Who Is Happier - Liberals Or Conservatives?

Three different independent studies indicate conservatives tend to be happier than liberals.

Judging by how conservatives and liberals respond to things - even each other - it would appear that conservatives are, indeed, happier than liberals. It even appears to extend to the millions who watch them on Fox or listen to them on the radio: A recent study says that conservatives are happier than liberals -- and have more friends.

According to a recent article, "the study, published in the journal Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, is the work of Jacob Vigil, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico. He gathered over 700 undergrads at a university in Florida in the months before the 2008 election and had them fill out a survey. The survey touched on, among other things, the students' pasts, their political affiliations, the number of friends they have, and how much they trusted them and, by extension, the rest of society.

"Vigil then had the participants look at photos of strangers' faces, whose expressions ranged from joy to sadness, fear to surprise, disgust to anger. Vigil asked the participants to interpret, among other things, how threatened they felt by the faces. He then took that data, and that which came from the completed surveys, and reached his conclusions about who's happy and why."

Conservatives, the study says, feel more threatened by the people they don't know. But -- conservatives end up having a larger circle of friends than liberals. Vigil found that conservatives have a looser definition of friendship, one that doesn't rely as much on the sort of intimacy that liberals favor. Conservatives tend to find friends who will help them -- socially, and especially professionally -- so conservatives end up searching out more people. Their suspicions of who is threatening them may not be completely accurate, but it does serve a purpose: It thins the ranks of potential friends and leaves the conservatives happier with whom they decide upon, because these friends can help them.

Liberals, meanwhile, are more miserly -- a trait backed up by other studies on charitable giving in which conservatives tend to give two times more to charity that liberals. Liberals have fewer friends, the study finds, after computing the data from the surveys, because many of them are victims -- victims, often, of childhood trauma, or the perceived victims of a cruel adult world. They sympathize with people more than conservatives, the surveys found, but liberals don't befriend as many people, because they are wary of trusting them. In societal terms, this often means liberals, while they feel for others, are less apt to get personally involved to do anything to help. This also explains why liberals are more into victimhood, while conservatives tend to be more optimistic and self-reliant.

Vigil says that whether one is a liberal or conservative, "it's all about our capacity for trustworthiness." If conservatives aren't threatened by you, they tend to like you, whereas liberals don't seek out new people, even though they have greater compassion for them. Though they have greater compassion, Liberals are more likely to want others to take action rather than get personally involved -- which also indicates why they give less to charity. They feel more for victims, but prefer to have others do something -- often, that is the government.

Another recent study shows that conservatives have been happier than liberals at least these past 30 years. A third study finds that regardless of who holds political power, people who have more money, and worship a god regularly, "tend to be happier," write Paul Taylor, Cary Funk and Peyton Craghill of the Pew Research Center. To be happy, it would seem -- and many a liberal will be dismayed to know that George Will may have understood this first -- it is not enough to simply commiserate with society, as liberals do. You need to try and be more a part of it.

In reading about these studies, it is easier to understand why liberals want and need bigger government and higher taxes. They want to end victimhood, but they do not want to get personally involved, instead prefering government to take care of it.

I have also concluded from all this that the world would be far better off if liberals would get past the victimhood mentality and get more personally involved in life. Then they, too, could be happier -- and have a larger circle of friends.

/

Self-Employment Opp Pt V

Self-Employment Idea #5

Invisible Secretary

How many times have you forgotten an appointment, a birthday or anniversary Or you remembered too late to get flowers or a gift?

There is a real need for someone who will keep track of all those dates, times and places, and get a call to remind them. You can do that - all it takes is a daily planner and a telephone. You can even send an email follow-up.

I know one enterprising person who took it a step further. You can pay him to send loved ones (or even enemies) letters, Christmas or birthday cards etc. - AFTER YOU HAVE PASSED ON! In this case, the client brings you the cards or letters, already signed by the client. He arranges in his will to have the executor notify you when he passes. You then send his cards and letters according to instructions he gave when he signed them.

On the envelope he has a rubber stamp that simply says, "A note from Heaven".

