just a little sick humor there). Then when the proverbial crap hits the proverbial fan, you would have a warm place to reside.
Whatever you do, do yourself a favor and 1) press your elected officials in Congress to ramp up nuclear power, and 2) prepare for the day when fuel will be much, much more expensive - and perhaps not available at all.
As my Dad used to say, "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst and you will never have regrets."
/
But did you know that it is estimated the world's oil reserves will have peaked by next year? That means that instead of pumping more oil to meet increasing demand, they can only pump LESS.
Supply and demand will drive prices up - way up! And prices will continue to rise until the oil is gone.
Think about this - the countries that have most of the oil are all looking to build nuclear power plants. Why do you suppose that is? Because they know two things - 1) the folks who own the power source will rule the world, and 2) oil is running out. They also know that America's environmentalists and leftist government will not build nuclear power plants.
What this means is simple - the only ones without sufficient, inexpensive fuel with be the USA. We will be at the mercy of countries that hate us - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Russia, Venezuela etc.
And when that day comes, we will no longer have our freedoms, because we will be at the mercy of our enemies, literally. You cannot even mobilize an army of crash dummies without fuel.
As a country, we need for the folks (that means you) to pressure Congress to push for nuclear power production - and lots of it. It is the only source currently available that can meet the lion's share of our needs. Not as a permanent solution, but as a temporary solution until we can innovate into something better. And that innovation will take time - more time than we have if we remain dependent on foreign oil.
As individuals, it may be wise to begin planning for a home in a warm climate, if you do not already live there, as fuel for heat will become rare and pricey - and when that begins to happen, there will be a land rush to the south, pushing up prices in the south, and destroying values of homes to the north. So if you wait too long, be prepared to take a big hit.
Personally, I like the idea of buying a little vacation retreat in a rural part of Mexico - you can buy a nice spread there for a fraction of what it would cost in the U.S., and with all the Mexicans flooding into America, you would have the place virtually to yourself (just a little sick humor there). Then when the proverbial crap hits the proverbial fan, you would have a warm place to reside.
Whatever you do, do yourself a favor and 1) press your elected officials in Congress to ramp up nuclear power, and 2) prepare for the day when fuel will be much, much more expensive - and perhaps not available at all.
As my Dad used to say, "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst and you will never have regrets."
/
Amateurs
OK, so here is the series of events:
Goof #1: A father tells the FBI that his son has been radicalized for jihad, and needs to be watched. He is put on a "watch list", but NOT on the "no fly" list.
Goof #2: This radical jihadist is granted a visa to come to America by Hilary Clinton's State Department.
Goof #3: This radical jihadist, on a watch list, is not searched, while Grandma Jones must go through a strip search.
Goof #4: When this jihadist tries to blow up the plain over Detroit (which would have likely improved Detroit), it was the passengers, not air marshals, who stopped and held him.
Goof #5: Director of Homeland Security Napolitano immediately issues a statement that "the system worked."
Goof #6: Napolitano then flips the next day and says "the system failed."
Goof #7: Staff awoke Obama to tell him he won the Nobel Prize, but waited three hours to tell him of this incident.
Goof #8: Obama took three days to make a statement, giving the impression this terrorist attack was not important.
Goof #9: Obama blamed Bush security policies for this, even though the policies did not fail - the PEOPLE who are now entrusted to follow through on them (Obama's team) are the ones who failed.
Goof #10: Obama's administration decided to treat this as a crime, not terrorism, and the radical jihadist will be arraigned in District Court. Who knows - he may even get bail.
No matter how the liberals try to put some pretty ribbons on their spin, there is absolutely no doubt that this country is now in the hands of rank amateurs.
/
Goof #1: A father tells the FBI that his son has been radicalized for jihad, and needs to be watched. He is put on a "watch list", but NOT on the "no fly" list.
Goof #2: This radical jihadist is granted a visa to come to America by Hilary Clinton's State Department.
Goof #3: This radical jihadist, on a watch list, is not searched, while Grandma Jones must go through a strip search.
Goof #4: When this jihadist tries to blow up the plain over Detroit (which would have likely improved Detroit), it was the passengers, not air marshals, who stopped and held him.
Goof #5: Director of Homeland Security Napolitano immediately issues a statement that "the system worked."
Goof #6: Napolitano then flips the next day and says "the system failed."
Goof #7: Staff awoke Obama to tell him he won the Nobel Prize, but waited three hours to tell him of this incident.
Goof #8: Obama took three days to make a statement, giving the impression this terrorist attack was not important.
Goof #9: Obama blamed Bush security policies for this, even though the policies did not fail - the PEOPLE who are now entrusted to follow through on them (Obama's team) are the ones who failed.
Goof #10: Obama's administration decided to treat this as a crime, not terrorism, and the radical jihadist will be arraigned in District Court. Who knows - he may even get bail.
No matter how the liberals try to put some pretty ribbons on their spin, there is absolutely no doubt that this country is now in the hands of rank amateurs.
/
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Called it?
Well, it appears I called it accurately when I posted that the good folks of Nebraska would be insulted by their senator Ben Nelson's sell-out on the health care bill. It seems a vast number of Nebraskans called and emailed him saying "NO", that they do not appreciate being seen as leeches on society, or charity cases. Even the Governor asked Nelson to vote no.
Nelson said if the Governor were to declare he did not want the billions in bribe money, to just say so and Nelson would give it up. Well, the governor went on air yesterday and stated flatly that Nebraska does NOT want that graft money. But did Nelson give it back? Nope! So, apparently Nelson, already proven to be a corrupt, weak person and a political prostitute is also an abject liar. That does not come as any surprise.
I don't think Nebraskans are proud of him, or the position he put them in. Looks like it's "Bye, Bye, Nelson" come election time. And that is how it should be.
/
Nelson said if the Governor were to declare he did not want the billions in bribe money, to just say so and Nelson would give it up. Well, the governor went on air yesterday and stated flatly that Nebraska does NOT want that graft money. But did Nelson give it back? Nope! So, apparently Nelson, already proven to be a corrupt, weak person and a political prostitute is also an abject liar. That does not come as any surprise.
I don't think Nebraskans are proud of him, or the position he put them in. Looks like it's "Bye, Bye, Nelson" come election time. And that is how it should be.
/
Did You Know
The following is the Code of Ethics for U.S. Government Service, Resolved by the House of Representatives with the Senate concurring, That it is the sense of the Congress that the following Code of Ethics should be adhered to by all Government employees, including officeholders. Pay particular attention to #5 and #6, while recalling the sweetheart bribes Harry Reid has promised in return for votes:
CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Any person in Government service should:
1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.
2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
3. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving to the performance of his duties his earnest effort and best thought.
4. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.
5. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.
6. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.
7. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental duties.
8. Never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.
9. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
10. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.
/
CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Any person in Government service should:
1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.
2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
3. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving to the performance of his duties his earnest effort and best thought.
4. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.
5. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.
6. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.
7. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental duties.
8. Never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.
9. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
10. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.
/
Monday, December 21, 2009
Ben Nelson Loses
Some folks are saying Nebraskans will overlook Senator Ben Nelson's willingness to be corrupted because his corruption brought a lot of benefits to Nebraska.
Maybe. But I like to think that Nebraskans are more grounded in morality than that. I think they are apt to say, "Thanks for the perks, Nelson, but we're voting you out because you are corrupt, and you can be bought. And we are opposed to the crooked politics in Washington - next time, we could be the victims instead of the beneficiaries. And we do not appreciate looking like a state full of charity cases, in need of such special exemptions from having to pay our share, and forcing other hard-working families to pay our way."
I hope my take on Nebraskans is closer to the truth than what Nelson obviously thinks of them.
/
Maybe. But I like to think that Nebraskans are more grounded in morality than that. I think they are apt to say, "Thanks for the perks, Nelson, but we're voting you out because you are corrupt, and you can be bought. And we are opposed to the crooked politics in Washington - next time, we could be the victims instead of the beneficiaries. And we do not appreciate looking like a state full of charity cases, in need of such special exemptions from having to pay our share, and forcing other hard-working families to pay our way."
I hope my take on Nebraskans is closer to the truth than what Nelson obviously thinks of them.
/
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Letters
I have received many letters from folks who are confused as to why the Democrats seem so insistent on shooting themselves in the foot, and ruining their chances for re-election. So, I will try to explain two important points that most folks are overlooking.
1) Unlike Republicans and conservatives, who want to lead the country as it has been led, as a Republic, for over 200 years, the liberals that have taken over the Democrat party have an agenda. That agenda is to create a more socialist society of huge government, where the people serve the government. It is a radical change, and such change requires waging war on the existing structure. They are aware that in order for their movement to gain a foothold, some will have to martyr themselves. they simply do not care if they lose their individual seats, as long as they can open the door to their movement. They are not unlike the suicide bombers in the Middle East except they are too cowardly to actually give their lives for their cause. After all, once their agenda becomes reality, they know their party will take care of them after they lose their seats. None of them will be unemployed - they will be union leaders, lobbyists etc. Just look at the others who already lost their seats, like Tom Daschle, now a high-paid lobbyist (and they tried to appoint him to the Cabinet.)
2) Lest we forget and be distracted by their slight of hand, the next census is due in spring of 2010. And the administration has already planned to use his "community organizers" to do part of the census, and TO COUNT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. By counting the illegals, new congressional districts will be created, all of them Democrat. This means an almost guaranteed majority in the House for the foreseeable future, if they are allowed to pull it off with false registrations and counting illegals. Filling out false reports is not exactly new to them (refer to ACORN).
With these two important but overlooked points in mind, it is easy to see why the Democrats are not at all worried about what we, the people, want. They are not concerned with the 2010 election. They are simply concerned with hijacking the nation by whatever means necessary, and do it so quickly that no one can stop them, or even react until it is too late.
So, the next time your Democrat representative or senator blows you off with disdain, as they do with the "tea party" folks, you will know why. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves - after all, who put these clowns in office? And who keeps re-electing them?
/
1) Unlike Republicans and conservatives, who want to lead the country as it has been led, as a Republic, for over 200 years, the liberals that have taken over the Democrat party have an agenda. That agenda is to create a more socialist society of huge government, where the people serve the government. It is a radical change, and such change requires waging war on the existing structure. They are aware that in order for their movement to gain a foothold, some will have to martyr themselves. they simply do not care if they lose their individual seats, as long as they can open the door to their movement. They are not unlike the suicide bombers in the Middle East except they are too cowardly to actually give their lives for their cause. After all, once their agenda becomes reality, they know their party will take care of them after they lose their seats. None of them will be unemployed - they will be union leaders, lobbyists etc. Just look at the others who already lost their seats, like Tom Daschle, now a high-paid lobbyist (and they tried to appoint him to the Cabinet.)
2) Lest we forget and be distracted by their slight of hand, the next census is due in spring of 2010. And the administration has already planned to use his "community organizers" to do part of the census, and TO COUNT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. By counting the illegals, new congressional districts will be created, all of them Democrat. This means an almost guaranteed majority in the House for the foreseeable future, if they are allowed to pull it off with false registrations and counting illegals. Filling out false reports is not exactly new to them (refer to ACORN).
With these two important but overlooked points in mind, it is easy to see why the Democrats are not at all worried about what we, the people, want. They are not concerned with the 2010 election. They are simply concerned with hijacking the nation by whatever means necessary, and do it so quickly that no one can stop them, or even react until it is too late.
So, the next time your Democrat representative or senator blows you off with disdain, as they do with the "tea party" folks, you will know why. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves - after all, who put these clowns in office? And who keeps re-electing them?
/
A Question For You
I have a simple question I would ask you to consider, then answer. But first, the situation:
You hire an employee to work for you. You put him in charge of the funds for your business. You later discover that he has been using his position to siphon funds to his friends, and to insure his own future. He bribes people with your money, and uses your money to benefit the people who can do him the most good in his future.
The question is, do you fire him?
Apparently not. Because you representatives and senators were hired by you, the people. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS, and are employed by us. We put them in charge of the company funds (taxes), and they use that tax money to feather their own nests, ensure their own re-elections with pork, and, in the case of Harry reid and Nancy Pelosi, they use taxpayer money to actually bribe other senators and representatives to vote against the will of their constituents.
Yet, most of these thieves, embezzlers and grafters have been re-elected time and time again, instead of being fired.
America, stand up for your country, because your elected officials are not - they are looking out only for themselves. Stand and be counted. Fire the entire bunch, regardless of party, and replace them with all new people. By doing so, you accomplish three great things:
1) you uproot the entire weed that has poisoned Washington, and is destroying America
2) you send a strong message that we, the people, run things, and not the government, and all the newly elected people will understand they will be next if they do not represent us, and
3) you take back America. You will once again be the boss, and in control.
On the other hand, if you choose not to do so, you send the message that it is perfectly OK to be crooked; to bribe people with taxpayer money; to promote the interests of special interests instead of your interests. You send the message that you approve of putting America in a perpetual state of decline, and moving toward socialism.
Your choice. And your country - for now...
/
You hire an employee to work for you. You put him in charge of the funds for your business. You later discover that he has been using his position to siphon funds to his friends, and to insure his own future. He bribes people with your money, and uses your money to benefit the people who can do him the most good in his future.
The question is, do you fire him?
Apparently not. Because you representatives and senators were hired by you, the people. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS, and are employed by us. We put them in charge of the company funds (taxes), and they use that tax money to feather their own nests, ensure their own re-elections with pork, and, in the case of Harry reid and Nancy Pelosi, they use taxpayer money to actually bribe other senators and representatives to vote against the will of their constituents.
Yet, most of these thieves, embezzlers and grafters have been re-elected time and time again, instead of being fired.
America, stand up for your country, because your elected officials are not - they are looking out only for themselves. Stand and be counted. Fire the entire bunch, regardless of party, and replace them with all new people. By doing so, you accomplish three great things:
1) you uproot the entire weed that has poisoned Washington, and is destroying America
2) you send a strong message that we, the people, run things, and not the government, and all the newly elected people will understand they will be next if they do not represent us, and
3) you take back America. You will once again be the boss, and in control.
On the other hand, if you choose not to do so, you send the message that it is perfectly OK to be crooked; to bribe people with taxpayer money; to promote the interests of special interests instead of your interests. You send the message that you approve of putting America in a perpetual state of decline, and moving toward socialism.
Your choice. And your country - for now...
/
Friday, December 18, 2009
Wealth Cannot Be Achieved Under Socialism
Under socialism, most wealth is held by either the government, or by the elite who control that government. And there are many who are actively and/or covertly working to bring America into a socialist state.
The definition of "sedition" is the act of attempting to overthrow, or incite to overthrow the government.
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, which is the ultimate law of the land reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." America is not a Democracy - it is a REPUBLIC! The two are very different, as will be pointred out below.
Therefore, any person who acts to overthrow the Republican form of government is guilty of sedition, a crime against the United States.
What this means is that any person who acts to change our Republic into a socialist, Marxist, Communist or other form of government is guilty of sedition, as they are acting to overthrow the Republican government guaranteed under the Constitution.
Almost all of President Obama's advisors are self-proclaimed Marxists or socialists - one (Van Jones) was even a communist (his own words). All are actively inciting or acting to overthrow the Republican government and instituting a socialist government.
