Over the last few days a stink has arisen over the illegal status of California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's former maid. And while the liberal media are trying to make hay with it, attempting to make Whitman look like a hypocrite, there are serious questions that are not being raised.
I will overlook the fact that the maid's attorney, Gloria Allred, is little more than an ambulance chaser who digs up bogus clients for the sole purpose of getting her own mug in the spotlight. And I will overlook that this has come up at a most convenient time for those who will benefit from it. I overlook those points because there are more important questions the press should have been asking.
1) If Whitman wanted to hire an illegal, why would she call a legitimate agency and have them send someone over?
2) If Whitman knew she was illegal, why was she paying the maid $23 per hour?
3) If Whitman knew she was illegal, there would be no point in paying her Social Security and withholding - yet, she did
4) If Whitman had actually received a letter from the Social Security Administration, how did it end up in the possession of Gloria Allred?
5) If Whitman knew the maid was illegal all along, why did she terminate her in 2009 when the maid, herself disclosed after 9 years that she was an illegal? (Why tell Whitman she is illegal if Whitman already knew?)
It seems to me - and to most intelligent, thinking people - that the maid, and her attorney are being dishonest. We already know the maid lied to the agency. We already know she lied to Whitman - after all, why would she, by her own admission, tell Whitman in 2009 that she was illegal unless she had previously had Whitman thinking she was legal? And the maid is already a proven identity thief - she had produced both a Social Security number and a driver's license.
So the last question is - why should we now believe anything she has to say?
/
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
An Open Letter To Californians
This post is specifically for the fine folks in the great state of California, whose unemployment rate is 12.3%.
And it concerns charges by Senator Barbara Boxer against Carly Fiorina in the heated senate race. It is hoped that this post will shed some light on a crucial issue - jobs.
Boxer contends that Fiorina shipped jobs overseas while she was CEO of Hewlitt Packard. But is that the real story? Or the entire story? Not quite.
As CEO of HP, Fiorina had one task - keeping HP profitable. And if that required shipping jobs overseas, then so be it - that was her job, and she did it. But even that is not the story here.
But any THINKING person would then ask, "But WHY does shipping jobs overseas increase a company's profitability?"
The answer is simple - a business has only one objective - maximize profits. That is what it is supposed to do. In America, the corporate tax rate of about 35% is triple what it is in other countries. And in America, powerful unions place huge financial drains on corporate profits, often as much as 30% of profits, while unions overseas either do not exist, or are weak.
In short, jobs go overseas because the unions and high taxes in America drive them overseas.
So then it behooves a thinking person to ask the next qustion, "Who is responsible for this?"
And the record shows very clearly that it is Boxer and her liberal Democrat cronies who keep hiking taxes "on the rich", and that includes corporations. And they want to hike it again. And it is Democrats that empower the unions - they even want to pass "card check" to insure workers do not "opt out" against unions.
So, it is the policies of Democrats like Boxer that force CEO's like Fiorina to move jobs overseas. So the truth of what we have here is a tale of two powerful women - one used her power to force businesses out of America, and the other used her power to do the job she was hired to do - increase profits.
Which one will you send to Washington in November? The one who forces jobs out, or the one who knows how to bring profitability to California?
There's an old, but true saying, "If you do what you always did, you'll get what you always got."
Look at what you "got" with Democrats in control of Sacramento and Washington.
As a side note that further proves the point, the state of New Jersey passed a "millionaire's tax". They said it would add millions to the state treasury. However, the result was the opposite - they LOST money because the millionaires simply moved to Florida, which has no tax. So not only did NJ not get millions, they lost what taxes the millionaires had been paying. They also lost any jobs those millionaires supplied, and they lost all the consumer purchases they made each year, and they lost the sales tax on those lost purchases. By trying to bleed a few million out of the millionaires, they lost tens of millions. More than that - the low or no tax states like Florida GAINED those millionaires, their jobs, their purchasing power.
That is simply how it works. Boxer does not undertand that. Fiornia certainly does.
/
And it concerns charges by Senator Barbara Boxer against Carly Fiorina in the heated senate race. It is hoped that this post will shed some light on a crucial issue - jobs.
Boxer contends that Fiorina shipped jobs overseas while she was CEO of Hewlitt Packard. But is that the real story? Or the entire story? Not quite.
As CEO of HP, Fiorina had one task - keeping HP profitable. And if that required shipping jobs overseas, then so be it - that was her job, and she did it. But even that is not the story here.
But any THINKING person would then ask, "But WHY does shipping jobs overseas increase a company's profitability?"
The answer is simple - a business has only one objective - maximize profits. That is what it is supposed to do. In America, the corporate tax rate of about 35% is triple what it is in other countries. And in America, powerful unions place huge financial drains on corporate profits, often as much as 30% of profits, while unions overseas either do not exist, or are weak.
In short, jobs go overseas because the unions and high taxes in America drive them overseas.
So then it behooves a thinking person to ask the next qustion, "Who is responsible for this?"
And the record shows very clearly that it is Boxer and her liberal Democrat cronies who keep hiking taxes "on the rich", and that includes corporations. And they want to hike it again. And it is Democrats that empower the unions - they even want to pass "card check" to insure workers do not "opt out" against unions.
So, it is the policies of Democrats like Boxer that force CEO's like Fiorina to move jobs overseas. So the truth of what we have here is a tale of two powerful women - one used her power to force businesses out of America, and the other used her power to do the job she was hired to do - increase profits.