As an invisible secretary, you can also offer other services, such as typing transcripts.

Put on your thinking cap - no matter your circumstances, you CAN be self sufficient.

/

Fixing What's Broken

Our nation faces some serious problems. But all are easily fixed if our Congress would only be willing to do the right thing.

JOBS: Make businesses want to stay in America. Make those who left want to return. Create a friendly, profitable place. Reduce corporate taxes, currently 35%, to a set 15%. Reduce the power of unions. Let the free market do what it does best - create an environment for growth.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Require all employers to use e-verify. Any employer caught with illegal workers who do not pass e-verify would be fined $100,000 per illegal employee. Schools should also require e-verify before accepting any student. If they cannot work or educate their children they will self-deport. We will not have to find them or deport.

ANCHOR BABIES: If under age 5, they go back with their parents. If they choose to return after they turn 18, without their parents, they are free to do so, as they are American. Their parents are not. Over age 5 and the parents can petition to stay and get a green card only after paying a stiff fine for having broken our laws.

DRUG CARTELS IMPORTING TO AMERICA: Execute them on the spot if caught, or at least treat them as terrorists, tried by a military tribunal as enemy combatants. They are guilty of either invasion or otherwise trying to overthrow our government, as they are already doing in Mexico.

DEFICIT & DEBT: Levy a 25% import tax on all goods from China. Use the money to pay down our debt to them. They cannot refuse - they need American consumers. Yes, it will result in higher prices at WalMart, but it will bring back financial health to America which will benefit us more in the long run. It will also encourage "buying American", making it more profitable for American businesses, and giving them reason to stay here in the U.S. Let China pay off our debt to them.

HEALTH CARE: Strip anything in the law that does not pertain to health care. Set aside anything that comes at substantial cost. Then add tort reform and the ability to shop in other states for insurance. This will bring costs down. Then take up those items that were set aside, and ask the people which of those items they are willing to pay the price for. Like ordering options when buying a new car.

SOCIAL SECURITY: First, all incoming funds are not to be used for anything else. The huge amount collected annually is in the billions. The SS Administration could make those funds available to growth businesses on a BIDDING basis - corporations can bid on any portion of those funds. In this way, 1) businesses can grow quickly, creating jobs; 2) the SS fund will get an immediate influx of cash from successful bidders; and 3) the funds, invested in the business, will receive a guaranteed dividend, regardless of economic conditions. Any business that cannot pay the dividend would be required to sell off whatever they must to reimburse the SS Administration for the funds invested. EXAMPLE: a business wants $2 billion dollars to expand. They bid $200,000 for the right to receive $2 billion. That $2 billion would be invested as a preferred stock with a guaranteed minimum dividend. If another business offers more, or a higher guaranteed m,inimum dividend, then it wins and gets the $2 billion.

HIGH COST OF PUBLIC WORKS: Offer corporations - or even wealthy individuals - the right to "adopt" a public works project, in whole or in part. In return they would have the right to advertise accordingly. For example, a lodge in Yellowstone requires refurbishing. If Geico wants to pay the cost of refurbishing, they can name it GEICO LODGE, and advertise within. This could save taxpayers billions a year in taxes. Local governments could do the same for local projects. Not unlike the rich person who donates a wing on the hospital just to have his name on a plaque.

These are just a few examples. NONE would cost us any money to speak of, but will produce results.

/

Stewart/Colbert Rally in DC

Today was the day of the "big" rally for sanity (?).

Let's start by saying the Glenn Beck rally estimate officially came in at between 300,000-500,000. Aerial phots back that up as well.

For this rally, they only pulled a permit for a maximum number of 60,000, so even if they max their permit they will only do no more than 20% as well. Yet, if you go on the blogs, they are saying this rally "dwarfs" the Beck rally, which is, frankly, impossible. Park police enforce the permit estimates.

It is amazing how many people have drunk so much kool-aid that they actually believe 60,000 is somehow bigger than 500,000. Must be the new math in those liberal schools.