And many of the liberal Democrats in the House and Senate are guilty of sedition, as they are actively working to turn America into a socialist state by passing unconstitutional bills designed to move us into socialism.
And other so-called Americans who stand on the far left, are also guilty of sedition, including Michael Moore, Ariana Huffington, George Soros and many, many others. You know who they are - the ones who praise Chavez and Castro. The ones who always find it necessary to insult, then apologize for America.
Do not misunderstand - dissent is a good thing. But what the far left liberals are doing goes well beyond dissent. It is sedition, plain and simple.
If you actively work to change our form of government, you are guilty of sedition.
One of the earliest and most successful seditionists was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was he who removed the word "Republic" from the description of America, and replaced it with "Democracy." No one noticed. To this day, almost no one has noticed that in one simple stroke, he caused the entire nation to forget we are a Republic, and are, instead, a Democracy, which is entirely different. He even had it changed in the textbooks. Roosevelt changed the Republic to a Democracy in 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression. The people were so preoccupied with the depression that they took no notice - and really did not care. By the time things got back to normal, Democracy had already entrenched itself for 15 years, so it still went unnoticed. Even back then the socialists lived by the decree not to let a good crisis go to waste. (Hilary Clinton still uses that phrase). And they are doing it again, with TARP, Stiumulus Bills, bank and automaker takeovers, cap & trade, and now health care. Next it will be amnesty for illegal immigrants.
AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT IS A REPUBLIC, BY DEFINITION AND BY CONSTITUTIONAL DECREE.
The Founding Fathers had considered a Democracy, and rejected that in favor of a Republic. They did so because they (like Roosevelt) knew that a Democracy always leads to socialism - and Roosevelt was an admitted socialist, whose chief advisor was a card-carrying communist.
Here is the major difference: in a Republic, every person, and his/her rights, are equal, and cannot be over-ridden by anyone else, or by any group. In a Democracy, it is "the majority rules", which means if the majority want to deprive you of a right, they may do so. (This is how the Supreme Court was able to change eminient domain in the constitution from "public use" to "public benefit". Now, your land can be taken even if the public cannot get use of it, but if a private party can make better use of it and pay higher taxes, which is a public benefit). The Supreme Court committed an unconstitutional act - only the legislative body, with three-fourths of states ratifying it, can change a single word of the Constitution. So, their ruling is unconstitutional, and any Justice who voted for the change should be recalled and replaced as incompetent and grossly negligent. After all, there is not a single property - including yours - that could not be put to a higher or better use that would produce more tax benefit to the community, so any developer can now simply petition the community to take your land. That was not the intent of the Constitution, nor is it allowed under the Constitution. But it is now permitted under the Supreme Court's twisted and revised interpretation of it.
When the majority rules, they soon learn that they can vote themselves in certain perks and entitlements. And they do - the temptation is too strong. And that is the road to socialism, as those entitlements must come from the government. This gives the government more power over our lives, and power corrupts. More entitlements equals more government, until the people become completely subservient to the government.
What patriotic Americans must do is first reinstate the Republican form of government the Constitution guarantees - throw out any official who resists, or who pursues a more "democratic, socialist" view. Take the word DEMOCRACY out of the description of America and replace it with REPUBLIC. And learn the differences.
Then insist that ALL elected AND non-elected officials follow the Constitution, as written. It does not require "interpretation". Interpretation is whatever a reader wants. The Constitution is clear and simple - do not interpret it - just follow it or get out.
Do not vote for anyone who will not pledge to do the above, and if they reneg, throw them out of office. It matters not what party they belong to - either they are FOR America, a Republic, or they are not.
/
The definition of "sedition" is the act of attempting to overthrow, or incite to overthrow the government.
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, which is the ultimate law of the land reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." America is not a Democracy - it is a REPUBLIC! The two are very different, as will be pointred out below.
Therefore, any person who acts to overthrow the Republican form of government is guilty of sedition, a crime against the United States.
What this means is that any person who acts to change our Republic into a socialist, Marxist, Communist or other form of government is guilty of sedition, as they are acting to overthrow the Republican government guaranteed under the Constitution.
Almost all of President Obama's advisors are self-proclaimed Marxists or socialists - one (Van Jones) was even a communist (his own words). All are actively inciting or acting to overthrow the Republican government and instituting a socialist government.
And many of the liberal Democrats in the House and Senate are guilty of sedition, as they are actively working to turn America into a socialist state by passing unconstitutional bills designed to move us into socialism.
And other so-called Americans who stand on the far left, are also guilty of sedition, including Michael Moore, Ariana Huffington, George Soros and many, many others. You know who they are - the ones who praise Chavez and Castro. The ones who always find it necessary to insult, then apologize for America.
Do not misunderstand - dissent is a good thing. But what the far left liberals are doing goes well beyond dissent. It is sedition, plain and simple.
If you actively work to change our form of government, you are guilty of sedition.
One of the earliest and most successful seditionists was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was he who removed the word "Republic" from the description of America, and replaced it with "Democracy." No one noticed. To this day, almost no one has noticed that in one simple stroke, he caused the entire nation to forget we are a Republic, and are, instead, a Democracy, which is entirely different. He even had it changed in the textbooks. Roosevelt changed the Republic to a Democracy in 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression. The people were so preoccupied with the depression that they took no notice - and really did not care. By the time things got back to normal, Democracy had already entrenched itself for 15 years, so it still went unnoticed. Even back then the socialists lived by the decree not to let a good crisis go to waste. (Hilary Clinton still uses that phrase). And they are doing it again, with TARP, Stiumulus Bills, bank and automaker takeovers, cap & trade, and now health care. Next it will be amnesty for illegal immigrants.
AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT IS A REPUBLIC, BY DEFINITION AND BY CONSTITUTIONAL DECREE.
The Founding Fathers had considered a Democracy, and rejected that in favor of a Republic. They did so because they (like Roosevelt) knew that a Democracy always leads to socialism - and Roosevelt was an admitted socialist, whose chief advisor was a card-carrying communist.
Here is the major difference: in a Republic, every person, and his/her rights, are equal, and cannot be over-ridden by anyone else, or by any group. In a Democracy, it is "the majority rules", which means if the majority want to deprive you of a right, they may do so. (This is how the Supreme Court was able to change eminient domain in the constitution from "public use" to "public benefit". Now, your land can be taken even if the public cannot get use of it, but if a private party can make better use of it and pay higher taxes, which is a public benefit). The Supreme Court committed an unconstitutional act - only the legislative body, with three-fourths of states ratifying it, can change a single word of the Constitution. So, their ruling is unconstitutional, and any Justice who voted for the change should be recalled and replaced as incompetent and grossly negligent. After all, there is not a single property - including yours - that could not be put to a higher or better use that would produce more tax benefit to the community, so any developer can now simply petition the community to take your land. That was not the intent of the Constitution, nor is it allowed under the Constitution. But it is now permitted under the Supreme Court's twisted and revised interpretation of it.
When the majority rules, they soon learn that they can vote themselves in certain perks and entitlements. And they do - the temptation is too strong. And that is the road to socialism, as those entitlements must come from the government. This gives the government more power over our lives, and power corrupts. More entitlements equals more government, until the people become completely subservient to the government.
What patriotic Americans must do is first reinstate the Republican form of government the Constitution guarantees - throw out any official who resists, or who pursues a more "democratic, socialist" view. Take the word DEMOCRACY out of the description of America and replace it with REPUBLIC. And learn the differences.
Then insist that ALL elected AND non-elected officials follow the Constitution, as written. It does not require "interpretation". Interpretation is whatever a reader wants. The Constitution is clear and simple - do not interpret it - just follow it or get out.
Do not vote for anyone who will not pledge to do the above, and if they reneg, throw them out of office. It matters not what party they belong to - either they are FOR America, a Republic, or they are not.
/
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Health Care Facts
According to Obama and the liberals that are pushing the health care bill:
CLAIM: "It will cut the cost curve."
FACT: It will add 2.4 trillion dollars to the deficit and increase premiums. It will increase cost of medical devices and tests because of the tax being included on those things. For example (one of many) there is an $80 billion dollar tax to be imposed on drug companies. Since drug companies cannot print their own money, there is only one way for them to raise that kind of money - higher prices on drugs. YOU pay.
CLAIM: "It will cover 35 million people currently uninsured."
FACT: It would cover illegal immigrants. Also, only 14 million people do not have health care by default. The rest are either rich and pay their own way, or others who CHOOSE not to carry insurance. If a person has enough money to pay his own way (self-insure), why should he be penalized for that with a fine? Since when did personal responsibility and independence become a BAD thing in America? (Of course, it is actually a crime in socialist countries where you are not permitted to step outside "the collective" - remember the Borg in the Star Trek Next Generation series?)
CLAIM: "We need to prevent Medicare from going bankrupt."
FACT: Medicare was the LAST attempt by liberals to provide medical services on the taxpayer dime, and is already 36 trillion dollars in the hole. Now they want to expand it, to prevent it from going broke. That is not even logical. It is the basis of a Ponzi scheme - and Ponzi schemes are illegal (Google "Bernie Madoff")
CLAIM: "This bill does not provide for use of taxpayer funds for abortion."
FACT: Actually, the current bill does not PREVENT the use of taxpayer funding for abortion, and therefore permits it.
CLAIM: "This bill will reduce insurance premiums."
FACT: According to the group that monitors Medicare, and the CBO, premiums are likely to rise as much as 10%-25% if this bill passes.
CLAIM: "We can make this work, and save all Americans money. The government can do this better than private enterprise."
FACT: The government has never succeeded in any commercial venture, including the Postal Service (broke), Medicare (broke), Social Security (broke), Amtrak (broke) etc. The list goes on.
CLAIM: "The CBO says this bill is deficit neutral."
FACT: Only because the tax increases, fees and penalties get paid, up front, for 5-7 years before services become available for the remaining three years. So, the only reason it is deficit neutral is because we are going to pay 10 years for only 3 years of services. That is fuzzy math, to say the least. In reality, it is simply dishonest.
CLAIM: "This is what America needs."
FACT: Americans do not need, nor want the government to FORCE them to buy health insurance, or pay fines for failing to do so. That is fascism. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the government the power or authority to require its citizens purchase things they neither want nor need. They try to equate this with car insurance, but that is not the same - if you don't want to pay car insurance, you can simply choose to use public transportation. Driving is a privilege, not a God-given right. But with health insurance, you have no such choice - you either buy it, or pay fines, or even go to jail. Your health, and right to life ARE God-given, and therefore cannot be regulated by force of government.
85% of Americans have health care. So we do not "need" to change the entire structure. We simply need to make health care accessible to the remaining 15%. And that is easily accomplished, without costing the taxpayer a dime, with tort reform, allowing folks to shop anywhere (across state lines) for the coverage they need, and by other, similarly simple steps, all of which have long been advocated by Republicans and conservatives.
It is unnecessary to toss out the baby with the bath water. We already have the best health care in the world. The problem is the EXPENSE. Deal with the problem, and don't throw out everything that is already the best in the world. Don't fix what ain't broke.
/
CLAIM: "It will cut the cost curve."
FACT: It will add 2.4 trillion dollars to the deficit and increase premiums. It will increase cost of medical devices and tests because of the tax being included on those things. For example (one of many) there is an $80 billion dollar tax to be imposed on drug companies. Since drug companies cannot print their own money, there is only one way for them to raise that kind of money - higher prices on drugs. YOU pay.
CLAIM: "It will cover 35 million people currently uninsured."
FACT: It would cover illegal immigrants. Also, only 14 million people do not have health care by default. The rest are either rich and pay their own way, or others who CHOOSE not to carry insurance. If a person has enough money to pay his own way (self-insure), why should he be penalized for that with a fine? Since when did personal responsibility and independence become a BAD thing in America? (Of course, it is actually a crime in socialist countries where you are not permitted to step outside "the collective" - remember the Borg in the Star Trek Next Generation series?)
CLAIM: "We need to prevent Medicare from going bankrupt."
FACT: Medicare was the LAST attempt by liberals to provide medical services on the taxpayer dime, and is already 36 trillion dollars in the hole. Now they want to expand it, to prevent it from going broke. That is not even logical. It is the basis of a Ponzi scheme - and Ponzi schemes are illegal (Google "Bernie Madoff")
CLAIM: "This bill does not provide for use of taxpayer funds for abortion."
FACT: Actually, the current bill does not PREVENT the use of taxpayer funding for abortion, and therefore permits it.
CLAIM: "This bill will reduce insurance premiums."
FACT: According to the group that monitors Medicare, and the CBO, premiums are likely to rise as much as 10%-25% if this bill passes.
CLAIM: "We can make this work, and save all Americans money. The government can do this better than private enterprise."
FACT: The government has never succeeded in any commercial venture, including the Postal Service (broke), Medicare (broke), Social Security (broke), Amtrak (broke) etc. The list goes on.
CLAIM: "The CBO says this bill is deficit neutral."
FACT: Only because the tax increases, fees and penalties get paid, up front, for 5-7 years before services become available for the remaining three years. So, the only reason it is deficit neutral is because we are going to pay 10 years for only 3 years of services. That is fuzzy math, to say the least. In reality, it is simply dishonest.
CLAIM: "This is what America needs."
FACT: Americans do not need, nor want the government to FORCE them to buy health insurance, or pay fines for failing to do so. That is fascism. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the government the power or authority to require its citizens purchase things they neither want nor need. They try to equate this with car insurance, but that is not the same - if you don't want to pay car insurance, you can simply choose to use public transportation. Driving is a privilege, not a God-given right. But with health insurance, you have no such choice - you either buy it, or pay fines, or even go to jail. Your health, and right to life ARE God-given, and therefore cannot be regulated by force of government.
85% of Americans have health care. So we do not "need" to change the entire structure. We simply need to make health care accessible to the remaining 15%. And that is easily accomplished, without costing the taxpayer a dime, with tort reform, allowing folks to shop anywhere (across state lines) for the coverage they need, and by other, similarly simple steps, all of which have long been advocated by Republicans and conservatives.
It is unnecessary to toss out the baby with the bath water. We already have the best health care in the world. The problem is the EXPENSE. Deal with the problem, and don't throw out everything that is already the best in the world. Don't fix what ain't broke.
/
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Unintended Consequences
Unintended consequences. No matter what we do, there will be unintended consequences. But there is a way to reduce the damage - simply think things out to the logical conclusions BEFORE you make changes. Look past your nose, and think past today.
The government wants to make really huge changes in how we live, with "green" technologies which for the most part do not even exist yet. And the "smart grid" that will regulate the amount of power that can get to your home has already been started. And with such massive changes, there will be huge unintended consequences because the people putting these things in place cannot see past their noses.
Here are some lesser examples:
1) Ethanol. Now required to be 10% of gasoline, soon to be expanded to 20% or more. However, the unintended consequences are higher food prices (we are burning our food supply), higher cost (it costs 1.7 times more to make ethanol than to make gasoline) and more, not less, pollution (it takes 1.4 gallons of fossil fuels to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, with plowing, irrigating, weeding, fertilizing, harvesting, transporting and processing).