Which one will you send to Washington in November? The one who forces jobs out, or the one who knows how to bring profitability to California?
There's an old, but true saying, "If you do what you always did, you'll get what you always got."
Look at what you "got" with Democrats in control of Sacramento and Washington.
As a side note that further proves the point, the state of New Jersey passed a "millionaire's tax". They said it would add millions to the state treasury. However, the result was the opposite - they LOST money because the millionaires simply moved to Florida, which has no tax. So not only did NJ not get millions, they lost what taxes the millionaires had been paying. They also lost any jobs those millionaires supplied, and they lost all the consumer purchases they made each year, and they lost the sales tax on those lost purchases. By trying to bleed a few million out of the millionaires, they lost tens of millions. More than that - the low or no tax states like Florida GAINED those millionaires, their jobs, their purchasing power.
That is simply how it works. Boxer does not undertand that. Fiornia certainly does.
/
Don't Feed The Bears
If you go to any of the National Parks you will see signs everywhere warning you not to feed the bears. In fact, it is illegal. And the reasons are sound.
If you feed the bears, they will come to expect it. They will learn to depend upon it. And when you run out of food to give, they will demand more and get mean, angry, and will attack you when there is no more. Bears WILL bite the hand that feeds them if it stops feeding them.
Throughout Europe today - Spain, France, Greece etc. - the people have taken to the streets, rioting, burning cars, looting, hurting people. All trains and other common carriers, as well as most other services have shut down. The reason? Same thing - the governments that gave their people all those handouts (entitlements) can no longer afford to do so, and have cut back severely in order to get their finances in order. And the people who have come to expect, depend upon and even demand those handouts are furious - they don't want the free ride to end. They feel cheated because they can no longer mooch off those that do the work.
America is heading in the same direction. All our entitlements are bankrupting us, but the people who get those entitlements just don't care, as long as they get "theirs". And the day is coming when our government will also have to get its financial house in order, and the only way that can be done is to cut entitlements. And the rioting will begin. The bears will be angry, and will get mean.
The strange thing is, our Constitution does not allow for entitlements, and no one is "entitled" to anything that they, themselves have not earned. Yet they are precisely the ones who will riot in the streets.
We, The People need to come to our senses and stop providing "entitlements" that people simply are not entitled to. If we keep on the current course, the bears will attack!
/
If you feed the bears, they will come to expect it. They will learn to depend upon it. And when you run out of food to give, they will demand more and get mean, angry, and will attack you when there is no more. Bears WILL bite the hand that feeds them if it stops feeding them.
Throughout Europe today - Spain, France, Greece etc. - the people have taken to the streets, rioting, burning cars, looting, hurting people. All trains and other common carriers, as well as most other services have shut down. The reason? Same thing - the governments that gave their people all those handouts (entitlements) can no longer afford to do so, and have cut back severely in order to get their finances in order. And the people who have come to expect, depend upon and even demand those handouts are furious - they don't want the free ride to end. They feel cheated because they can no longer mooch off those that do the work.
America is heading in the same direction. All our entitlements are bankrupting us, but the people who get those entitlements just don't care, as long as they get "theirs". And the day is coming when our government will also have to get its financial house in order, and the only way that can be done is to cut entitlements. And the rioting will begin. The bears will be angry, and will get mean.
The strange thing is, our Constitution does not allow for entitlements, and no one is "entitled" to anything that they, themselves have not earned. Yet they are precisely the ones who will riot in the streets.
We, The People need to come to our senses and stop providing "entitlements" that people simply are not entitled to. If we keep on the current course, the bears will attack!
/
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Reduce The Risk Of Alzheimer's
Wait a minute - what was this blog supposed to be about? Oh yeah - Alzheimer's.
Seriously, there are ways to greatly reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, though it would be much more effective the younger you start.
Do you know what shows up, alarmingly in high quantities, in the brains of Alzheimer's victims? ALUMINUM. Researchers are relatively certain that the accumulation of aluminum in the brain foster's Alzheimers.
Until the 1980's, Alzheimer's was relatively rare. Since the '80's it has been steadily increasing. Now think about this - before 1950 there was almost no aluminum being consumed in our diets. Then, suddenly, frozen foods (i.e. T.V. dinners etc) and soft drinks were packaged in aluminum. Aluminum pots and pans replaced tin and steel.
Suddenly, people were inadvertently consuming aluminum. Lots of it. And a generation later the effects started to make their preence known.
To make matters much worse, communities across the country began fluoridating their water. Fluoride, a by-product of making aluminum, was rat poison. It was banned for being too toxic. So now they put it in the water (all other modern, industrial nations have banned it from water supplies). But here's the kicker - fluoride causes the body to ABSORB more of the aluminum you consume. And guess where it goes? That's right - straight to the brain.
To reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, simply eliminate the consumption of aluminum. Cook with steel, not aluminum. Avoid aluminum and aluminum foil contacting food. Stay away from fluoridated water. And the younger you start, the better, since aluminum accumulates and does not flush out of the body.
/
Seriously, there are ways to greatly reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, though it would be much more effective the younger you start.
Do you know what shows up, alarmingly in high quantities, in the brains of Alzheimer's victims? ALUMINUM. Researchers are relatively certain that the accumulation of aluminum in the brain foster's Alzheimers.