And again, 60,000 is the MAXIMUM allowed. It is very doubtful the rally has drawn anywhere near that. As evidence, it has been discovered that "wide angle" shots of the crowd are not being allowed to air, and no aerial photos of the crowd have been made available.

I kind of feel sorry for these people. It is sad to see them try to live with their delusions. Maybe Tuesday will wake some of them up to reality, but more likely it will just make them angrier, more hateful and more violent.

Frankly, what I liked most about the Beck rally is that signs were not allowed, and neither was politics. At this rally and the SEIU rally on 10/2, it was nothing BUT political.

I think politics should be banned from DC rallies on the Mall...

/

The Truth About Islamic Intent

This post may offend the sensibilities of many liberals who refuse to see or acknowledge what is happening around the world in regard to Islam, because after reading this the reader will suddenly find themselves with a clearer picture and greater understanding.

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system of rulership. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a "glue" for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights." When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table.

Here are troubling statistics for those who care (and you should) about the process muslims use to infiltrate every nation for the purpose of ruling the world under Sharia Law. If you doubt this, check out what is currently the status quo in all of these nations - you will find this quite accurate.

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. They will act as peace-loving moderates so as not be seen as a threat, and left alone to grow. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs (already begun in America):

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population because they are very vocal and "pushy" (see C.A.I.R.). They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons):

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there is supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

Currently, one country does not permit the immigration of muslims - Australia.

The eminent orientalist Sir William Muir (1819-1905) said, "The sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and truth which the world has yet known".

/

Self-Employment Opp Pt IV

Self-Employment Idea #4

Are you disabled, or is there is reason you cannot get out and around much? Then this idea might well be what you are looking for. But it is not limited to just those folks who are not very mobile - anyone can do this. It is an idea I had once used back in the '80's to get an old friend off welfare with great success.

Your community likely includes both of the following:

1) a bunch of teens, college kids, seniors and/or otherwise underemployed people. People who do not need full-time work, but need extra money

2) People who need part-time or one-time assistance for odd jobs

Your job would be to connect the two. Advertise that you can provide people with odd jobs to earn extra money, and build up a dBase of their names, contact info and, of course, the type(s) of work they can do, such as painting, gardening, handyman stuff, dog walking etc.

Then advertise throughout the area that you can provide folks with the help they need to do those troublesome tasks. Need help getting those storm windows up? Consider it done. Lawn mowed? Done. You name it.

Your job is to advertise for workers, then advertise for those who need workers, and match them up. You get a percentage of the take.

Let's say you get 10% of the pay of 30 people - you are essentially getting 300%. The more people you match up, the bigger your cut.

Be aware - you need to use contracts on both ends - a contract with your workers that prevents them from accepting work on their own, cutting you out, and contracts with the "employer" to insure you get paid - they pay you, not the worker. You pay the worker.

And, yes, you may have other paperwork, like withholding (unless your workers are subcontractors - you can include that in your contract). And yes, you may need liability insurance, or get bonded to cover yu in case one of your workers breaks something, or gets hurt.

It's an idea to think about, though.

/

I Pray I Am Wrong

Today, several cargo planes were held around the world for "suspicious packages." One found in the UK looked like a mock-up of a bomb. Others were found in several cities around America, from San Francisco to Portland Maine.

Even more unsettling is that these packages, which originated from Yemen, were apparently addressed to various religious institutions, primarily synogogues and churches.

Now this is why I pray I am wrong...

Anwar al-Awlaki, an American Al Queda in Yemen, and responsibile for the "Christmas Day Bomber" last year is the person likely behind this "dry run". And here is where it gets bad.

Already known for wanting to cause terror on Christmas, the second most sacred day in America (Easter being the first), al-Awlaki will likely want to do so again, only on a larger scale.

Imagine if this was a dry run to take advantage of the huge amount of packages being shipped at the holiday season. It is entirely possible that al-Awlaki's aim is to use the rush of the holiday season to deliver bombs or chemical weapons all over the U.S. - and to religious institutions in particular.

