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.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)