2) "Green" fluorescent lights - the goivernment is mandating in the future that no more incandescents be made. However, fluorescents have been shown to trigger seizures in epileptics. And the "green" bulbs cost 4 times as much to make. Since they also use twice as much glass, it requires twice as much fossil fuels in the manufacturing process. And because they use mercury, a dangerous toxin, they must be disposed of at hazardous waste sites. Most folks live an average of 20 miles from such a site, which means we all burn an extra two gallons of gas to dispose of a stupid bulb. Most folks won't bother, so our water supply will eventually be tainted with mercury.
3) The new, "green" LED street lights. They burn 80% less energy, which is good. But because they do not burn hot enough to melt ice and snow, they get covered and drivers cannot see them under some winter situations. So far, they have caused dozens of accidents and at least one death that has been substantiated. The cost to try and keep the lights clear are out-weighing the savings. It costs a bundle to pay the person who uses a high-pressure compressed air unit to clear them. The air compressor uses a lot of fossil fuel. The truck needed to transport the compressor around the city uses a lot of fossil fuel. So, just how "green" is green?
4) By law, all communications are being relegated to satellites - TV, radio, computers and phones. What is not considered is the result if a major solar flare smacks us - it would fry the satellites, and all communications necessary for survival will be gone, perhaps for a year or more. Such a solar flare just glanced us in 1998 and knocked out all power throughout eastern Canada. And don't forget that China and Russia - neither of them allies - have the technology to knock out our satellites anytime they choose.
And now the government wants to start sweeping changes, none of which have been thought out any better than the above examples. And since the plans are so massive, the unintended consequences will also be massive.
We, the People, need to tell our leaders to stop rushing us to extinction, and take the time to think things out into the foreseeable future. If they don't, we are all in big, big trouble.
/
The government wants to make really huge changes in how we live, with "green" technologies which for the most part do not even exist yet. And the "smart grid" that will regulate the amount of power that can get to your home has already been started. And with such massive changes, there will be huge unintended consequences because the people putting these things in place cannot see past their noses.
Here are some lesser examples:
1) Ethanol. Now required to be 10% of gasoline, soon to be expanded to 20% or more. However, the unintended consequences are higher food prices (we are burning our food supply), higher cost (it costs 1.7 times more to make ethanol than to make gasoline) and more, not less, pollution (it takes 1.4 gallons of fossil fuels to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, with plowing, irrigating, weeding, fertilizing, harvesting, transporting and processing).
2) "Green" fluorescent lights - the goivernment is mandating in the future that no more incandescents be made. However, fluorescents have been shown to trigger seizures in epileptics. And the "green" bulbs cost 4 times as much to make. Since they also use twice as much glass, it requires twice as much fossil fuels in the manufacturing process. And because they use mercury, a dangerous toxin, they must be disposed of at hazardous waste sites. Most folks live an average of 20 miles from such a site, which means we all burn an extra two gallons of gas to dispose of a stupid bulb. Most folks won't bother, so our water supply will eventually be tainted with mercury.
3) The new, "green" LED street lights. They burn 80% less energy, which is good. But because they do not burn hot enough to melt ice and snow, they get covered and drivers cannot see them under some winter situations. So far, they have caused dozens of accidents and at least one death that has been substantiated. The cost to try and keep the lights clear are out-weighing the savings. It costs a bundle to pay the person who uses a high-pressure compressed air unit to clear them. The air compressor uses a lot of fossil fuel. The truck needed to transport the compressor around the city uses a lot of fossil fuel. So, just how "green" is green?
4) By law, all communications are being relegated to satellites - TV, radio, computers and phones. What is not considered is the result if a major solar flare smacks us - it would fry the satellites, and all communications necessary for survival will be gone, perhaps for a year or more. Such a solar flare just glanced us in 1998 and knocked out all power throughout eastern Canada. And don't forget that China and Russia - neither of them allies - have the technology to knock out our satellites anytime they choose.
And now the government wants to start sweeping changes, none of which have been thought out any better than the above examples. And since the plans are so massive, the unintended consequences will also be massive.
We, the People, need to tell our leaders to stop rushing us to extinction, and take the time to think things out into the foreseeable future. If they don't, we are all in big, big trouble.
/
Monday, December 14, 2009
Betrayal - Behind Closed Doors
The other day, in secret and behind closed doors, the Democrat Congress killed a program that allowed poor inner-city DC kids to go to better schools. As everyone knows, the public schools in DC are among the worst in the nation, and the only hope those kids had for a decent future lay in being able to attend better schools. And it was WORKING.
And that is precisely why the powerful unions, which traditionally support liberal agenda and socialism, told Congress to either end the program or forfeit their considerable financial help in the next elections.
You see, the teacher's union does not want poor schools to die out, because that means the lousy teachers responsible for those lousy schools will lose their jobs. And they simply want to protect their own, even if they are worthless, and even if the children have to forfeit their futures.
So, we can again thank the Democrats for destroying another little piece of America by sucking up to self-serving unions, just so they can keep buying their congressional seats.
The question is: Do we really want politicians who cannot get re-elected on their merits, and must, instead, buy their seats by kowtowing to those who want to destroy America?
Another question: Should we permit our elected officials to act in secret, behind closed doors, as if WE were working for THEM?
Your success and mine depends on a free country. We need to be fighting against those who would make it less free, for their personal gain.
/
And that is precisely why the powerful unions, which traditionally support liberal agenda and socialism, told Congress to either end the program or forfeit their considerable financial help in the next elections.
You see, the teacher's union does not want poor schools to die out, because that means the lousy teachers responsible for those lousy schools will lose their jobs. And they simply want to protect their own, even if they are worthless, and even if the children have to forfeit their futures.
So, we can again thank the Democrats for destroying another little piece of America by sucking up to self-serving unions, just so they can keep buying their congressional seats.
The question is: Do we really want politicians who cannot get re-elected on their merits, and must, instead, buy their seats by kowtowing to those who want to destroy America?
Another question: Should we permit our elected officials to act in secret, behind closed doors, as if WE were working for THEM?
Your success and mine depends on a free country. We need to be fighting against those who would make it less free, for their personal gain.
/
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Beware This New "Online Auction" Scam
I saw a commercial for a new "online auction" website called BEEEZID. It aroused my curiosity, so i checked it out.
On the surface (and to those who are always looking to get something for nothing), it seemed promising: every item, even cars, begin at $0.00, and each bid only ups it by a penny. You could end up getting an item for pennies on the dollar, as they advertise cars being sold for just a few hundred dollars - or so it seems.
Yes, you can possibly get a $20,000 vehicle for a few hundred bucks. But there is a catch - a very expensive one. You see, you must buy "bids". You get (15) one cent bids for $15, so each bid costs $1.00. In order to get a car for, say, $500, would require that bidders, collectively, buy and use 50,000 one cent bids - for which BEEZID collected up to $50,000.
So, while the winning bidder may get the car for $500, he must be the LAST person to bid.
Therein lay other problems.
First, it is unlikely that other bidders will let it go to you for $500 - not when they could buy another bid for a buck - and the price keeps going up until all bidders have bought all the bids they can afford.
Second, every time someone bids, it resets the timer - which can be set for 24 hours or more. There is no limit to how many times the timer can be reset because there is no limit on the number of bids that can be placed. IF you happen to be the last bidder and the timer times out, you win.
It's a lot like musical chairs that could take weeks to play out - but even more like a Ponzi scheme.
In short, if BEEZID sells a $20,000 car for $500, they actually make about $30,500 profit on that $20,000 car because they solf 50,000 bids and got the $500 winning price to boot.
If you decide to get involved in the hopes of "winning" something great, at least now you have been warned. But do yourself a favor - place only one or two bids on an item over the course of the auction. If you get lucky and win, you come out ahead. If not, you only lost a couple bucks.
Make no mistake - BEEZID is not so much an auction site as it is a lottery - and your chances of winning are no better than in any other lottery.
/
On the surface (and to those who are always looking to get something for nothing), it seemed promising: every item, even cars, begin at $0.00, and each bid only ups it by a penny. You could end up getting an item for pennies on the dollar, as they advertise cars being sold for just a few hundred dollars - or so it seems.
Yes, you can possibly get a $20,000 vehicle for a few hundred bucks. But there is a catch - a very expensive one. You see, you must buy "bids". You get (15) one cent bids for $15, so each bid costs $1.00. In order to get a car for, say, $500, would require that bidders, collectively, buy and use 50,000 one cent bids - for which BEEZID collected up to $50,000.
So, while the winning bidder may get the car for $500, he must be the LAST person to bid.
Therein lay other problems.
First, it is unlikely that other bidders will let it go to you for $500 - not when they could buy another bid for a buck - and the price keeps going up until all bidders have bought all the bids they can afford.
Second, every time someone bids, it resets the timer - which can be set for 24 hours or more. There is no limit to how many times the timer can be reset because there is no limit on the number of bids that can be placed. IF you happen to be the last bidder and the timer times out, you win.
It's a lot like musical chairs that could take weeks to play out - but even more like a Ponzi scheme.
In short, if BEEZID sells a $20,000 car for $500, they actually make about $30,500 profit on that $20,000 car because they solf 50,000 bids and got the $500 winning price to boot.
If you decide to get involved in the hopes of "winning" something great, at least now you have been warned. But do yourself a favor - place only one or two bids on an item over the course of the auction. If you get lucky and win, you come out ahead. If not, you only lost a couple bucks.
Make no mistake - BEEZID is not so much an auction site as it is a lottery - and your chances of winning are no better than in any other lottery.
/
Monday, December 7, 2009
Day of Infamy
On December 7, 1941 the Japanese led a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. As Roosevelt said, it was a day that would live in infamy.
Today, December 7, 2009 is another day of infamy, with its own sneak attack against America - it is the day that the liberals have forced the United States of America to formally drop the "of the people, by the people, for the people" guarantee. We are no longer a country where the people govern, through elected representatives. Instead, we are now a country governed by the will of unelected agencies, "czars", unions and special interests.
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency, an unelected body, has determined that global warming IS a real threat (and not the theory that it actually is) and IS caused by carbon dioxide (though numerous studies show no correlation). Therefore, President Obama may now circumvent Congress and pass his "cap and tax" agenda without any input from Congress, or we, the people. In fact, he can begin signing liberal executive orders restricting carbon dioxide, and may do so without consent of the people.
That rumbling you hear is the sound of our Founding Fathers collectively rolling over in their graves.
That the EPA has any authority whatever is in direct opposition to the Constitution - all powers, by law, are vested in the people, except for the limited powers vested in the government, BY the people.
So, the people officially no longer have any say in how the government does things. The government rules the people, rather than vice versa.
When Obama was running for office, he did state, clearly, that he would "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE" America.
Well, he has done that. It is no longer a Republic, even though the Constitution specifically dictates in Article IV, Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." In a Republic, the power lies with each individual person and their elected officials, and not with the government, its agencies or any unelected officials.
For those of you who are not familiar with being subservient, I suggest you stock up on knee pads.
/
Today, December 7, 2009 is another day of infamy, with its own sneak attack against America - it is the day that the liberals have forced the United States of America to formally drop the "of the people, by the people, for the people" guarantee. We are no longer a country where the people govern, through elected representatives. Instead, we are now a country governed by the will of unelected agencies, "czars", unions and special interests.
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency, an unelected body, has determined that global warming IS a real threat (and not the theory that it actually is) and IS caused by carbon dioxide (though numerous studies show no correlation). Therefore, President Obama may now circumvent Congress and pass his "cap and tax" agenda without any input from Congress, or we, the people. In fact, he can begin signing liberal executive orders restricting carbon dioxide, and may do so without consent of the people.
That rumbling you hear is the sound of our Founding Fathers collectively rolling over in their graves.
That the EPA has any authority whatever is in direct opposition to the Constitution - all powers, by law, are vested in the people, except for the limited powers vested in the government, BY the people.
So, the people officially no longer have any say in how the government does things. The government rules the people, rather than vice versa.
When Obama was running for office, he did state, clearly, that he would "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE" America.
Well, he has done that. It is no longer a Republic, even though the Constitution specifically dictates in Article IV, Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." In a Republic, the power lies with each individual person and their elected officials, and not with the government, its agencies or any unelected officials.
For those of you who are not familiar with being subservient, I suggest you stock up on knee pads.
/
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Who Is Larry Summers?
This is about Larry Summers - who he was, and who he is.
He was the Dean of Harvard University. He decided to invest the university's endowment fund into high-risk investments. His advisors warned him against doing that, but he fancied himself a financial whiz, so much smarter than they. He lost $1.8 BILLION of the university's funds. In other words, what he knows about money, finance and investing can fit into a thimble.
Now for who Larry Summers is today.
He is President Obama's Chief Financial Advisor. I guess the president was impressed with Mr. Summers' financial acumen. No one else is.
Oh, and a couple years ago he got into hot water when, in a public speech, he stated that women were not as capable as men in the subjects of science and math. So apparently he knows as much about women as he does about finance.
'Nuff said.
He was the Dean of Harvard University. He decided to invest the university's endowment fund into high-risk investments. His advisors warned him against doing that, but he fancied himself a financial whiz, so much smarter than they. He lost $1.8 BILLION of the university's funds. In other words, what he knows about money, finance and investing can fit into a thimble.
Now for who Larry Summers is today.
He is President Obama's Chief Financial Advisor. I guess the president was impressed with Mr. Summers' financial acumen. No one else is.
Oh, and a couple years ago he got into hot water when, in a public speech, he stated that women were not as capable as men in the subjects of science and math. So apparently he knows as much about women as he does about finance.
'Nuff said.
Contingent
Lasting success is contingent upon a healthy economy. Everyone, regardless of political bent, agrees on that point. The disagreement comes when the discussion turns to "What makes for a healthy economy?"
For the answer to that, we need look no further than to the stories we were taught as children. Children are taught these stories not because they are entertaining, but because they carry certain truths that are necessary for our success, not unlike the parables in the Bible.
Two such stories are "The Little Red Hen" and "The Golden Goose".
In the Little Red Hen, the hen asked for help to plant her garden. No one wanted to help. She then asked for help in watering and weeding. Still no help. She then asked for help in harvesting - no help was offered. She asked for help in baking the pies from her harvest. STILL no help. But when it came time to EAT the pies, EVERYONE wanted to help. But she said "No" and ate them herself. The moral being that those who do the work are entitled to the proceeds of their sweat, and those who do not want to contribute deserve exactly what they put in - nothing.
But in today's world, with liberals in power, the opposite is suddenly true. The farmer (Congress) comes out and takes the pies, and shares them with everyone. He does not realize that next year the hen, frustrated that the work was all for nothing, will not have a garden. There will be no pies. And everyone loses. But the farmer never thought that far ahead. He does not realize that you cannot take money out of the bank unless you first put money IN.
In "The Golden Goose", she lays the golden eggs that her owner profits from. The moral of the story is that the owner must take very good care of the goose, to insure continuation of the golden eggs. He must feed her well, and pamper her, for if she gets sick, or dies, or gets mistreated there will be no more golden eggs, and the prosperity goes away.
In real life, the golden eggs are jobs, products, services. These are the things we want. And all of those things come from the Golden Goose - businesses. Businesses provide the jobs, which in turn results in products and services available. If businesses fail, jobs go away, and products and services become scarce.
Therefore, simple logic tells anyone with an I.Q. of at least two digits that it behooves us to feed and pamper businesses. The healthier they are, the more jobs there are, and the more products become available.