Until the 1980's, Alzheimer's was relatively rare. Since the '80's it has been steadily increasing. Now think about this - before 1950 there was almost no aluminum being consumed in our diets. Then, suddenly, frozen foods (i.e. T.V. dinners etc) and soft drinks were packaged in aluminum. Aluminum pots and pans replaced tin and steel.
Suddenly, people were inadvertently consuming aluminum. Lots of it. And a generation later the effects started to make their preence known.
To make matters much worse, communities across the country began fluoridating their water. Fluoride, a by-product of making aluminum, was rat poison. It was banned for being too toxic. So now they put it in the water (all other modern, industrial nations have banned it from water supplies). But here's the kicker - fluoride causes the body to ABSORB more of the aluminum you consume. And guess where it goes? That's right - straight to the brain.
To reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, simply eliminate the consumption of aluminum. Cook with steel, not aluminum. Avoid aluminum and aluminum foil contacting food. Stay away from fluoridated water. And the younger you start, the better, since aluminum accumulates and does not flush out of the body.
/
Monday, September 27, 2010
Vegetarian Myths
It seems everywhere you go these days there are fanatics trying to convince people that it is healthier to be a vegetarian, and so many "celebrities" that have been duped into going out stumping for vegetarianism and PETA.
They can do as they wish, but they should stop conning others into their drivel. And drivel it is, as the evidence shows.
FACT: Vegetarians die younger, according to census data
FACT: Vegetarian kids are sicklier, according to the Archives of Pediactric Adolescent Medicine that tracks such things
FACT: Vegtarian diets do NOT make you more "regular". Even teen vegetarians are 8 times more likely to need and use laxatives
FACT: Researchers at the University of Massachusetts Medical School have linked meatless, low protein diets to slumping sex function and muscle loss and bone damage.
FACT: Nature dictates what any creature is supposed to eat, and each animal (Man is an animal) has the teeth necessary for the diet best suited to them and their survival. Herbivores (i.e. cows, sheep, rabbits etc.) have incisors and molars, suited to eating plants. Carnivores (i.e. wolves, cats etc.) have canine teeth for ripping flesh. Man has the teeth of an omnivore - an animal that eats both plant and flesh. We have incisors and molars, but also bicuspids and canine (eye) teeth. Ergo, nature says we need meat in order to maintain our health.
And here is more news - the deadliest factor in heart disease is not cholesterol, as many believe. Cholesterol is harmless until it "catches" on a rough spot in your arteries, and then builds up from that. And the thing that causes those "rough spots" is a little thing called homocysteine, which corrodes arteries like a rusty pipe. And can you guess what the best way to reduce homocysteine is? You guessed it - eating red meat.
For those who believe in the Old Testament, it is written in Genesis that God tells us what our sources of food shall be. It includes meat.
And for those of you who may still doubt the veracity of this, perhaps you should spend time sitting outside a vegetarian store and watch the customers. You will find that the majority of them are more sickly looking than the average person who walks into a butcher shop. I'm not kidding. Check it out for yourself.
Vegetarianism has other problems as well, including some serious problems for the ecology and the economy. If Man were to become vegetarian, there would be no raising of livestock (reducing jobs and eliminating many businesses). No livestock means no fertilizer for all the plants we would have to grow. This would result in a reduction of food sources, driving prices up and increasing hunger throughout the world. If you doubt that, the simple act of mandating 10% ethanol in our gas resulted in food shortages and higher prices worldwide.
Anyone who wants to be a vegetarian has every right to eat what they want. But don't BS the rest of us with your bogus excuses and disproved myths of better health. It ain't so.
/
They can do as they wish, but they should stop conning others into their drivel. And drivel it is, as the evidence shows.
FACT: Vegetarians die younger, according to census data
FACT: Vegetarian kids are sicklier, according to the Archives of Pediactric Adolescent Medicine that tracks such things
FACT: Vegtarian diets do NOT make you more "regular". Even teen vegetarians are 8 times more likely to need and use laxatives
FACT: Researchers at the University of Massachusetts Medical School have linked meatless, low protein diets to slumping sex function and muscle loss and bone damage.
FACT: Nature dictates what any creature is supposed to eat, and each animal (Man is an animal) has the teeth necessary for the diet best suited to them and their survival. Herbivores (i.e. cows, sheep, rabbits etc.) have incisors and molars, suited to eating plants. Carnivores (i.e. wolves, cats etc.) have canine teeth for ripping flesh. Man has the teeth of an omnivore - an animal that eats both plant and flesh. We have incisors and molars, but also bicuspids and canine (eye) teeth. Ergo, nature says we need meat in order to maintain our health.
And here is more news - the deadliest factor in heart disease is not cholesterol, as many believe. Cholesterol is harmless until it "catches" on a rough spot in your arteries, and then builds up from that. And the thing that causes those "rough spots" is a little thing called homocysteine, which corrodes arteries like a rusty pipe. And can you guess what the best way to reduce homocysteine is? You guessed it - eating red meat.
For those who believe in the Old Testament, it is written in Genesis that God tells us what our sources of food shall be. It includes meat.
And for those of you who may still doubt the veracity of this, perhaps you should spend time sitting outside a vegetarian store and watch the customers. You will find that the majority of them are more sickly looking than the average person who walks into a butcher shop. I'm not kidding. Check it out for yourself.