Imagine the devastation to every part of American life if hundreds of bombs all over America were to go off simultaneously at religious institutions on or about Christmas Day.

Again, I pray I am wrong. But al-Awlaki is an American citizen. He understands us. He knows the importance of Christmas (remember the Christmas Day Bomber). And he knows the lax security for cargo planes - currently almost all security focuses on commercial airlines.

It might be wise if you use greater than normal caution and care when receiving packages this holiday season, and to make sure the clergy in your church or synogogue do the same.

/

Self-Employment Pt III

Self-Employment Idea #3

Are you a neat freak? The local Felix Unger? Then this one is for you.

MAID IN (insert name of your community)

Take your neat habits on the road and do cleaning and maid service for select clientele. Build a list of regular customers. All you need are cleaning supplies, reliable transportation and a schedule book. You can include laundry, which would be getting done while you clean.

This is so profitable that some maid services have gone the franchise route (like Merry Maids). But there may not be any in your area. Or if there is, they may be too busy to handle all the available business.

So, break out the 409 and Lemon Pledge and clean up.

/

Self-Employment Opps Pt II

Self-Employment Idea #2

Speaking of busy people, many are much to busy to treat their families to fresh, homemade bakery items. Cakes, pies, brownies, cookies, muffins, cupcakes - even fresh bread, since breadmakers make it easy.

You would advertise that your baked goods use only the best, natural ingredients - no preservatives or chemicals like that crap at the stores.

Finding customers would not be a problem, and most will be regulars, if your baking is any good.

As you grow, buy a food dehydrator for $50 and add jerky (beef and turkey) and other natural, dried foods like banana chips or apple slices. You can even make fruit roll-ups. I use mine to make jerky dog treats for my schnauzers. Though I had no intention of starting a business, friends with dogs soon began begging me to make theirs. If I'm not careful, it could get out of hand.

If you don't mind staying home and puttering in the kitchen, this might be just the ticket.

/

Are You Unemployed?

Are you unemployed? If your answer is "yes", then I must ask - WHY?

Yes, I know the economy is trashed. And I know high taxes and unions have driven jobs out of America. But I also know something else - there is no excuse for not earning your own way unless you are physically or mentally incapable.

Before I proceed, and offer life-saving suggestions on how you can overcome unemployment, I would like to relate a true story.

While waiting for my flight at Logan Airport in Boston several years ago, i encountered a 10 year old boy in a wheelchair. He was quadraplegic - the only thing he could move was his head. And the only way he could communicate was with a stick in his mouth, typing on a computer keyboard attached to his chair.

If anyone on planet Earth had an excuse to live off entitlements, this was that person. But he did not see it that way. In my discourse with the boy, I discovered something amazing - him! Although he was only 10, and quadraplegic, that did not stop him. He used that stick and keyboard to write a very upbeat, inspiring book on overcoming life's "little obstacles". The books he wrote were earning him a very good living.

That said, I will now ask you again - why are YOU unemployed?

Short of being on your death bed, there is something you can do to earn your way. Trust me - I will show you. Over the next few days I will post articles with suggestions on things you can do, now, to earn a living without having to stoop to dependency on others. Your pride will stay intact, and you will feel much, much more satisfied with life.

So, here is a good place to start. First, decide to be self-sufficient and self-supporting. Get off the couch, stand, look in a mirror and say, "I am a capable person. I am neither stupid nor lazy. I can do this. I can make my life better. I do not need any government or corporation to validate me. I can provide my own self-worth."

And then decide how. The next few posts will hopefully fuel your imagination. Perhaps none of these suggestions will be right for you, but they should certainly plant good seed in your imagination, and get you thinking as to what you CAN do. And when you come up with something that works for you, be sure to let me know.

So here is the first idea...

Errands 'n More

There are many busy people in every community. Too busy to want to waste precious time and energy on mundane errands and tasks. Make up some fliers and business cards telling folks that you will take care of those pesky errands for them. Everything from pet-sitting and dog walking, to shopping, picking up dry cleaning, or hanging the storm windows. There really is no end to the tasks you can do for people.