But our liberal Congress sees businesses not as the Golden Goose to be preened, but as the lamb to be sheared. They impose punitive taxes, and give power to the unions that milk the companies to the point of bankruptcy. Instead of caring for the goose, they starve it.
The goose will either run away, or starve to death. Americas geese are doing both - smaller businesses, with no other options, are forced into closing their doors. The larger businesses run to China or India, where the governments favor them, and treat them well, with lower taxes and no unions to drain them.
If our Congress had an ounce of intelligence, they would severely decrease the taxes on business, and restrict and limit the power of unions to issues of safety and fairness, which would result in two things:
1) greater profitability, allowing the business to expand, which creates jobs and products - golden eggs, and
2) businesses would have no reason to leave America, which results in jobs staying here.
But of course, our liberal Congress is not about to do either - they owe their seats to the unions, and by taxing businesses they create poverty, which results in more people needing entitlements - which just happens to be what the liberals are famous for providing. This, in turn, results in a larger voting bloc on the liberal side - after all, one must not bite the hand that feeds them. If you were on welfare, would you vote AGAINST the party that provides it?
President Obama was right about one thing - we need change. But we need the kind of change that he and the liberal Congress would never even consider. We need a Congress that understands that there is only ONE source of jobs, products and services, and we need to take proper care of that source. And we need a Congress that understands that people who are allowed a "free ride" will drain our resources, and result in fewer people wanting to bust their hump to get what others are getting for free.
If we want to get our country back, and our economy brought back to health, we need to elect people who understand how things work, not just in the short term, but in the long term. And you will not find any such people among the liberals.
/
For the answer to that, we need look no further than to the stories we were taught as children. Children are taught these stories not because they are entertaining, but because they carry certain truths that are necessary for our success, not unlike the parables in the Bible.
Two such stories are "The Little Red Hen" and "The Golden Goose".
In the Little Red Hen, the hen asked for help to plant her garden. No one wanted to help. She then asked for help in watering and weeding. Still no help. She then asked for help in harvesting - no help was offered. She asked for help in baking the pies from her harvest. STILL no help. But when it came time to EAT the pies, EVERYONE wanted to help. But she said "No" and ate them herself. The moral being that those who do the work are entitled to the proceeds of their sweat, and those who do not want to contribute deserve exactly what they put in - nothing.
But in today's world, with liberals in power, the opposite is suddenly true. The farmer (Congress) comes out and takes the pies, and shares them with everyone. He does not realize that next year the hen, frustrated that the work was all for nothing, will not have a garden. There will be no pies. And everyone loses. But the farmer never thought that far ahead. He does not realize that you cannot take money out of the bank unless you first put money IN.
In "The Golden Goose", she lays the golden eggs that her owner profits from. The moral of the story is that the owner must take very good care of the goose, to insure continuation of the golden eggs. He must feed her well, and pamper her, for if she gets sick, or dies, or gets mistreated there will be no more golden eggs, and the prosperity goes away.
In real life, the golden eggs are jobs, products, services. These are the things we want. And all of those things come from the Golden Goose - businesses. Businesses provide the jobs, which in turn results in products and services available. If businesses fail, jobs go away, and products and services become scarce.
Therefore, simple logic tells anyone with an I.Q. of at least two digits that it behooves us to feed and pamper businesses. The healthier they are, the more jobs there are, and the more products become available.
But our liberal Congress sees businesses not as the Golden Goose to be preened, but as the lamb to be sheared. They impose punitive taxes, and give power to the unions that milk the companies to the point of bankruptcy. Instead of caring for the goose, they starve it.
The goose will either run away, or starve to death. Americas geese are doing both - smaller businesses, with no other options, are forced into closing their doors. The larger businesses run to China or India, where the governments favor them, and treat them well, with lower taxes and no unions to drain them.
If our Congress had an ounce of intelligence, they would severely decrease the taxes on business, and restrict and limit the power of unions to issues of safety and fairness, which would result in two things:
1) greater profitability, allowing the business to expand, which creates jobs and products - golden eggs, and
2) businesses would have no reason to leave America, which results in jobs staying here.
But of course, our liberal Congress is not about to do either - they owe their seats to the unions, and by taxing businesses they create poverty, which results in more people needing entitlements - which just happens to be what the liberals are famous for providing. This, in turn, results in a larger voting bloc on the liberal side - after all, one must not bite the hand that feeds them. If you were on welfare, would you vote AGAINST the party that provides it?
President Obama was right about one thing - we need change. But we need the kind of change that he and the liberal Congress would never even consider. We need a Congress that understands that there is only ONE source of jobs, products and services, and we need to take proper care of that source. And we need a Congress that understands that people who are allowed a "free ride" will drain our resources, and result in fewer people wanting to bust their hump to get what others are getting for free.
If we want to get our country back, and our economy brought back to health, we need to elect people who understand how things work, not just in the short term, but in the long term. And you will not find any such people among the liberals.
/
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Bribery
When you or I try to bribe a politician, judge or police officer, we get arrested and go to prison. But when a politician pays a bribe to another politician in exchange for their vote, or gives money to an organizatiuon in return for their support, that is simply "politics as usual."
I say it is way past the time when we, the people, slam on the brakes - tell politicians that we will hold THEM accountable for their bribes, and send them to prison if they use bribes.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just took $100,000,000 (one hundred MILLION) of YOUR tax money and gave it to Senator Mary Landrieu for her state in exchange for her YES vote on Health Care. Landrieu had been opposed to the bill because her constituents do not like it. But she sold out the folks she is SUPPOSED to represent in exchange for bringing so much tax money to her state to insure her re-election next year.
Reid should go to prison for bribing an elected official, which IS a felony. Also, for misuse of public funds. And Landrieu should get busted and go to prison for accepting a bribe. And the good folks of her state, Louisiana, should vote her out for betraying them, regardless of the pork she steals from the taxpayers.
WHY DO WE ALLOW THIS KIND OF ILLICIT BEHAVIOR???
Time to send a message folks - vote out EVERY SINGLE INCUMBENT. Vote FOR the opponent no matter who it is. This will send a clear message to ALL politicians that, contrary to what they believe, THEY do not run things - WE do. THEY work for US, and when they stop doing that, we give them the old heave-ho.
And it is time to do just that, to every senator and representative now in Congress.
And it is also time to call a bribe a bribe, and start prosecuting politicians who participate in such shady activities.
/
I say it is way past the time when we, the people, slam on the brakes - tell politicians that we will hold THEM accountable for their bribes, and send them to prison if they use bribes.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just took $100,000,000 (one hundred MILLION) of YOUR tax money and gave it to Senator Mary Landrieu for her state in exchange for her YES vote on Health Care. Landrieu had been opposed to the bill because her constituents do not like it. But she sold out the folks she is SUPPOSED to represent in exchange for bringing so much tax money to her state to insure her re-election next year.
Reid should go to prison for bribing an elected official, which IS a felony. Also, for misuse of public funds. And Landrieu should get busted and go to prison for accepting a bribe. And the good folks of her state, Louisiana, should vote her out for betraying them, regardless of the pork she steals from the taxpayers.
WHY DO WE ALLOW THIS KIND OF ILLICIT BEHAVIOR???
Time to send a message folks - vote out EVERY SINGLE INCUMBENT. Vote FOR the opponent no matter who it is. This will send a clear message to ALL politicians that, contrary to what they believe, THEY do not run things - WE do. THEY work for US, and when they stop doing that, we give them the old heave-ho.
And it is time to do just that, to every senator and representative now in Congress.
And it is also time to call a bribe a bribe, and start prosecuting politicians who participate in such shady activities.
/
Thursday, November 19, 2009
What We Are Up Against
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, after weeks in closed office crafting his so-called health care reform bill, came out and told us that we, the people, are stupid.
Actually, he said his bill would come in at $849 billion and would cut the deficit. And he thinks we are stupid enough not to see the truth.
What Mr Reid did was to cut $210 billion from the bill and putting it into9 a SEPARATE bill called the "doctor fix", which increases medicare payments to doctors. So, the actual health care reform bill, when you add it ALL up, comes to over a trillion dollars, and does, indeed, add to the deficit.
More important is the White House comment today that the president supports the passage of the "doctor fix" by Congress. What makes this questionable is that just 14 hours previously, he did an interview with Major Garrett where Obama said, "If we keep adding to the deficit and don't get spending under control...it will cause a double dip recession." And he immediately calls for Congress to SPEND MORE.
Reid and Pelosi are pathological liars and con artists, and think we, the people, are mindless lemmings. And Obama is not much better, as he is single-handedly destroying the greatest society the world has ever known., and is doing so with INTENT. He KNOWS more spending will cause a double-dip recession, then calls for more spending!
Yes, it could simply be gross incompetence. But those who elected him keep telling us how smart he is, so I doubt if incompetence is the problem. No, this must be intentional. But why?
Simple. Obama, who studied under Alinsky (Marxist) wants a socialist country. The fastest and easiest way to do that is to make the people want it. And the easiest way to make the people want it is to give them cause to abandon capitalism as a failure.
Ergo, it is the Obama administration's goal to cause the massive failure of capitalism. Create recessions and depressions. Create massive deficits we cannot possibly repay, forcing America into bankruptcy. Do that, and the people will rush to socialism, trying to salvage their lives, crying "Please save us, Federal Government!"
It is the only explanation for the actions of this administration and the liberal Congress, acting together to bring down capitalism and the role of free markets. The Stimulus bills. The bail-outs. Taking over banks, insurance companies and car companies. Passing massive, incredibly expensive bills like health care, cap and trade and even "cash for clunkers", which we now know was a terrible failure, as it "borrowed" sales from later and got them all to occur in September, to give the APPEARANCE of an uptick in GDP.
Look out, folks! While you were sleeping, these clowns have dragged America perilously close to Marxism. And you REALLY don't want to go there. Every nation that ever has, has failed.
/
Actually, he said his bill would come in at $849 billion and would cut the deficit. And he thinks we are stupid enough not to see the truth.
What Mr Reid did was to cut $210 billion from the bill and putting it into9 a SEPARATE bill called the "doctor fix", which increases medicare payments to doctors. So, the actual health care reform bill, when you add it ALL up, comes to over a trillion dollars, and does, indeed, add to the deficit.
More important is the White House comment today that the president supports the passage of the "doctor fix" by Congress. What makes this questionable is that just 14 hours previously, he did an interview with Major Garrett where Obama said, "If we keep adding to the deficit and don't get spending under control...it will cause a double dip recession." And he immediately calls for Congress to SPEND MORE.
Reid and Pelosi are pathological liars and con artists, and think we, the people, are mindless lemmings. And Obama is not much better, as he is single-handedly destroying the greatest society the world has ever known., and is doing so with INTENT. He KNOWS more spending will cause a double-dip recession, then calls for more spending!
Yes, it could simply be gross incompetence. But those who elected him keep telling us how smart he is, so I doubt if incompetence is the problem. No, this must be intentional. But why?
Simple. Obama, who studied under Alinsky (Marxist) wants a socialist country. The fastest and easiest way to do that is to make the people want it. And the easiest way to make the people want it is to give them cause to abandon capitalism as a failure.
Ergo, it is the Obama administration's goal to cause the massive failure of capitalism. Create recessions and depressions. Create massive deficits we cannot possibly repay, forcing America into bankruptcy. Do that, and the people will rush to socialism, trying to salvage their lives, crying "Please save us, Federal Government!"
It is the only explanation for the actions of this administration and the liberal Congress, acting together to bring down capitalism and the role of free markets. The Stimulus bills. The bail-outs. Taking over banks, insurance companies and car companies. Passing massive, incredibly expensive bills like health care, cap and trade and even "cash for clunkers", which we now know was a terrible failure, as it "borrowed" sales from later and got them all to occur in September, to give the APPEARANCE of an uptick in GDP.
Look out, folks! While you were sleeping, these clowns have dragged America perilously close to Marxism. And you REALLY don't want to go there. Every nation that ever has, has failed.
/
Friday, November 6, 2009
A Quiz For You
Just for the moment, assume you have a small business. And further assume you have (4) employees that you pay $36,000 per year.
Now assume a law is passed that forces you to pay each employee $48,000 per year. But your business income is not increased. In fact, during the recession, the business income is probably shrinking. Still, the law says you MUST pay your employees that extra $12,000 per year.
So, what do you do, to remain solvent and still abide by the law?
You only have two choices:
1) lose $48,000 per year and risk bankruptcy because each employee must get a $12,000 raise, or
2) lay off one employee, and use the $36,000 you WERE paying him to cover the $12,000 raise you must give each of the other three.
If you have any business sense at all, you would choose option #2, and tell the remaining three employees they must pick up the slack from the lost employee, because THEY are now getting HIS pay in addition to their original salary. They are getting 1/3 more pay, so you expect 1/3 more work from them.
Sounds mean, I know, but remember - you own the business, and you are responsible for supporting the families of your remaining employees. Therefore, you have an obligation to keep up production so you do not have to go broke and lay everyone else off.
Well, this is exactly what will happen to millions of small businesses if the current health care bill is passed. It includes a provision that FORCES businesses to provide insurance coverage to all employees. And that coverage costs an average of $12,000 per year per employee.
Under this plan, every small business will be required to increase the cost of each employee by about $12,000 per year. This will, by necessity, cause even higher unemployment.
Yet, the Democratic vice chair of the finance committee and Nancy Pelosi are saying this plan will HELP small business.
As a small business owner, I do not need that kind of help, thank you.
/
Now assume a law is passed that forces you to pay each employee $48,000 per year. But your business income is not increased. In fact, during the recession, the business income is probably shrinking. Still, the law says you MUST pay your employees that extra $12,000 per year.
So, what do you do, to remain solvent and still abide by the law?
You only have two choices:
1) lose $48,000 per year and risk bankruptcy because each employee must get a $12,000 raise, or
2) lay off one employee, and use the $36,000 you WERE paying him to cover the $12,000 raise you must give each of the other three.
If you have any business sense at all, you would choose option #2, and tell the remaining three employees they must pick up the slack from the lost employee, because THEY are now getting HIS pay in addition to their original salary. They are getting 1/3 more pay, so you expect 1/3 more work from them.
Sounds mean, I know, but remember - you own the business, and you are responsible for supporting the families of your remaining employees. Therefore, you have an obligation to keep up production so you do not have to go broke and lay everyone else off.
Well, this is exactly what will happen to millions of small businesses if the current health care bill is passed. It includes a provision that FORCES businesses to provide insurance coverage to all employees. And that coverage costs an average of $12,000 per year per employee.
Under this plan, every small business will be required to increase the cost of each employee by about $12,000 per year. This will, by necessity, cause even higher unemployment.
Yet, the Democratic vice chair of the finance committee and Nancy Pelosi are saying this plan will HELP small business.
As a small business owner, I do not need that kind of help, thank you.
/
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Another?
Yesterday I wrote - and proved - that Harry Reid is a liar. Today, he was joined by Barak Obama.
In his little speech to the media today, Obama stated that "the doctors support our health care plan". He made this rather bogus claim, knowing it was bogus, because the AMA endorses the plan. But what he DOESN'T tell you is that only 15% of all doctors belong to the AMA, and not many of those support the health care plan proposed by Congress.
Typical liberal - takes a generalized fact (AMA supports the plan) and spins it to make people believe that the doctors approve of it, when in fact fewer than 5% of all doctors support it.