Vegetarianism has other problems as well, including some serious problems for the ecology and the economy. If Man were to become vegetarian, there would be no raising of livestock (reducing jobs and eliminating many businesses). No livestock means no fertilizer for all the plants we would have to grow. This would result in a reduction of food sources, driving prices up and increasing hunger throughout the world. If you doubt that, the simple act of mandating 10% ethanol in our gas resulted in food shortages and higher prices worldwide.
Anyone who wants to be a vegetarian has every right to eat what they want. But don't BS the rest of us with your bogus excuses and disproved myths of better health. It ain't so.
/
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Time To Accept Responsibility?
The other day Nancy Pelosi was again taped saying that our problems were caused by the Bush Administration. But what a lot of folks do not understand is that the Democrats have not been in power for "only two years" - they have been in power for FOUR years.
The lawmaking body, Congress, has been fully in Democrat hands since January 2007. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been running things for four long years. Isn't it about time they started taking some of the responsibility for that? Even the first TARP bill, laid on Bush, was written and passed by the Democrat controlled Congress.
Hey, Pelosi - I, for one no longer want to hear you and Harry Reid whine about how everything is STILL Bush's fault. You've had 4 years - when does it become YOUR responsibility.
Meanwhile, John Kerry (D) has taken a new tack - he says the reason why Democrats are losing in the polls is because the voters (you) are not bright enough to know what is good for them and are uninformed.
And the blame game goes on - it's always someone else's fault!
/
The lawmaking body, Congress, has been fully in Democrat hands since January 2007. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been running things for four long years. Isn't it about time they started taking some of the responsibility for that? Even the first TARP bill, laid on Bush, was written and passed by the Democrat controlled Congress.
Hey, Pelosi - I, for one no longer want to hear you and Harry Reid whine about how everything is STILL Bush's fault. You've had 4 years - when does it become YOUR responsibility.
Meanwhile, John Kerry (D) has taken a new tack - he says the reason why Democrats are losing in the polls is because the voters (you) are not bright enough to know what is good for them and are uninformed.
And the blame game goes on - it's always someone else's fault!
/
Friday, September 24, 2010
A Fence On The Border?
If you want to start a real dust up with liberals, suggest building a fence on the border. The result will be they will call you a bigoted racist, among other things.
The President of Mexico, Phillippe Calderone has called Americans racist for wanting to secure our borders. He has even considered suing Arizona. And when he visited Obama, Calderone blasted those who want a fence.
Which brings us to the news item of the day - president Calderone has decided to build his own fence, on his southern border. The reason is to keep out the illegal immigrants coming up from Central and South America who are putting a strain on Mexico's resources.
Can anyone say HYPOCRITE?
And where are all those American liberals who blast us for wanting a fence? Why are we hearing nothing from them about Calderone's fence?
Again, it seems that HYPOCRITE is the word of the day.
/
The President of Mexico, Phillippe Calderone has called Americans racist for wanting to secure our borders. He has even considered suing Arizona. And when he visited Obama, Calderone blasted those who want a fence.
Which brings us to the news item of the day - president Calderone has decided to build his own fence, on his southern border. The reason is to keep out the illegal immigrants coming up from Central and South America who are putting a strain on Mexico's resources.
Can anyone say HYPOCRITE?
And where are all those American liberals who blast us for wanting a fence? Why are we hearing nothing from them about Calderone's fence?
Again, it seems that HYPOCRITE is the word of the day.
/
Death Panels? Who says?
There is a drug currently on the market and approved by the FDA that successfully treats some otherwise untreatable cancers. But it costs $7700 per month. And most insurance policies cover it. It extends lives.
Yesterday the FDA said it will remove its approval of the drug "because it is too expensive." Not because it is risky. Just because of its cost.
So here it is, for the disbelievers - ObamaCare does not want to pay that kind of money to keep you alive, so they will disapprove a drug that can keep you alive, simply because of its cost. By disapproving it, insurance companies no longer will cover it. And people who depend upon that drug for their very lives will die.
But still the liberals tell us there will be no "death panels". But I contend they have already convened...
/
Yesterday the FDA said it will remove its approval of the drug "because it is too expensive." Not because it is risky. Just because of its cost.
So here it is, for the disbelievers - ObamaCare does not want to pay that kind of money to keep you alive, so they will disapprove a drug that can keep you alive, simply because of its cost. By disapproving it, insurance companies no longer will cover it. And people who depend upon that drug for their very lives will die.
But still the liberals tell us there will be no "death panels". But I contend they have already convened...
/
Where Is The Outrage?
Today, the Democrats in Congress have brought in a far-left liberal comic, Stephen Colbert, to "testify" on immigration. The Democrats asked him to do so in his TV role as a phony conservative - Colbert makes his living playing the part of a dumb, racist conservative. And that is how the Democrats want him to "testify".
I don't know about you, but EVERY American, regardless of party should be outraged that our Congressional Hall has been turned into a soundstage for Saturday Night Live. Of course, since Democrats have already elected a Saturday Night Live clown as a Senator, this comes as no surprise.
The only thing missing is having Tina Fey do her stand-up on Sarah Palin.
Every Democrat who had any part in this childish, ignorant attempt to demean Congress and insult the American people should be immediately tossed out on their ear. In a more patriotic time, they would have been tarred, feathered and run out on a rail.
By the way, folks - this little farce cost you $125,000....
/
I don't know about you, but EVERY American, regardless of party should be outraged that our Congressional Hall has been turned into a soundstage for Saturday Night Live. Of course, since Democrats have already elected a Saturday Night Live clown as a Senator, this comes as no surprise.
The only thing missing is having Tina Fey do her stand-up on Sarah Palin.
Every Democrat who had any part in this childish, ignorant attempt to demean Congress and insult the American people should be immediately tossed out on their ear. In a more patriotic time, they would have been tarred, feathered and run out on a rail.
By the way, folks - this little farce cost you $125,000....
/
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Why America Is Slipping
For 200 years, Americans, as a group, had one goal - to BUILD something better. Most people were wrapped up in being citizens of a free nation where their creativity could be unleashed, some on a large scale (think Henry Ford or Thomas Edison), and others on a smaller scale (think farmers and settlers). For 200 years, we were growing a nation, building things better.
But over the last 50 years, we have stopped being citizens and have become consumers. Instead of building something better, a large number of Americans can think of nothing else but how much they can consume. How many toys can I have? How many "super-sized" meals can I eat? How much can I TAKE?
And therein lies the difference. America used to be a nation of people willing to give their all to contribute to the growth and prosperity of the nation. And now we are far down the road to seeing how many freebies we can get from the government, paid for by those few who still want America to grow. We do not place the nation as a top priority. Instead, it's all about "me, me, me".
With 49% of all working Americans not paying ANY taxes, and with nearly half of all Americans living off government entitlements or salaries, we have reached a crossroads. It is like a see-saw - too much weight on one side will push things irrevocably in that direction. If government grows any further, America will be on a downward spiral from which we will not recover. After all, when more people are consuming than growing, the pot empties quickly.
Think of it this way - what do you think will happen if you withdraw more money from the bank than you put in?
America needs to re-evaluate its addiction to consumerism. Certainly, it is nice to have all the goodies, and that is not a problem. The problem arises when we take out more than we are willing to put in. We all want it all, but we are not all willing to do our share to PROVIDE it.
How much do YOU put back, for all that you use up? How self-sufficient are you? How would you fare if, suddenly, the government was gone?
If you keep harvesting crops year after year, but never replenish the soil by adding fertilizer, the crops will stop coming and a dust-bowl will replace the crops, which happened in the 1930's. If everyone is eating at the table, but they never get up from the table to go out and grow more, the table will soon be devoid of food.
Wake up, America. Go ahead and consume - but each and every man, woman and child has an obligation to put as much back in as they take out. If we do not, our account will soon be overdrawn and we will all suffer.
/
But over the last 50 years, we have stopped being citizens and have become consumers. Instead of building something better, a large number of Americans can think of nothing else but how much they can consume. How many toys can I have? How many "super-sized" meals can I eat? How much can I TAKE?
And therein lies the difference. America used to be a nation of people willing to give their all to contribute to the growth and prosperity of the nation. And now we are far down the road to seeing how many freebies we can get from the government, paid for by those few who still want America to grow. We do not place the nation as a top priority. Instead, it's all about "me, me, me".
With 49% of all working Americans not paying ANY taxes, and with nearly half of all Americans living off government entitlements or salaries, we have reached a crossroads. It is like a see-saw - too much weight on one side will push things irrevocably in that direction. If government grows any further, America will be on a downward spiral from which we will not recover. After all, when more people are consuming than growing, the pot empties quickly.
Think of it this way - what do you think will happen if you withdraw more money from the bank than you put in?
America needs to re-evaluate its addiction to consumerism. Certainly, it is nice to have all the goodies, and that is not a problem. The problem arises when we take out more than we are willing to put in. We all want it all, but we are not all willing to do our share to PROVIDE it.
How much do YOU put back, for all that you use up? How self-sufficient are you? How would you fare if, suddenly, the government was gone?
If you keep harvesting crops year after year, but never replenish the soil by adding fertilizer, the crops will stop coming and a dust-bowl will replace the crops, which happened in the 1930's. If everyone is eating at the table, but they never get up from the table to go out and grow more, the table will soon be devoid of food.
Wake up, America. Go ahead and consume - but each and every man, woman and child has an obligation to put as much back in as they take out. If we do not, our account will soon be overdrawn and we will all suffer.
/
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Too Funny For Words
For 8 years we have heard the liberals cry and moan about the "Bush Tax Cuts."
Today, with the public wanting to have those cuts extended, Speaker Pelosi came out and said that "the Obama middle class tax cuts" will be extended.
My jaw dropped - the Bush tax cuts the liberals reviled for years are now suddenly the Obama tax cuts, merely because they are being extended.
Leave it to Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the liberal elite to rename everything to suit their own agenda, and to insure they get credit for anything that is good - even if they fought against it for years.
Never, ever have I seen such dishonesty in a political party as now infects the Democrat party. Not to be confused with the Democrats on the street. I'm talking about the Democratic politicians who use every type of deception to push their agenda.
/
Today, with the public wanting to have those cuts extended, Speaker Pelosi came out and said that "the Obama middle class tax cuts" will be extended.
My jaw dropped - the Bush tax cuts the liberals reviled for years are now suddenly the Obama tax cuts, merely because they are being extended.
Leave it to Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the liberal elite to rename everything to suit their own agenda, and to insure they get credit for anything that is good - even if they fought against it for years.
Never, ever have I seen such dishonesty in a political party as now infects the Democrat party. Not to be confused with the Democrats on the street. I'm talking about the Democratic politicians who use every type of deception to push their agenda.