He did the same with AARP - because AARP endorses the plan, the liberals try to convince people that this means the elderly like the plan. Yet, all polls indicate the elderly OPPOSE the plan, 2-1.
Just because an ORGANIZATION whose leaders have an agenda are in support of something does not necessarily mean its members also support it.
Obama and Reid also tried this BS when a single, lone Republican gave her tentative OK on it earlier (since withdrawn), and they then said that makes the bill "bipartisan". It does not. A bill is bipartisan when members of both parties craft it, then vote on it. This bill did not include a single Republican in its crafting.
I am getting damned tired of having liars in public office - especially in the Oval Office.
/
In his little speech to the media today, Obama stated that "the doctors support our health care plan". He made this rather bogus claim, knowing it was bogus, because the AMA endorses the plan. But what he DOESN'T tell you is that only 15% of all doctors belong to the AMA, and not many of those support the health care plan proposed by Congress.
Typical liberal - takes a generalized fact (AMA supports the plan) and spins it to make people believe that the doctors approve of it, when in fact fewer than 5% of all doctors support it.
He did the same with AARP - because AARP endorses the plan, the liberals try to convince people that this means the elderly like the plan. Yet, all polls indicate the elderly OPPOSE the plan, 2-1.
Just because an ORGANIZATION whose leaders have an agenda are in support of something does not necessarily mean its members also support it.
Obama and Reid also tried this BS when a single, lone Republican gave her tentative OK on it earlier (since withdrawn), and they then said that makes the bill "bipartisan". It does not. A bill is bipartisan when members of both parties craft it, then vote on it. This bill did not include a single Republican in its crafting.
I am getting damned tired of having liars in public office - especially in the Oval Office.
/
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Harry Reid - Liar Extraordinaire
Honesty is crucial to lasting success. And that is why I am bringing this up on this blog.
No matter what the reason why the Dems cannot get their agenda through, Harry Reid stands in front of the camera and blames the Republican party.
I guess Mr Reid has forgotten that both the House and the Senate have super majorities of Democrats, and have enough votes in both chambers to pass anything they want. And if they cannot get their agenda passed, it is only because they cannot secure all the Democrat votes.
It has nothing to do with Republicans. Republicans have not even been allowed in the room. Harry Reid's problem is not republicans - it's all those silly Democrats who are refusing to march in lock-step to the tune Pelosi, Reid and Obama are playing.
It only takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a filibuster-proof bill. And there are 60 Democrats in the Senate. If Reid can't get anything passed, then perhaps it is he who is not in tune with the country, because his own party is sabotaging him.
But who does he insist on blaming? Republicans, of course.
Here is the entire problem in a nutshell:
1) Both Reid and Pelosi are not just Democrats - they are far-left liberals, out of tune with their own party, and
2) Their idea of "bipartisanship" is for Democrats to write the bills without any Republican input, and then ask the Republicans to just sign onto it, blindly, even though it violates what Republicans believe in.
That's like having Muslims build a religion, then asking Christians to come and pay homage to Allah, and if you don't, then you are "the religion of NO".
Democrats need to get a grip, and stop demonizing everyone on the other side of an issue. We NEED both sides to temper each other. And EVERY bill presented for a vote should be a collaborative effort of BOTH parties, each putting in their two cents worth. But as it stands now, Congress is now a dictatorship with the Dems saying "we run things, and it's your job to follow along quietly, or we will destroy you."
That is Fascism.
Harry - it is time to stop lying through your teeth in a stupid and transparent attempt to shift blame away from yourself.
/
No matter what the reason why the Dems cannot get their agenda through, Harry Reid stands in front of the camera and blames the Republican party.
I guess Mr Reid has forgotten that both the House and the Senate have super majorities of Democrats, and have enough votes in both chambers to pass anything they want. And if they cannot get their agenda passed, it is only because they cannot secure all the Democrat votes.
It has nothing to do with Republicans. Republicans have not even been allowed in the room. Harry Reid's problem is not republicans - it's all those silly Democrats who are refusing to march in lock-step to the tune Pelosi, Reid and Obama are playing.
It only takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a filibuster-proof bill. And there are 60 Democrats in the Senate. If Reid can't get anything passed, then perhaps it is he who is not in tune with the country, because his own party is sabotaging him.
But who does he insist on blaming? Republicans, of course.
Here is the entire problem in a nutshell:
1) Both Reid and Pelosi are not just Democrats - they are far-left liberals, out of tune with their own party, and
2) Their idea of "bipartisanship" is for Democrats to write the bills without any Republican input, and then ask the Republicans to just sign onto it, blindly, even though it violates what Republicans believe in.
That's like having Muslims build a religion, then asking Christians to come and pay homage to Allah, and if you don't, then you are "the religion of NO".
Democrats need to get a grip, and stop demonizing everyone on the other side of an issue. We NEED both sides to temper each other. And EVERY bill presented for a vote should be a collaborative effort of BOTH parties, each putting in their two cents worth. But as it stands now, Congress is now a dictatorship with the Dems saying "we run things, and it's your job to follow along quietly, or we will destroy you."
That is Fascism.
Harry - it is time to stop lying through your teeth in a stupid and transparent attempt to shift blame away from yourself.
/
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Strength
I don't know about you, but I am getting sick and tired of listening to whiners (yes, some of whom are on Pennsylvania Avenue) cry about how bad America is, and how it needs to be "fundamentally changed." America, the capitalist, competition-based country has, in just 223 short years become the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen. We have given birth to more innovation in 100 years than the rest of the world did throughout all its history. And because of the tenets our country was based upon - capitalism, freedom from government oppression and the Christian-Judeo ethic, you now live in the best country on Earth, with more opportunity and personal wealth than you can find anywhere else on Earth. Even our "poor" are wealthy compared to many people elsewhere.
For those who think otherwise, look at the other nations. Many are "third-world" nations, ruled in poverty and ruled by oppressive governments. The rest are so socialistic that the citizens are nothing more than the unnamed masses whose only function is to support and serve the government. In the "old days", they were called the Bourgeois. And in those instances, the people eventually rebelled and beheaded everyone in the bourgeois class.
Liberals think it is far better to be "sharing" and they think we should spread our wealth so other nations need not live in poverty. While that sounds nice on the surface, they are overlooking three important points:
1) If you give away your wealth, it will be YOU who are the poor, or at least poorer
2) There is a REASON those nations are not wealthy, and it is their own fault. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Every person gets the government they deserve." Those nations are poor because they do not strive to be any better, and they permit crooked despots to rule them. If you give your wealth to them, the despots will take it, and the nation will be no better off. But WE will be WORSE off. It's called "pouring money down a rat-hole."
3) Regardless of, and in spite of, any moral platitudes or beliefs, life is still ruled by "Survival of the fittest." You either play to win, or you lose. Period. Liberals want to play so OTHERS win, which will make losers of us all. Make up your mind to either fight to win, or be a loser. But they will not drag me down with them into Loserville.
If a person is inclined to believe that America is evil because we have so much wealth and power, and if they have a problem with that, then there are over 100 third world nations they can move to anytime they wish. Then they can take the "moral high ground" they think is real, and be happy that they are living up to their principles. But if they choose not to do that, then they should SHUT UP and start fighting for our country, and those things that made us great in the first place. And that is NOT the erasing of religion from the public arena, and it is NOT "democracy", but a REPUBLIC, and it is NOT entitlements. It's competition, with some winning, others losing. It's strength, not weakness. It's entrepreneurial efforts. It's small, unobtrusive government that gets the Hell out of the way of those who want to make us stronger and better.
Sure, some will suffer. Some will be losers. No one can win unless someone else loses - thats the law of survival. You cannot live unless something else dies (unless you can live without eating). But again, that is what is meant by survival of the fittest. You are either PREDATOR or PREY. The weak NEED to be weeded out, to strengthen the rest. If we keep using entitlements and restrictions to weaken the strong, just so the weak can prevail, then our entire society will be weakened. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
As Jesus said, "The poor will always be with us." And they will. So ACCEPT it. Go forth and prosper, and don't worry about whether or not your prosperity is at the expense of others (as long as your prosperity comes from legal and moral methods). Then, use a portion of your wealth to help the less fortunate to at least survive. But do not put government in that role, because government is too far removed and cannot be efficient, effective nor fair. Help your neighbor, but not to the point that it hurts you. Because if YOU go down, who will then be there to help that neighbor tomorrow?
Fight for your COUNTRY, but not for your GOVERNMENT. You need to RULE your government, not vice versa. Government is only the servant of the people when the people fight to control it, keep it weaker than the people, and question its every move. After all, the government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.
/
For those who think otherwise, look at the other nations. Many are "third-world" nations, ruled in poverty and ruled by oppressive governments. The rest are so socialistic that the citizens are nothing more than the unnamed masses whose only function is to support and serve the government. In the "old days", they were called the Bourgeois. And in those instances, the people eventually rebelled and beheaded everyone in the bourgeois class.
Liberals think it is far better to be "sharing" and they think we should spread our wealth so other nations need not live in poverty. While that sounds nice on the surface, they are overlooking three important points:
1) If you give away your wealth, it will be YOU who are the poor, or at least poorer
2) There is a REASON those nations are not wealthy, and it is their own fault. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Every person gets the government they deserve." Those nations are poor because they do not strive to be any better, and they permit crooked despots to rule them. If you give your wealth to them, the despots will take it, and the nation will be no better off. But WE will be WORSE off. It's called "pouring money down a rat-hole."
3) Regardless of, and in spite of, any moral platitudes or beliefs, life is still ruled by "Survival of the fittest." You either play to win, or you lose. Period. Liberals want to play so OTHERS win, which will make losers of us all. Make up your mind to either fight to win, or be a loser. But they will not drag me down with them into Loserville.
If a person is inclined to believe that America is evil because we have so much wealth and power, and if they have a problem with that, then there are over 100 third world nations they can move to anytime they wish. Then they can take the "moral high ground" they think is real, and be happy that they are living up to their principles. But if they choose not to do that, then they should SHUT UP and start fighting for our country, and those things that made us great in the first place. And that is NOT the erasing of religion from the public arena, and it is NOT "democracy", but a REPUBLIC, and it is NOT entitlements. It's competition, with some winning, others losing. It's strength, not weakness. It's entrepreneurial efforts. It's small, unobtrusive government that gets the Hell out of the way of those who want to make us stronger and better.
Sure, some will suffer. Some will be losers. No one can win unless someone else loses - thats the law of survival. You cannot live unless something else dies (unless you can live without eating). But again, that is what is meant by survival of the fittest. You are either PREDATOR or PREY. The weak NEED to be weeded out, to strengthen the rest. If we keep using entitlements and restrictions to weaken the strong, just so the weak can prevail, then our entire society will be weakened. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
As Jesus said, "The poor will always be with us." And they will. So ACCEPT it. Go forth and prosper, and don't worry about whether or not your prosperity is at the expense of others (as long as your prosperity comes from legal and moral methods). Then, use a portion of your wealth to help the less fortunate to at least survive. But do not put government in that role, because government is too far removed and cannot be efficient, effective nor fair. Help your neighbor, but not to the point that it hurts you. Because if YOU go down, who will then be there to help that neighbor tomorrow?
Fight for your COUNTRY, but not for your GOVERNMENT. You need to RULE your government, not vice versa. Government is only the servant of the people when the people fight to control it, keep it weaker than the people, and question its every move. After all, the government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.
/
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Al Vs. The Truth
I know I have written a lot over the last 10 years about the "fallacy" of Al Gore's theory on Global Warming. And while it may very well be possible the Earth is headed in a warming direction, I have always maintained that, if it exists, it is not caused by Man's activities. In fact, for roughly 80% of the Earth's entire history, the planet has typically and NORMALLY been warmer than it is today. Substantially warmer.
I offer the following scientific charts are evidence:
Chart #1 shows the Earth's temperature trend over the last 12,000 years or so since the Pleistocene era. Al Gore and the scientists that support his theory use this as "proof" of Global Warming. (The Pleistocene era was the end of the last ice age, which began in the Tertiary era and lasted for nearly 2.5 million years. Needless to say, it could take awhile to get back to "normal" temps.)
Chart #2 shows the same chart, but only as a small fraction of the entire Earth's temperature history.
As you can see, while the temp does seem to be rising, it is still far, far below what is normal for our planet. It would appear by the scientific evidence (this chart was produced using findings by paleontologists, climatologists, archeologists, minerologists and many other scientists whose findings prove temperature) indicates the normal temperature of Earth, barring any outside influences (ice age begun by a meteorite strike, for example) usually maintains an average of a rather steady 25 degrees centigrade (77 degrees F). Currently, the average world temperature is roughly 55 degrees. If you doubt these charts, ask yourself why the temps were so much warmer during the Jurassic (dinosaur) and other eras, and why scientists have found tropical fossils beneath the ice sheets of the Antarctic. Man and his machines were nowhere to be found back then.
A 77 degree average temp is found in the area of Phoenix AZ. Now imagine that as the AVERAGE year-round temperature of the planet. That is "normal" for Earth.
So, while we may very well be in a warming trend, overall, the Earth is simply getting back to normal after the last ice age. And, barring any cataclysmic outside influence, there is nothing we can do about it.
/
I offer the following scientific charts are evidence:
Chart #1 shows the Earth's temperature trend over the last 12,000 years or so since the Pleistocene era. Al Gore and the scientists that support his theory use this as "proof" of Global Warming. (The Pleistocene era was the end of the last ice age, which began in the Tertiary era and lasted for nearly 2.5 million years. Needless to say, it could take awhile to get back to "normal" temps.)
Chart #2 shows the same chart, but only as a small fraction of the entire Earth's temperature history.
As you can see, while the temp does seem to be rising, it is still far, far below what is normal for our planet. It would appear by the scientific evidence (this chart was produced using findings by paleontologists, climatologists, archeologists, minerologists and many other scientists whose findings prove temperature) indicates the normal temperature of Earth, barring any outside influences (ice age begun by a meteorite strike, for example) usually maintains an average of a rather steady 25 degrees centigrade (77 degrees F). Currently, the average world temperature is roughly 55 degrees. If you doubt these charts, ask yourself why the temps were so much warmer during the Jurassic (dinosaur) and other eras, and why scientists have found tropical fossils beneath the ice sheets of the Antarctic. Man and his machines were nowhere to be found back then.
A 77 degree average temp is found in the area of Phoenix AZ. Now imagine that as the AVERAGE year-round temperature of the planet. That is "normal" for Earth.
So, while we may very well be in a warming trend, overall, the Earth is simply getting back to normal after the last ice age. And, barring any cataclysmic outside influence, there is nothing we can do about it.
/
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The "News"
I am not advocating for or against any political party in this particular post, it is important to every citizen of America.
Our rights, and our futures, depend upon whether or not we get the "straight" news about what is going on. If we get our news from a media lies to us, or omits critical information, then we are not informed. And if we are not informed, our freedoms, rights and the future of our children dissipate.
So it is critical we get our news from a source that provides ALL the news.