/
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
They Just Are Not Gettin' it
Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats (i.e. the politicians) are both equally ignorant of what is going on in America this year. Neither understands what the Tea Party is doing, or, more to the point, why.
The Democrats in power, along with most of the liberal media still believe it is a bunch of angry, Bible-thumping white Americans, albeit a group that threatens the Democrats. But they still do not consider it a big threat, because they are jubilant that their candidates will be going up against Tea Party candidates instead of establishment Republicans. I think they have another shock coming...
The Republicans in power are making a different mistake, but theirs is even worse, i.e. dumber. They think the Tea Partiers are on their side, simply because they are running as Republicans. But they are not on their side, by any means. In fact, the Tea Partiers are just as frustrated with the GOP as they are with the Democrats.
So, for those politicians wise enough to grasp simple concepts, let me break it down for you...
Both the GOP and the Democrat parties see things through a political lens. To them, the important thing is for the party to win. Period. And that means if they need to set aside, or abandon their principles in order to win, that is exactly what they will do. To them, it is all about being the party in power. Nothing else matters - not ethics, not honesty, not principles, and obviously not the will of the American people.
But the Tea Party is different. They simply do not care about party. They care only about principles, and standing on them, win, lose or draw. They have no inclination to set aside their principles just to get elected. They believe, rightfully, that if you abandon your principles in order to win, then you have already lost. You may get elected that way, but you still lose what is important.
On Greta tonight, I listened to Mitch McConnell, whom I have always liked. But even he does not get it. He told Greta that he is not concerned with "tea party" politics because they are still running as Republicans and it means nothing more to him than being the leader of a larger group of Republicans after the election. In short, Mitch thinks the only thing that counts is winning, and standing on principle is optional.
It's not.
Assuming Mich manages to keep his seat, I think he and other "election survivors" will learn the hard way that the Tea Party Senators and Representatives will not be led around by the GOP. Rather, THEY will do the leading, and the Old Guard had better follow.
Here it is, GOP - the Tea Party Express is a powerful movement because it is made up of we, the people. And we, the people will no longer tolerate politics being more important that doing the people's business in an honest, ethical manner. So, GOP, you have a choice - you can get on the train, or you can get out of the way, or you can get run over. But what you cannot do is "business as usual".
/
The Democrats in power, along with most of the liberal media still believe it is a bunch of angry, Bible-thumping white Americans, albeit a group that threatens the Democrats. But they still do not consider it a big threat, because they are jubilant that their candidates will be going up against Tea Party candidates instead of establishment Republicans. I think they have another shock coming...
The Republicans in power are making a different mistake, but theirs is even worse, i.e. dumber. They think the Tea Partiers are on their side, simply because they are running as Republicans. But they are not on their side, by any means. In fact, the Tea Partiers are just as frustrated with the GOP as they are with the Democrats.
So, for those politicians wise enough to grasp simple concepts, let me break it down for you...
Both the GOP and the Democrat parties see things through a political lens. To them, the important thing is for the party to win. Period. And that means if they need to set aside, or abandon their principles in order to win, that is exactly what they will do. To them, it is all about being the party in power. Nothing else matters - not ethics, not honesty, not principles, and obviously not the will of the American people.
But the Tea Party is different. They simply do not care about party. They care only about principles, and standing on them, win, lose or draw. They have no inclination to set aside their principles just to get elected. They believe, rightfully, that if you abandon your principles in order to win, then you have already lost. You may get elected that way, but you still lose what is important.
On Greta tonight, I listened to Mitch McConnell, whom I have always liked. But even he does not get it. He told Greta that he is not concerned with "tea party" politics because they are still running as Republicans and it means nothing more to him than being the leader of a larger group of Republicans after the election. In short, Mitch thinks the only thing that counts is winning, and standing on principle is optional.
It's not.
Assuming Mich manages to keep his seat, I think he and other "election survivors" will learn the hard way that the Tea Party Senators and Representatives will not be led around by the GOP. Rather, THEY will do the leading, and the Old Guard had better follow.
Here it is, GOP - the Tea Party Express is a powerful movement because it is made up of we, the people. And we, the people will no longer tolerate politics being more important that doing the people's business in an honest, ethical manner. So, GOP, you have a choice - you can get on the train, or you can get out of the way, or you can get run over. But what you cannot do is "business as usual".
/
Friday, September 10, 2010
Almost Too Funny
As I listened intently to President Obama's speech today, it struck my funny bone when he said we should give Democrats more time to fix the economy.
Why did I find that humorous? Because the recession officially began in December, 2007. And the Congress - the lawmaking body - has been in Democrat hands since a year before that.
The Democrats have had control of the Congress for 4 years - one year longer than the recession. Tell me, Mr. President, just how much more time should we give them? In that 4 years the deficit has gone from $400 billion to over $1.5 trillion. Unemployment has gone from 6.5% to 9.6%. The Dow went from 14,000 to 10,000. And all of it since the Democrats took control of the wheel.
Mr. Obama likes to say Republicans drove us into the ditch. Frankly, that is not even close to the truth. We did not hit the ditch until a year into the Democrat Congress. More to the point, even Obama stated - three times - that Fannie Mae was the primary cause of the economic disaster.
Assuming Obama was telling it right...
Fannie Mae was created by FDR (D) in 1937. In 1967, LBJ (D) privatized it, giving it unlimited power to grow. In 1977, Carter (D) passed the Community Reinvestment Act (as put forth by ACORN and its "community organizers") that forced banks to make risky loans. In 1998, Clinton (D) signed the Bliley Bill that forced banks to make even more risky loans. In 2004, republicans tried to pass a bill to rein in Fannie Mae, but it was blocked by Frank (D) and Dodd (D), both of whom are on record as saying Fannie Mae was sound.
Considering Obama says Fannie Mae is the culprit, and every part of Fannie Mae was courtesy of Democrats, and considering Democrats have been in control since January 2007, I fail to see how it was the Republicans that drove the economy into the ditch.
But even if they did, that is no excuse for the Democrats to drive it out of the ditch and over the cliff...
/
Why did I find that humorous? Because the recession officially began in December, 2007. And the Congress - the lawmaking body - has been in Democrat hands since a year before that.
The Democrats have had control of the Congress for 4 years - one year longer than the recession. Tell me, Mr. President, just how much more time should we give them? In that 4 years the deficit has gone from $400 billion to over $1.5 trillion. Unemployment has gone from 6.5% to 9.6%. The Dow went from 14,000 to 10,000. And all of it since the Democrats took control of the wheel.
Mr. Obama likes to say Republicans drove us into the ditch. Frankly, that is not even close to the truth. We did not hit the ditch until a year into the Democrat Congress. More to the point, even Obama stated - three times - that Fannie Mae was the primary cause of the economic disaster.
Assuming Obama was telling it right...
Fannie Mae was created by FDR (D) in 1937. In 1967, LBJ (D) privatized it, giving it unlimited power to grow. In 1977, Carter (D) passed the Community Reinvestment Act (as put forth by ACORN and its "community organizers") that forced banks to make risky loans. In 1998, Clinton (D) signed the Bliley Bill that forced banks to make even more risky loans. In 2004, republicans tried to pass a bill to rein in Fannie Mae, but it was blocked by Frank (D) and Dodd (D), both of whom are on record as saying Fannie Mae was sound.
Considering Obama says Fannie Mae is the culprit, and every part of Fannie Mae was courtesy of Democrats, and considering Democrats have been in control since January 2007, I fail to see how it was the Republicans that drove the economy into the ditch.
But even if they did, that is no excuse for the Democrats to drive it out of the ditch and over the cliff...
/
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Middle East Peace?
Not likely. But it IS possible.
Unfortunately, a lasting, real peace in the Middle East, i.e. Israel, is not possible as long as the governments involved - including the United States - refuse to accept the basic core of the problem.
The Arab Palestinians claim the land as their own, because they were predominant in the land for two thousand years. The Palestinians effectively exiled the Jews, and centuries later Islam had marched against the Christian and Jewish world, and had all but overtaken it when, under King Richard of England the Crusades were launched. Richard lost, and Palestinian muslims ruled the land that had been bequeathed by God to the descendant of Abraham, through his son Isaac.
Isaac was the father of the Jewish nation, and according to the Bible in Genesis, God gave his son, Jacob, the land of Canaan as the "Promised Land". Canaan was the land now known as Israel, Lebanon and other coastal areas of the region.
Many centuries later, Muhammed wrote the Quran and started the Islamic religion. The religion grew primarily because of its violent nature and requirement that all non-muslims either be converted, subjugated or killed. Over the next 6 centuries, Islam virtually took over the civilized world. Even Constantinople, the center of Christianity, was overtaken and a mosque built on top of the Christian cathedral where it stands to this day.
After World War II, the Jewish people, in need of a home after the persecution by the Nazis, were granted permission by Britain to settle in Palestine, which later became Israel.
So, Canaan became Israel the Promised Land, which then was taken by Arabs who named it Palestine. And after a couple of thousand years, the Jews were allowed to take it back.
In both essence and reality, both the Palestinians and the Jews have a right to the land. The problem stems from the fact that Islam wants the total destruction of the Jews, so any compromise is unlikely unless and until Islam accepts the right of Jews to exist.
Many Palestinians are willing to co-exist, but only as equals. The problem is that Hamas pretty much controls the Palestinian government, and Hamas does not want co-existence. It wants only the complete destruction of Israel.
Perhaps there will never be peace, but if there is ever to be a serious effort to that end, as yet no one has taken into consideration the most essential first step, without which nothing else can begin. And that crucial first step absolutely must be to change the name of the country.
The name Israel says the land belongs to the Jews. The name Palestine says it belongs to the Arabs. Sine history and reality says it belongs to both, only a new, non-denominational name would promote a sense of co-existence. I would propose that the name of Israel/Palestine revert back to it's original name - Canaan. A name that both peoples can claim, allowing both peoples to simply be "equal citizens of Canaan".
Once the name is changed to something that does not elicit anger and hate, perhaps then the two sides can begin to agree on peace. There is no reason that Arab and Jew cannot live together in a combined land. We do it here - Irish, Native American, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Italians, Mexicans - we all live together in this land. It did not have to be divided into separate nations. And the big "secret" is our name - America. It is a benign name, and does not favor any one race or people.
I suspect if our nation had been named to favor one religion or sect, we, too would be having our own "Middle East Crisis" right here in the U.S.A.
/
Unfortunately, a lasting, real peace in the Middle East, i.e. Israel, is not possible as long as the governments involved - including the United States - refuse to accept the basic core of the problem.