To that end, ask yourself if your media reported on the news that Van Johnson, one of the administration's "czars", was a criminal and self-proclaimed communist. And did they report on it BEFORE or AFTER he was forced to resign? And ask yourself if your source reported on the ACORN videos long before, or after, they became public and Congress acted to defund them. Or have they bothered to tell you that over 30 ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud and voter registration fraud, among other things? Or that one of the ACORN founders embezzled over a million taxpayer dollars from ACORN, and ACORN never pressed charges? And did your source tell you about the part of the Baucus health care bill that says you will go to jail if you do not buy insurance? Or that all health care proposals include language that will cut Medicare funding by 500 billion dollars? And did your source point out the fraud in the Stimulus Bill? Or all the pork that was in it?
All of those important stories turned out to be 100% factual. But only one news source reported them. Why? Because they know that it is easier to lead, and take advantage of people who are ill-informed and ignorant of what is going on.
As you can see, getting ALL the facts is important if we are to make informed choices in our own lives. And most of the media are not giving us those facts until they are forced to by public uproar. But where is that uproar coming from if most media are hiding the truth from you?
I watch the news from many sources, to make sure I have all the facts, and not just the cherry-picked parts that an agenda-driven media presents. And in every case - EVERY case - the only media that gave me all the news was Fox. Think what you like about Fox, but the fact remains that they were on the ACORN, Van Johnson, Stimulus Fraud and the Baucus health care jail long before any other media. And the fact remains that, to this day, many in the media STILL have not reported on these things, or have sharply minimalized the stories. And viewership of FOX now exceeds the viewership of ALL other news media combined. Why? Maybe it is BECAUSE more and more folks from both sides are discovering that only Fox gives you all the news.
Two separate polls (Zogby was one) last election day asked voters certain questions about politics - simple questions that everyone should have known the answers to. As it turned out, the best informed voters were those who claimed to get their news from either FOX, or talk radio, or both. Those individuals got over 80% of the answers correct, on average, while those who got their news from the New York Times, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN only got an average of 22% correct.
I hate pain. But it is pain that tells me when something is wrong, and makes me seek medical attention so I can fix what is wrong. Hate Fox News if you wish. But if you want to be INFORMED, you should be watching it, regardless of your party affiliation, and in spite of your personal feelings. Because being informed is not just a luxury - in today's world, it is essential.
And well-informed people are better armed to win debates, and make good choices. Choose to be well-informed, even if it hurts!
/
Our rights, and our futures, depend upon whether or not we get the "straight" news about what is going on. If we get our news from a media lies to us, or omits critical information, then we are not informed. And if we are not informed, our freedoms, rights and the future of our children dissipate.
So it is critical we get our news from a source that provides ALL the news.
To that end, ask yourself if your media reported on the news that Van Johnson, one of the administration's "czars", was a criminal and self-proclaimed communist. And did they report on it BEFORE or AFTER he was forced to resign? And ask yourself if your source reported on the ACORN videos long before, or after, they became public and Congress acted to defund them. Or have they bothered to tell you that over 30 ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud and voter registration fraud, among other things? Or that one of the ACORN founders embezzled over a million taxpayer dollars from ACORN, and ACORN never pressed charges? And did your source tell you about the part of the Baucus health care bill that says you will go to jail if you do not buy insurance? Or that all health care proposals include language that will cut Medicare funding by 500 billion dollars? And did your source point out the fraud in the Stimulus Bill? Or all the pork that was in it?
All of those important stories turned out to be 100% factual. But only one news source reported them. Why? Because they know that it is easier to lead, and take advantage of people who are ill-informed and ignorant of what is going on.
As you can see, getting ALL the facts is important if we are to make informed choices in our own lives. And most of the media are not giving us those facts until they are forced to by public uproar. But where is that uproar coming from if most media are hiding the truth from you?
I watch the news from many sources, to make sure I have all the facts, and not just the cherry-picked parts that an agenda-driven media presents. And in every case - EVERY case - the only media that gave me all the news was Fox. Think what you like about Fox, but the fact remains that they were on the ACORN, Van Johnson, Stimulus Fraud and the Baucus health care jail long before any other media. And the fact remains that, to this day, many in the media STILL have not reported on these things, or have sharply minimalized the stories. And viewership of FOX now exceeds the viewership of ALL other news media combined. Why? Maybe it is BECAUSE more and more folks from both sides are discovering that only Fox gives you all the news.
Two separate polls (Zogby was one) last election day asked voters certain questions about politics - simple questions that everyone should have known the answers to. As it turned out, the best informed voters were those who claimed to get their news from either FOX, or talk radio, or both. Those individuals got over 80% of the answers correct, on average, while those who got their news from the New York Times, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN only got an average of 22% correct.
I hate pain. But it is pain that tells me when something is wrong, and makes me seek medical attention so I can fix what is wrong. Hate Fox News if you wish. But if you want to be INFORMED, you should be watching it, regardless of your party affiliation, and in spite of your personal feelings. Because being informed is not just a luxury - in today's world, it is essential.
And well-informed people are better armed to win debates, and make good choices. Choose to be well-informed, even if it hurts!
/
Monday, September 28, 2009
Health Care Jail
Did you know that the Health Care plan proposed by Sen. Baucus has a section that states if you do not buy health insurance you will be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished with either a $25,000 fine OR A YEAR IN JAIL?
Can you believe these people? Not only do they want to violate your Constitutional Rights by FORCING you to spend your money on something you may not want or need, but they want to put you in prison if you do not comply with their Gestapo tactics.
Think about this - if for some reason you lose your insurance, you would be forced to spend $3800 to enter the "government" option, or go to jail. Hell, for most folks, if they do not have insurance it is because they cannot afford it. So the Democrats want to put you behind bars for being broke.
Don't think so? Think again. Baucus has already admitted that it exists in the bill. Now think about this - let's say the government says if you earn more than $48,000 a year, you can "afford" the $3800/year for their insurance. Yet, for all they know, your bills and expenses come to $48,000 a year. So how will you pay $3800 for insurance without going bankrupt and losing everything? In other words, it will not matter how much debt you already have - if you EARN a certain amount, the government says you can afford it - even if you cannot. So, you go to JAIL!
In America! With each passing day, the Obama Administration is changing America from the land of the free to the land of the enslaved.
Of course, the liberal media refuses to tell folks about this part of the Baucus bill, because they know the folks would revolt, big time. As far as I can tell, the only news source to show this is Fox News. No wonder it beats ALL other news stations combined.
Folks - if you have an ounce of common sense and a modicum of interest in what kind of future our children will have, get on the horn and call your senators and congressmen TODAY. Tell them if they vote for the health care bill, you will vote for their opponent in the next election. This is far too important for anyone to sit on their hands and hope someone else will fight the fight for them.
/
Can you believe these people? Not only do they want to violate your Constitutional Rights by FORCING you to spend your money on something you may not want or need, but they want to put you in prison if you do not comply with their Gestapo tactics.
Think about this - if for some reason you lose your insurance, you would be forced to spend $3800 to enter the "government" option, or go to jail. Hell, for most folks, if they do not have insurance it is because they cannot afford it. So the Democrats want to put you behind bars for being broke.
Don't think so? Think again. Baucus has already admitted that it exists in the bill. Now think about this - let's say the government says if you earn more than $48,000 a year, you can "afford" the $3800/year for their insurance. Yet, for all they know, your bills and expenses come to $48,000 a year. So how will you pay $3800 for insurance without going bankrupt and losing everything? In other words, it will not matter how much debt you already have - if you EARN a certain amount, the government says you can afford it - even if you cannot. So, you go to JAIL!
In America! With each passing day, the Obama Administration is changing America from the land of the free to the land of the enslaved.
Of course, the liberal media refuses to tell folks about this part of the Baucus bill, because they know the folks would revolt, big time. As far as I can tell, the only news source to show this is Fox News. No wonder it beats ALL other news stations combined.
Folks - if you have an ounce of common sense and a modicum of interest in what kind of future our children will have, get on the horn and call your senators and congressmen TODAY. Tell them if they vote for the health care bill, you will vote for their opponent in the next election. This is far too important for anyone to sit on their hands and hope someone else will fight the fight for them.
/
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Should Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) be banned?
Read on, then vote in the poll on the left margin:
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
Unfortunately, the dangers of DHMO have increased as world population has increased, a fact that the raw numbers and careful research both bear out. Now more than ever, it is important to be aware of just what the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are and how we can all reduce the risks faced by ourselves and our families.
What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
- Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
- Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
- Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
- DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
- Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
- Contributes to soil erosion.
- Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
- Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
- Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
- Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
- Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
- Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
- Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect
Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide. Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
- as an industrial solvent and coolant,
in nuclear power plants, - by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
- by elite athletes to improve performance,
in biological and chemical weapons manufacture, - in the development of genetically engineered crops and animals,
- as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
- in so-called "family planning" or "reproductive health" clinics,
- as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
in cult rituals, - by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
- by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
- historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
- in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
- during many recent religious and ethnic wars in the Middle East,
- by many terrorist organizations including al Quaeda,
- in day care centers, purportedly for sanitary purposes,
- in animal research laboratories, and
- in pesticide production and distribution.
What you may find surprising are some of the products and places where DHMO is used, but which for one reason or another, are not normally made part of public presentations on the dangers to the lives of our family members and friends. Among these startling uses are:
- as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices
- in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals,
- in spray-on oven cleaners,
- in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products,
- in bathtub bubble products marketed to children,
as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections, - in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors,
- in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad
One of the most surprising facts recently revealed about Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination is in its use as a food and vegetable "decontaminant." Studies have shown that even after careful washing, food and produce that has been contaminated by DHMO remains tainted by DHMO.
A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence in our country's schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved.
Knowing these statistics and facts, do you think DHMO should be banned? Please cast your vote.
/
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Is The Health Care System "Broken"?
Democrats keep repeating that the health care system in America is "broken". But nothing is further from the truth.
Let us begin with a couple of simple, undeniable facts:
1) America has the best, highest quality health care in the world, and
2) America has the most expensive health care in the world
What this tells us is that the health care in America is not broken - it is just expensive.
The Democrats want to tear down the entire system, radically change it, and hopefully make it affordable in the process while putting it under government control.
Republicans on the other hand, have offered a plan that deals with the expense, while leaving our great health care untouched.
Historically, the government has never - I repeat, NEVER - successfuilly run anything except wars. So it is unlikely that the Democrat plan would succeed, and would only serve to reduce the quality of our health care to that of Canada or the UK.
But although the Republican plan makes more sense, and would likely have the desired result, the Democrat-controlled Congress will not even allow it to be presented for a vote.
So much for bipartisanship.
In the Democrat plan, there is much more than meets the eye. You have all heard about the sections that say a bureaucrat will determine who gets what care, based on life expectancy and usefulness versus cost. But there is a tremendous amount of other poison in that 1000 page bill. For example, in section 440 the government would be permitted to have their social engineers enter your home and "teach" you how to raise your children, and teach them the "right" values.
That is but one small part of this bill. But what it all boils down to is this: the liberals now controlling this nation want to create a nanny state, dictating our lives from cradle to grave. This would give them everlasting power and control. And health care is the only method of achieving that. Under a health care bill, they can dictate what is best for us. Teach our children their own values. Choose who will live, who will die. Who suffers, and who gets treatment.
Think about it - any government that controls the health of its citizens CONTROLS THOSE CITIZENS!
Do you recall that science fiction show where one alien race got another alien race addicted to a drug, then used that to control the race to fight their wars for them? If they fought, they got their fix. If they did not, they would die from the withdrawal. That is the power of government health care.
The republicans, on the other hand, want the folks to be able to better control their own health. This would be done with legislation designed to bring down costs. How?
As an example, it would include tort reform. One of the reasons health care is so expensive is because fear of lawsuits force doctors and hospital to order many tests and treatments that are not necessary, so they can say they tried everything. In addition, the excessive cost of malpractice INSURANCE adds to your health bill. And that cost is so high because the current laws have no cap on judgements.
Ergo, tort reform could reduce medical costs by up to 20% without affecting the quality of care.
Another cost-cutter is health savings accounts, particularly if they are coupled with a co-op. If you have ever joined a grocery co-op, you understand. By pooling resouces, you can get the care you need for less. And with health savings accounts, you reduce your taxes accordingly while building up cash to pay for future medical costs.
Most folks need catastrophic insurance, to cover major issues like cancer, or surgery. And because coverage is limited only to catastrophic care, which only a small percentage of folks need, it is much cheaper than full coverage. Therefore, the average person could have catastrophic insurance provided by employers (or a credit given to self-employed people), while their health savings account covers everything else other than catastrophic care. And YOU control it.
All in all, the result would be to reduce medical costs by at least 40 percent while leaving the quality and availability of healh care untouched.
Some folks, however, think health care should just be free, paid for by the government. But that is not realistic - there is a price for everything, and nothing is free. We would still have to pay for it one way or another, through taxes, and it would result in government control which, as pointed out earlier, would reduce the quality and availability of care.
And there are those, among the Democrats, that believe insurance for all is the answer. It is not, and here is why: insurance is the problem, not the solution. Think about it - if you have 100% coverage, you will be more apt to run to the emergency room for every little discomfort, since you are not paying for it. If uninsured, you would think twice before incurring ER costs to deal with a minor cut on your 5 year old's knee.
And all that abuse and demand on the health care system drives up costs. But with health savings accounts, you would be more prone to conserving that money and not waste it.
Do you need proof that insurance is the problem? Test it. Call your local hospital and tell them your doctor is prescribing a colonoscopy, and you want to know how much it will cost. They will ask if you have insurance, because they charge differently if you do. If insured, the charge can be as much as 300% higher. So, tell them you have Blue Cross/Blue Shield - what would be the charge. It will likely be around $1500.
A few days later, using a different name, make the same call. This time, however, tell them you have no insurance and this will be self-pay, in cash, and you need to know how much. Chances are they will quote a cost around $500-$800.
And that is why insurance is the problem - the health providers screw insurers, resulting in much higher-than-necessary insurance premiums.
Are you getting the picture?
The health care system is not broken. It is simply expensive. And that can be dealt with easily, without jeopardizing the quality or availability of the care, and without entrusting it to a government that could not even run the "Cash For Clunkers" program efficiently.
/
Let us begin with a couple of simple, undeniable facts:
1) America has the best, highest quality health care in the world, and
2) America has the most expensive health care in the world
What this tells us is that the health care in America is not broken - it is just expensive.
The Democrats want to tear down the entire system, radically change it, and hopefully make it affordable in the process while putting it under government control.
Republicans on the other hand, have offered a plan that deals with the expense, while leaving our great health care untouched.
Historically, the government has never - I repeat, NEVER - successfuilly run anything except wars. So it is unlikely that the Democrat plan would succeed, and would only serve to reduce the quality of our health care to that of Canada or the UK.
But although the Republican plan makes more sense, and would likely have the desired result, the Democrat-controlled Congress will not even allow it to be presented for a vote.
So much for bipartisanship.
In the Democrat plan, there is much more than meets the eye. You have all heard about the sections that say a bureaucrat will determine who gets what care, based on life expectancy and usefulness versus cost. But there is a tremendous amount of other poison in that 1000 page bill. For example, in section 440 the government would be permitted to have their social engineers enter your home and "teach" you how to raise your children, and teach them the "right" values.
That is but one small part of this bill. But what it all boils down to is this: the liberals now controlling this nation want to create a nanny state, dictating our lives from cradle to grave. This would give them everlasting power and control. And health care is the only method of achieving that. Under a health care bill, they can dictate what is best for us. Teach our children their own values. Choose who will live, who will die. Who suffers, and who gets treatment.
Think about it - any government that controls the health of its citizens CONTROLS THOSE CITIZENS!
Do you recall that science fiction show where one alien race got another alien race addicted to a drug, then used that to control the race to fight their wars for them? If they fought, they got their fix. If they did not, they would die from the withdrawal. That is the power of government health care.
The republicans, on the other hand, want the folks to be able to better control their own health. This would be done with legislation designed to bring down costs. How?
As an example, it would include tort reform. One of the reasons health care is so expensive is because fear of lawsuits force doctors and hospital to order many tests and treatments that are not necessary, so they can say they tried everything. In addition, the excessive cost of malpractice INSURANCE adds to your health bill. And that cost is so high because the current laws have no cap on judgements.
Ergo, tort reform could reduce medical costs by up to 20% without affecting the quality of care.
Another cost-cutter is health savings accounts, particularly if they are coupled with a co-op. If you have ever joined a grocery co-op, you understand. By pooling resouces, you can get the care you need for less. And with health savings accounts, you reduce your taxes accordingly while building up cash to pay for future medical costs.
Most folks need catastrophic insurance, to cover major issues like cancer, or surgery. And because coverage is limited only to catastrophic care, which only a small percentage of folks need, it is much cheaper than full coverage. Therefore, the average person could have catastrophic insurance provided by employers (or a credit given to self-employed people), while their health savings account covers everything else other than catastrophic care. And YOU control it.
All in all, the result would be to reduce medical costs by at least 40 percent while leaving the quality and availability of healh care untouched.
Some folks, however, think health care should just be free, paid for by the government. But that is not realistic - there is a price for everything, and nothing is free. We would still have to pay for it one way or another, through taxes, and it would result in government control which, as pointed out earlier, would reduce the quality and availability of care.
And there are those, among the Democrats, that believe insurance for all is the answer. It is not, and here is why: insurance is the problem, not the solution. Think about it - if you have 100% coverage, you will be more apt to run to the emergency room for every little discomfort, since you are not paying for it. If uninsured, you would think twice before incurring ER costs to deal with a minor cut on your 5 year old's knee.
And all that abuse and demand on the health care system drives up costs. But with health savings accounts, you would be more prone to conserving that money and not waste it.
Do you need proof that insurance is the problem? Test it. Call your local hospital and tell them your doctor is prescribing a colonoscopy, and you want to know how much it will cost. They will ask if you have insurance, because they charge differently if you do. If insured, the charge can be as much as 300% higher. So, tell them you have Blue Cross/Blue Shield - what would be the charge. It will likely be around $1500.
A few days later, using a different name, make the same call. This time, however, tell them you have no insurance and this will be self-pay, in cash, and you need to know how much. Chances are they will quote a cost around $500-$800.
And that is why insurance is the problem - the health providers screw insurers, resulting in much higher-than-necessary insurance premiums.
Are you getting the picture?
The health care system is not broken. It is simply expensive. And that can be dealt with easily, without jeopardizing the quality or availability of the care, and without entrusting it to a government that could not even run the "Cash For Clunkers" program efficiently.
/
Friday, July 31, 2009
Not In The News
Not likely to be seen in the "mainstream" (liberal) media:
Senior citizens (AKA "The People") descended upon Senator Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) office today with questions and concerns about the health care bill she is supporting. Apparently unaware that she is supposed to be representing the people, the Feinstein Office called police to have those pesky American Voters removed.
Talk about elitism and an inability to connect with the folks..
.
Section 440 of that health bill allows government social(ist) workers to enter your home and "teach" you how to raise your children properly, and "teach" you how to instill the "right" values in your children
Can you say "1984 Big Brother Nazi-ism"?
/
Senior citizens (AKA "The People") descended upon Senator Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) office today with questions and concerns about the health care bill she is supporting. Apparently unaware that she is supposed to be representing the people, the Feinstein Office called police to have those pesky American Voters removed.
Talk about elitism and an inability to connect with the folks..
.
Section 440 of that health bill allows government social(ist) workers to enter your home and "teach" you how to raise your children properly, and "teach" you how to instill the "right" values in your children
Can you say "1984 Big Brother Nazi-ism"?
/
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Missing The Point On Health Care
There is a lot of hype surrounding the so-called "health care debate." That's because "health care" is not the real issue. The REAL issue is HEALTH. There is a big difference. To find the (simple) solution, one must first understand the issue.
The natural order of things is good health, and ill health, throughout history, has been the exception. Until 60 years ago, most Americans rarely needed to see a doctor or visit a hospital. The reverse is currently true - GOOD health is becoming the exception.
With the advent of health insurance, folks suddenly ran to the emergency room for every little thing, simply because it was now "free". We have become a nation of needy, sick people. This overtaxes the healthcare system and drives up the cost. And here is HOW we got that way...
Food processing companies have been filling store shelves with non-food for over a half century. It's all chemicals, preservatives, various sugars, too much salt, hormoes, pesticides and just about any other non-food, all for the sake of greater profits. The most profitable "additive" is high fructose corn syrup, which is 100 times sweeter than sugar, at a fraction of the cost to produce. And it is the #1 cause of obesity and diabetes in America. Moreover, if you check labels, it is in almost everything on the grocery store shelves.
Our bodies are being abused in this way, and are not getting the proper nutrition. So, our society is getting sicker and sicker.
SOLUTION: Keep people healthy in the first place, and provide for catastrophic care
1) Tax junk food and non-natural foods, and apply those funds to reduce the cost of good, organic, healthy foods so people can afford to eat REAL food
2) Teach students in school, from the 3rd grade on, about PROPER nutrition and healthy foods, and what the body requires
3) Reinstate mandatory Phys Ed in every grade and every school, and make it FUN
4) Every person should have coverage for catastrophic care - such insurance is much cheaper that complete insurance. This could be funded by employers, by mandate. During periods of unemployment, individuals would be temporarily covered by a government-paid option, but ONLY while unemployed
5) A healthier society from 1 thru 3 will result in a much reduced need for lesser health care issues, which would reduce the load, and reduce the cost of insurance to cover the minor issues, making it more affordable for all
6) Tort reform - in cases where there was no gross negligence or intentional harm, doctor's liability would be limited only to actual financial damages. In cases of gross neglect or intentional harm, lower limits for awards should be set, with a maximum based on the actual potential earning power lost, plus actual costs and costs for ongoing medical needs. An additional award of up to 25% more if the neglect resulted in serious long-term pain.
If we keep ourselves healthy, health care costs will take care of themselves. If we reduce the cost of malpractice insurance, doctor costs could be cut substantially.
/
The natural order of things is good health, and ill health, throughout history, has been the exception. Until 60 years ago, most Americans rarely needed to see a doctor or visit a hospital. The reverse is currently true - GOOD health is becoming the exception.
With the advent of health insurance, folks suddenly ran to the emergency room for every little thing, simply because it was now "free". We have become a nation of needy, sick people. This overtaxes the healthcare system and drives up the cost. And here is HOW we got that way...
Food processing companies have been filling store shelves with non-food for over a half century. It's all chemicals, preservatives, various sugars, too much salt, hormoes, pesticides and just about any other non-food, all for the sake of greater profits. The most profitable "additive" is high fructose corn syrup, which is 100 times sweeter than sugar, at a fraction of the cost to produce. And it is the #1 cause of obesity and diabetes in America. Moreover, if you check labels, it is in almost everything on the grocery store shelves.
Our bodies are being abused in this way, and are not getting the proper nutrition. So, our society is getting sicker and sicker.
SOLUTION: Keep people healthy in the first place, and provide for catastrophic care
1) Tax junk food and non-natural foods, and apply those funds to reduce the cost of good, organic, healthy foods so people can afford to eat REAL food
2) Teach students in school, from the 3rd grade on, about PROPER nutrition and healthy foods, and what the body requires
3) Reinstate mandatory Phys Ed in every grade and every school, and make it FUN
4) Every person should have coverage for catastrophic care - such insurance is much cheaper that complete insurance. This could be funded by employers, by mandate. During periods of unemployment, individuals would be temporarily covered by a government-paid option, but ONLY while unemployed
5) A healthier society from 1 thru 3 will result in a much reduced need for lesser health care issues, which would reduce the load, and reduce the cost of insurance to cover the minor issues, making it more affordable for all
6) Tort reform - in cases where there was no gross negligence or intentional harm, doctor's liability would be limited only to actual financial damages. In cases of gross neglect or intentional harm, lower limits for awards should be set, with a maximum based on the actual potential earning power lost, plus actual costs and costs for ongoing medical needs. An additional award of up to 25% more if the neglect resulted in serious long-term pain.
If we keep ourselves healthy, health care costs will take care of themselves. If we reduce the cost of malpractice insurance, doctor costs could be cut substantially.
/
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Sweat Of His Brow
In a discussion on AOL that brought up the existence of God, one person made the following statement:
"I do not believe in God because He has done NOTHING for me. Everything I have I got from the sweat of my brow. If He ever decides to do something for me, then I will believe."
I could not believe this person's arrogance and complete inability to think the world does not revolve around him. So, I wrote back:
"You say you will believe in God when He does something for you. Well then, prepare to believe. He, not you, gave you the BRAIN and the MUSCLE to do the things you have done. He, not you, gave you a planet to call home, air to breathe, water to drink and food to eat. He gave you eyes to see, yet you are blind to Him. He gave you ears to hear, yet you are deaf to Him.
"Compared to all that He has done for you, my friend, YOU have done almost nothing except use that which He gave you. And that is what we are supposed to do.
"If you are the kind of person who will believe only when someone does something FOR you, rather than doing it for yourself, then you must feel right at home with a government that intends to do everything for you. But even then, the government can do nothing compared to what God has already done for you. He gave you LIFE."
/
"I do not believe in God because He has done NOTHING for me. Everything I have I got from the sweat of my brow. If He ever decides to do something for me, then I will believe."
I could not believe this person's arrogance and complete inability to think the world does not revolve around him. So, I wrote back:
"You say you will believe in God when He does something for you. Well then, prepare to believe. He, not you, gave you the BRAIN and the MUSCLE to do the things you have done. He, not you, gave you a planet to call home, air to breathe, water to drink and food to eat. He gave you eyes to see, yet you are blind to Him. He gave you ears to hear, yet you are deaf to Him.
"Compared to all that He has done for you, my friend, YOU have done almost nothing except use that which He gave you. And that is what we are supposed to do.
"If you are the kind of person who will believe only when someone does something FOR you, rather than doing it for yourself, then you must feel right at home with a government that intends to do everything for you. But even then, the government can do nothing compared to what God has already done for you. He gave you LIFE."
/
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Laugh At The Pundits
Governor Sarah Palin resigns. And all of the overpaid pundits cannot understand it. They all put forth their dumb theories, but they ultimately say, "I don't understand this - why would she do this?"
But for those of us with some living brain cells, it is so obvious that it is almost obscene.
Palin's family is not wealthy. All other possible presidential candidates are millionaires, but Palin is simply middle-class. She really cannot run, and effectively compete in 2012. Bear in mind that Hillary Clinton had to fund over 20 million on her own. Romney has $100 million. Palin does not have even one million.
As governor, Palin cannot charge $100,000 for speaking engagements, or do a lot of other money-making things, or she would violate ethics rules.
So, here is EXACTLY why Palin resigned:
1) She can book 50 speaking engagements per year, at $100,000 each, over the next two years, and bankroll $10 million.
2) She can publish a book, and collected another $5-10 million
3) She can travel the lower 48, and build a stronger base. Stuck in Alaska, she cannot do that.
4) As governor, she pretty much has to put up with the mindless, crude attacks on her family by the media. As a private citizen, she can hit back - hard!
5) She is now free to study, and become much better informed in matters of state, and foreign affairs.
6) She has enough integrity to not hold onto the governor's seat while giving her time to a bigger campaign - Alaska deserves a full-time governor. This is far different from the "politics as usual" we are accustomed to - Obama spent two years AWAY from his senate seat to run for president. During that time he was getting paid to represent the folks in Illinois, but failed to do so. Palin is better than that.
But first and foremost, she cannot vie for the nomination unless she has strong personal finances - and she cannot do that as governor. She is smart enough to realize that, in her current middle-class status, she cannot compete financially with multi-millionaires like Romney.
So, to all those overpaid pundits I would suggest they stop analyzing her as you would analyze the crooked politicians in Washington, and begin looking at her for the real person of character and integrity she is. Then you will easily understand her.
And, no, I do not think she would be the best candidate for president in 2012. But she most certainly is viable, and a helluva lot smarter than the pundits, media and liberals think she is.
And I gotta tell ya, it is a huge mistake to understimate Sarah Palin.
Side note: It is July 9th - summertime. I just stepped onto my deck for a breath of fresh air, and could see my breath! I have never seen such cold summers as these last two, and I have seen 61 summers.
/
But for those of us with some living brain cells, it is so obvious that it is almost obscene.
Palin's family is not wealthy. All other possible presidential candidates are millionaires, but Palin is simply middle-class. She really cannot run, and effectively compete in 2012. Bear in mind that Hillary Clinton had to fund over 20 million on her own. Romney has $100 million. Palin does not have even one million.
As governor, Palin cannot charge $100,000 for speaking engagements, or do a lot of other money-making things, or she would violate ethics rules.
So, here is EXACTLY why Palin resigned:
1) She can book 50 speaking engagements per year, at $100,000 each, over the next two years, and bankroll $10 million.
2) She can publish a book, and collected another $5-10 million
3) She can travel the lower 48, and build a stronger base. Stuck in Alaska, she cannot do that.
4) As governor, she pretty much has to put up with the mindless, crude attacks on her family by the media. As a private citizen, she can hit back - hard!
5) She is now free to study, and become much better informed in matters of state, and foreign affairs.
6) She has enough integrity to not hold onto the governor's seat while giving her time to a bigger campaign - Alaska deserves a full-time governor. This is far different from the "politics as usual" we are accustomed to - Obama spent two years AWAY from his senate seat to run for president. During that time he was getting paid to represent the folks in Illinois, but failed to do so. Palin is better than that.
But first and foremost, she cannot vie for the nomination unless she has strong personal finances - and she cannot do that as governor. She is smart enough to realize that, in her current middle-class status, she cannot compete financially with multi-millionaires like Romney.
So, to all those overpaid pundits I would suggest they stop analyzing her as you would analyze the crooked politicians in Washington, and begin looking at her for the real person of character and integrity she is. Then you will easily understand her.
And, no, I do not think she would be the best candidate for president in 2012. But she most certainly is viable, and a helluva lot smarter than the pundits, media and liberals think she is.
And I gotta tell ya, it is a huge mistake to understimate Sarah Palin.
Side note: It is July 9th - summertime. I just stepped onto my deck for a breath of fresh air, and could see my breath! I have never seen such cold summers as these last two, and I have seen 61 summers.
/
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Food For Thought
(As I write this, it is July 2, and our furnace has had to come on 32 of the last 41 days. It has been on throughout today. We have used 70 gallons of heating oil since mid-May. Average outside temperature here over the last few weeks has not been above 60 degrees. Temperature is normally in the 70's and 80's.)