The Arab Palestinians claim the land as their own, because they were predominant in the land for two thousand years. The Palestinians effectively exiled the Jews, and centuries later Islam had marched against the Christian and Jewish world, and had all but overtaken it when, under King Richard of England the Crusades were launched. Richard lost, and Palestinian muslims ruled the land that had been bequeathed by God to the descendant of Abraham, through his son Isaac.
Isaac was the father of the Jewish nation, and according to the Bible in Genesis, God gave his son, Jacob, the land of Canaan as the "Promised Land". Canaan was the land now known as Israel, Lebanon and other coastal areas of the region.
Many centuries later, Muhammed wrote the Quran and started the Islamic religion. The religion grew primarily because of its violent nature and requirement that all non-muslims either be converted, subjugated or killed. Over the next 6 centuries, Islam virtually took over the civilized world. Even Constantinople, the center of Christianity, was overtaken and a mosque built on top of the Christian cathedral where it stands to this day.
After World War II, the Jewish people, in need of a home after the persecution by the Nazis, were granted permission by Britain to settle in Palestine, which later became Israel.
So, Canaan became Israel the Promised Land, which then was taken by Arabs who named it Palestine. And after a couple of thousand years, the Jews were allowed to take it back.
In both essence and reality, both the Palestinians and the Jews have a right to the land. The problem stems from the fact that Islam wants the total destruction of the Jews, so any compromise is unlikely unless and until Islam accepts the right of Jews to exist.
Many Palestinians are willing to co-exist, but only as equals. The problem is that Hamas pretty much controls the Palestinian government, and Hamas does not want co-existence. It wants only the complete destruction of Israel.
Perhaps there will never be peace, but if there is ever to be a serious effort to that end, as yet no one has taken into consideration the most essential first step, without which nothing else can begin. And that crucial first step absolutely must be to change the name of the country.
The name Israel says the land belongs to the Jews. The name Palestine says it belongs to the Arabs. Sine history and reality says it belongs to both, only a new, non-denominational name would promote a sense of co-existence. I would propose that the name of Israel/Palestine revert back to it's original name - Canaan. A name that both peoples can claim, allowing both peoples to simply be "equal citizens of Canaan".
Once the name is changed to something that does not elicit anger and hate, perhaps then the two sides can begin to agree on peace. There is no reason that Arab and Jew cannot live together in a combined land. We do it here - Irish, Native American, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Italians, Mexicans - we all live together in this land. It did not have to be divided into separate nations. And the big "secret" is our name - America. It is a benign name, and does not favor any one race or people.
I suspect if our nation had been named to favor one religion or sect, we, too would be having our own "Middle East Crisis" right here in the U.S.A.
/
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Pathetic
OK, so everyone heard about Glenn Beck's rally to Restore Honor in DC last Saturday. And, despite the left trying to minimize the number of participants, the latest figures show somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 people.
One man made this happen. And one man insisted it not be political - and it was not.
And here is where things begin to get pathetic...
The liberal media today tried to say, "on any given day at the Washington Mall you would have 80,000 people, anyway." Now, I have spent many days, weeks and long months in DC. I have walked the mall at least a hundred times. And, except when there was a big to-do, like the pot-smoking sit-in back in the '70's, I have never seen more than a couple hundred people on the mall at any given point.
But it gets worse. Now the hard left loons are going to hold their own march on Washington on 10/10/2010. They are attempting to draw at least as big a crowd as Beck drew. But here is the really pathetic part - a total of 17 different far left organizations are rallying together to try and make this happen. Not just one man. 17 organizations, including the powerful AFL-CIO, SEIU and 15 other member orgs, and they are pressuring their membership to show up.
Frankly, even with such a vast machine exerting its power, I seriously doubt the left can bring that many people together. And that is the most pathetic thing of all - with their huge memberships and coordinated efforts they should be able to draw millions. But they are unlikely to draw more than 30,000 because the vast majority of their members are not in lock-step with the far-left agenda of the leadership.
And I would bet the farm that, unlike Beck, the left will not leave out the politics, the smears or the hatred they have for anyone who dares to disagree with their socialist agenda.
I'm looking forward to watching it - from a distance - and compare it to the peacefulness and love, devoid of politics that was present on 8/28.
/
One man made this happen. And one man insisted it not be political - and it was not.
And here is where things begin to get pathetic...
The liberal media today tried to say, "on any given day at the Washington Mall you would have 80,000 people, anyway." Now, I have spent many days, weeks and long months in DC. I have walked the mall at least a hundred times. And, except when there was a big to-do, like the pot-smoking sit-in back in the '70's, I have never seen more than a couple hundred people on the mall at any given point.
But it gets worse. Now the hard left loons are going to hold their own march on Washington on 10/10/2010. They are attempting to draw at least as big a crowd as Beck drew. But here is the really pathetic part - a total of 17 different far left organizations are rallying together to try and make this happen. Not just one man. 17 organizations, including the powerful AFL-CIO, SEIU and 15 other member orgs, and they are pressuring their membership to show up.
Frankly, even with such a vast machine exerting its power, I seriously doubt the left can bring that many people together. And that is the most pathetic thing of all - with their huge memberships and coordinated efforts they should be able to draw millions. But they are unlikely to draw more than 30,000 because the vast majority of their members are not in lock-step with the far-left agenda of the leadership.
And I would bet the farm that, unlike Beck, the left will not leave out the politics, the smears or the hatred they have for anyone who dares to disagree with their socialist agenda.
I'm looking forward to watching it - from a distance - and compare it to the peacefulness and love, devoid of politics that was present on 8/28.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)