Many of you, particularly liberals who do not wish to be confused by the facts, will not want to visit a page I have constructed with a few facts about "global warming" that the hoaxsters will not tell you.
For those of you with inquiring minds, and a yearning for ALL the facts, feel free to take a look. There is no hype - just absolute, proven facts.
/
Many of you, particularly liberals who do not wish to be confused by the facts, will not want to visit a page I have constructed with a few facts about "global warming" that the hoaxsters will not tell you.
For those of you with inquiring minds, and a yearning for ALL the facts, feel free to take a look. There is no hype - just absolute, proven facts.
/
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Stupid Is As Stupid Does
47 states are set to raise taxes on their citizens. So, let me see if I understand this...
Joe Blow is hurting because of the recession, so he is spending less. This means the state gets less in sales taxes. So, to offset this, the state, in its utter stupidity and arrogance, increases the taxes, thinking that will somehow increase revenue.
But the increased taxes, on an already hurting Joe Blow, only means Joe can afford even less than before. He is forced by higher prices to buy LESS, resulting in even LESS tax revenue for the state.
Throughout American history, EVERY time taxes have been raised, the economy suffered. And EVERY time taxes were cut, the economy boomed. Our elected leaders, however, out of sheer arrogance and ignorance choose to ignore history.
Look, it isn't rocket science. The more money the PEOPLE have, the more they can SPEND. The more they spend, the more tax revenue the state gets without raising the tax rate. In fact, if the CUT the tax rate, this gives the people even MORE money to spend, resulting in even GREATER tax revenues.
In a nutshell: what makes more sense - collecting 5% of $100 or collecting 100% of $5? While it may appear to be the same result, it is not. In the former instance, $95 is still in the economy, being passed along. In the latter case, the entire amount is taken as tax, and nothing is left to keep the economy afloat or to be passed along.
I'll say this just once - the People (and particularly businesses) are the Golden Goose that lays the Golden Eggs. It is their effort and investment that creates the income from which the government gets its tax revenue.
Now, the government has a choice - take CARE of the Golden Goose, and keep getting those eggs, or STRANGLE the goose with higher taxes and regulation, thereby reducing the egg output - and maybe even stopping it altogether if they kill the goose - or it runs away, the way businesses leave the US for more favorable tax treatment in India and China, taking the jobs with them. We keep griping how businesses keep taking jobs out of America by out-sourcing, but we adamantly refuse to force our elected officials to stop running those businesses out by their insistence to punish them with ever increasing taxes. Businesses are no different from you and I. They will go where they are welcomed, and treated fairly. They will move away from any place that punishes them, or treats them unfairly. Get it? Your Senators and representatives certainly do NOT get it. And Pelosi, Reid and Obama are the thickest of bricks when it comes to economics. They are under the misconception that since the Fed actually PRINTS the money, then the government is the one that creates the wealth. They do not. They only print the paper that REPRESENTS the wealth that is created by American entrepreneurship and labor. The government cannot create ANY wealth.
It is time we told our senators and representatives that they need to start adhering to simple common sense when it comes to finances and taxation, and to keep taxes low, for the benefit of all. Because as sure as God made little green apples, higher taxes will lower our standard of living, and strangle the very thing that creates the wealth in the first place.
/
Joe Blow is hurting because of the recession, so he is spending less. This means the state gets less in sales taxes. So, to offset this, the state, in its utter stupidity and arrogance, increases the taxes, thinking that will somehow increase revenue.
But the increased taxes, on an already hurting Joe Blow, only means Joe can afford even less than before. He is forced by higher prices to buy LESS, resulting in even LESS tax revenue for the state.
Throughout American history, EVERY time taxes have been raised, the economy suffered. And EVERY time taxes were cut, the economy boomed. Our elected leaders, however, out of sheer arrogance and ignorance choose to ignore history.
Look, it isn't rocket science. The more money the PEOPLE have, the more they can SPEND. The more they spend, the more tax revenue the state gets without raising the tax rate. In fact, if the CUT the tax rate, this gives the people even MORE money to spend, resulting in even GREATER tax revenues.
In a nutshell: what makes more sense - collecting 5% of $100 or collecting 100% of $5? While it may appear to be the same result, it is not. In the former instance, $95 is still in the economy, being passed along. In the latter case, the entire amount is taken as tax, and nothing is left to keep the economy afloat or to be passed along.
I'll say this just once - the People (and particularly businesses) are the Golden Goose that lays the Golden Eggs. It is their effort and investment that creates the income from which the government gets its tax revenue.
Now, the government has a choice - take CARE of the Golden Goose, and keep getting those eggs, or STRANGLE the goose with higher taxes and regulation, thereby reducing the egg output - and maybe even stopping it altogether if they kill the goose - or it runs away, the way businesses leave the US for more favorable tax treatment in India and China, taking the jobs with them. We keep griping how businesses keep taking jobs out of America by out-sourcing, but we adamantly refuse to force our elected officials to stop running those businesses out by their insistence to punish them with ever increasing taxes. Businesses are no different from you and I. They will go where they are welcomed, and treated fairly. They will move away from any place that punishes them, or treats them unfairly. Get it? Your Senators and representatives certainly do NOT get it. And Pelosi, Reid and Obama are the thickest of bricks when it comes to economics. They are under the misconception that since the Fed actually PRINTS the money, then the government is the one that creates the wealth. They do not. They only print the paper that REPRESENTS the wealth that is created by American entrepreneurship and labor. The government cannot create ANY wealth.
It is time we told our senators and representatives that they need to start adhering to simple common sense when it comes to finances and taxation, and to keep taxes low, for the benefit of all. Because as sure as God made little green apples, higher taxes will lower our standard of living, and strangle the very thing that creates the wealth in the first place.
/
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Deeply Concerned
When Iran's dictator stole the election, then murdered protesters in the streets, Obams said nothing, except that he did not think it appropriate to "meddle" in Iran's affairs.
But when the Honduran dictator, Zelaya, is sent into exile by the people of Honduras, who want democracy, Obama stood with, of all people, Chavez and the Castro brothers in siding with Zelaya.
Zelaya shredded the Honduras Constitution, attempting to stay in office forever, like Chavez. The people would not stand for that, and had him escorted out. They COULD have killed him, but instead acted democratically. Obama is backing the dictator, not the people. Sound familiar?
It concerns me deeply that Obama seems to have an affinity for dictators, and is always siding with them.
But then, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Chavez and Castro all have done the same thing.
More reason for concern...
Something to ponder - if the United Nations takes one side, you can BET it will be the wrong side. And they are siding with Zelaya. Remember - the U.N. is now made up mostly of dictatorships and socialist countries. Whatever they are for, America SHOULD be against.
/
But when the Honduran dictator, Zelaya, is sent into exile by the people of Honduras, who want democracy, Obama stood with, of all people, Chavez and the Castro brothers in siding with Zelaya.
Zelaya shredded the Honduras Constitution, attempting to stay in office forever, like Chavez. The people would not stand for that, and had him escorted out. They COULD have killed him, but instead acted democratically. Obama is backing the dictator, not the people. Sound familiar?
It concerns me deeply that Obama seems to have an affinity for dictators, and is always siding with them.
But then, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Chavez and Castro all have done the same thing.
More reason for concern...
Something to ponder - if the United Nations takes one side, you can BET it will be the wrong side. And they are siding with Zelaya. Remember - the U.N. is now made up mostly of dictatorships and socialist countries. Whatever they are for, America SHOULD be against.
/
Monday, June 29, 2009
Losers
When I first decided to write this entry, the title "Losers" was meant to pertain to our extremely poor choice of representatives, because those jackasses voted for the Cap & Trade Energy Tax that is going to cost every family in America between $2000-$3000 each and every year, for starters. It will also force the emmigration of millions of jobs to India and China, as many large businesses are already planning to leave the U.S. rather than be bankrupted by this tax.
But almost immediately after writing the title, it occured to me that, because of those clowns, we are all going to be losers. And I have to wonder if the people who voted for those mindless lemmings, actually ENJOY getting screwed all the time, or if they are simply apathetic to it, having been screwed by so many for so long.
Maybe apathetic is the wrong word - pathetic might be better suited.
As Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it, "everyone gets the government they deserve." Well, though we have a great country, we certainly have a government that sucks, big time. And while it might be easy to blame our representatives and senators, the ones at fault are the people who keep ELECTING them into office, over and over. Is that you? Anyone who voted for them, and anyone who never even showed up at the polls, are the people responsible.
If you are sadistic and like punishment, fine - that's your personal pleasure. But do not force your sadism on the rest of us by re-electing those bumpkins. They did not even have a clue what this cap & trade bill was really all about. They had no clue it would force jobs out of America. They had no clue that every single item you buy will now cost more, if the Senate also passes this socialist atrocity. Because, if a person uses more than one brain cell at a time, they would quickly realize that every single thing we use depends on energy to produce, and energy to ship. So, a tax on using energy will not simply affect your light and heat bill - it will affect the cost of bread, milk, clothes, medicine - every blessed thing, including the hairdresser - after all, if her costs are going to go up, she is going to pass it along to you. Get it? Your representatives didn't, and I seriously doubt if those mental midgets we call our senators will get it, either.
And guess what? If this bill passes, you probably will not be allowed to sell your home without first spending thousands bringing it up to the new "green code". That's right, folks. If your home is not as energy efficient as the government likes, you cannot sell it until you bring it in line.
And forget about you or your kids ever building a new home, or buying a home - this bill states that no home can be built anywhere in America unless it meets the "green" standards of California liberals - you know, the same standards that forced Californians to pay twice as much to build a home, resulting in extremely high home prices. So, if it costs $300,000 to build the $150,000 home, your kids will either have to go in hock for $300K, or spend their lives in apartments. Nice, huh? So much for "change" and "hope".
And if you like it warm in the winter or cool in the summer? Forget it. You can be fined or taxed if you use more energy than the government thinks you should. The bill includes the cost of building and implementing a new "smart grid" which will effectively "ration" energy to each and every home.
And if you think heating with wood, cut from your own property will allow you to escape, forget it - the bill includes taxing the use of wood for fuel, regardless of the source.
Well, folks, you have a choice - you can just chalk it up, and allow government total control over your lives through this cap & trade energy bill, or you can do what you did NOT do with your representatives and actually get off the couch and call your senators, and tell them if they vote YES, you will vote NO come next election, and they will be on the same unemployment line as the rest of us. After all, one passed, the damage cannot be undone, even if you elect all Republicans or Independents. Once a corporation expends tens of millions to move overseas, you cannot expect them to toss that away and move back. And once the "smart grid" is online, it will be the ONLY grid available.
So, folks, you have ONE CHANCE to save yourselves and your families - contact your senators, and be very explicit about how you vote next time will be tied to the way they vote on this bill.
This one bill, if passed, will make the people the servants of the government - just the opposite of what the founding fathers designed, and the opposite of what made America great up until now.
Some actual highlights of the Cap & Trade Energy Bill:
But almost immediately after writing the title, it occured to me that, because of those clowns, we are all going to be losers. And I have to wonder if the people who voted for those mindless lemmings, actually ENJOY getting screwed all the time, or if they are simply apathetic to it, having been screwed by so many for so long.
Maybe apathetic is the wrong word - pathetic might be better suited.
As Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it, "everyone gets the government they deserve." Well, though we have a great country, we certainly have a government that sucks, big time. And while it might be easy to blame our representatives and senators, the ones at fault are the people who keep ELECTING them into office, over and over. Is that you? Anyone who voted for them, and anyone who never even showed up at the polls, are the people responsible.
If you are sadistic and like punishment, fine - that's your personal pleasure. But do not force your sadism on the rest of us by re-electing those bumpkins. They did not even have a clue what this cap & trade bill was really all about. They had no clue it would force jobs out of America. They had no clue that every single item you buy will now cost more, if the Senate also passes this socialist atrocity. Because, if a person uses more than one brain cell at a time, they would quickly realize that every single thing we use depends on energy to produce, and energy to ship. So, a tax on using energy will not simply affect your light and heat bill - it will affect the cost of bread, milk, clothes, medicine - every blessed thing, including the hairdresser - after all, if her costs are going to go up, she is going to pass it along to you. Get it? Your representatives didn't, and I seriously doubt if those mental midgets we call our senators will get it, either.
And guess what? If this bill passes, you probably will not be allowed to sell your home without first spending thousands bringing it up to the new "green code". That's right, folks. If your home is not as energy efficient as the government likes, you cannot sell it until you bring it in line.
And forget about you or your kids ever building a new home, or buying a home - this bill states that no home can be built anywhere in America unless it meets the "green" standards of California liberals - you know, the same standards that forced Californians to pay twice as much to build a home, resulting in extremely high home prices. So, if it costs $300,000 to build the $150,000 home, your kids will either have to go in hock for $300K, or spend their lives in apartments. Nice, huh? So much for "change" and "hope".
And if you like it warm in the winter or cool in the summer? Forget it. You can be fined or taxed if you use more energy than the government thinks you should. The bill includes the cost of building and implementing a new "smart grid" which will effectively "ration" energy to each and every home.
And if you think heating with wood, cut from your own property will allow you to escape, forget it - the bill includes taxing the use of wood for fuel, regardless of the source.
Well, folks, you have a choice - you can just chalk it up, and allow government total control over your lives through this cap & trade energy bill, or you can do what you did NOT do with your representatives and actually get off the couch and call your senators, and tell them if they vote YES, you will vote NO come next election, and they will be on the same unemployment line as the rest of us. After all, one passed, the damage cannot be undone, even if you elect all Republicans or Independents. Once a corporation expends tens of millions to move overseas, you cannot expect them to toss that away and move back. And once the "smart grid" is online, it will be the ONLY grid available.
So, folks, you have ONE CHANCE to save yourselves and your families - contact your senators, and be very explicit about how you vote next time will be tied to the way they vote on this bill.
This one bill, if passed, will make the people the servants of the government - just the opposite of what the founding fathers designed, and the opposite of what made America great up until now.
Some actual highlights of the Cap & Trade Energy Bill:
- Tax on the use of energy, which will increase the cost of everything manufactured or transported - which is everything
- Businesses moving out of the U.S. to avoid the tax, so jobs will disappear
- "Smart grid", which will monitor your energy use and fine you for using more than the government thinks you should
- All new construction must meet expensive "green" standards, which has helped bankrupt California. This will push up the cost of all housing.
- Homesellers cannot sell without first bringing their home up to the "green code", at a cost of many thousands of dollars. Before selling, government inspectors will first have to inspect your home for efficiency.
- Although ethanol has proven to be worse for the environment than fossil fuel, the bill mandates the use of more, not less. This will increase the cost of food as agricultural land will be used to grow fuel instead of food.
All this to "fight global warming", even though the EPA reports none of it will reduce carbon emissions.
CALL!
(202) 225-4611
(202) 225-7761
(202) 225-3765
(202) 225-4165
Tell them NO to the Cap & Trade Energy Bill.
As a side note: Today the EPA released a 98 page report stating that worlwide temperatures are decling (getting COLDER, folks), and have been for several years. The report also states these findings have been withheld by the government. H-m-m-m. Global warming, which is the "disaster" that this energy bill is supposed to address, is bogus. So, it seems the government has a different agenda than climate control. How about CITIZEN CONTROL?
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)