You will need:

1) fliers and possibly business cards
2) a schedule book / dayplanner
3) a phone, preferably cell so you don't miss any calls
4) reliable transportation
5) any necessary tools if you include tasks that require tools, like a snow shovel

That's about it. You can start this business for as little as $25.00

You would soon discover that many of your clients will schedule you for regular tasks, daily, weekly or monthly. In no time you will be busier than a three-legged mouse in a barn full of cats.

As a possible offshoot, particularly this time of year, you could include Christmas shopping among your errands.

Think about that. But more important, accept the fact that you can earn your own way. There are as many methods and ideas as there are people. And when you succeed, you will feel secure in the knowledge that you are not likely to fire you, or lay you off.

Tomorrow I will offer up Idea #2.

/

When You Sleep With Dogs...

Hugo Chavez has expropriated the Venezuelan branch of glassmaker Owens-Illinois Inc., a U.S. Fortune 500 company. This proves two things...

1) Contrary to what many celebrities and liberals like to believe, Chavez really is a true socialist, and

2) If you lie down with dogs, expect to get fleas

Owens-Illinois kept there facilities in Venezuela in spite of the socialism of the state, and knowing there was no safety for any business. They have no cause to complain - any fool could have seen this coming. And any patriotic American business would not be doing business with Chavez in the first place.

The worst part - Chavez took the company because other food companies throughout the region require the glass containers. By controlling the supply chain, he indirectly controls the food supply in the area.

It would be a good thing if liberals would think about the consequences of that, and understand, finally, the dangers of socialism.

But they won't.

/

How To Heal Our Nation - Solving Problems That Divide Us

When a person gets sick, there are usually symptoms associated with the cause of the illness. An example would be the flu - the symptoms are fever, achiness, congestion. But the cause is a virus. If you eradicate the cause, you will not suffer the symptoms. But if you only deal with the symptoms and never address the cause, the symptons (and cause) will return over and over again.

And there lies the crux of many of America's problems. We are a nation divided by those who want to deal with symptoms and those who want to deal with the causes.

Take the big issue of the day - jobs. Some people blame the corporations and the rich for taking the jobs overseas. But they are only symptoms of the real problem, and not the problem itself. When someone speaks out and asks, "WHY are they taking the jobs overseas, what is the CAUSE?", they turn a deaf ear, because they have already made up their mind where the blame lies.

And by tackling the symptoms with still higher taxes on such businesses, the problem never gets solved and more jobs leave. Sure, you feel good that you punished those big, evil businesses, but you did nothing to solve the problem or to stop the bleeding. Those businesses you punish, however, are the same businesses that provide jobs, products and services that we all want. So you are actually punching the "gift horse" in the mouth. That's like saying, "I am going to beat you up - by the way, would you help me get my car started?"

In this example, the problem lies in the business environment in America. America is not friendly to business. One of the highest tax rates in the world coupled with the expense of unions eats up too much of the profits - and profit is the primary PURPOSE of business.

If we attack the actual cause of the problem by changing the environment here in America, jobs would stay here, which in turn eliminates the symptoms.

There are many polarizing issues that divide this nation unnecessarily. And the only way to heal America is to teach Americans how to ask "WHY?" And keep asking why until you get to the core problem, then tackle that problem.

Problems are like a golf ball. What you see is the dimpled surface. If you dig a bit deeper, you will find a mesh of rubber strands. Dig deeper still and you get to the hard rubber core. And THAT is what you re after.

If we stop to ask why, and keep asking why until we get to the lowest common denominator, we will find the causes to problems. And that makes solving them a lot easier.

/

Voter Fraud Never Stops

Over the last few days I have cited several blatant examples of voter fraud, in every case by Democrats. Now some new issues have risen.

In Florida a commissioner has been arrested for voter fraud. In Bucks County Pennsylvania, 500 fraudulent absentee ballots have been found (all Democrat). Again, in Alabama another Democrat was arrested and sentenced for voter fraud.

But the scariest issue is what is happening in Nevada, and here is an update. As you know if you have been reading this blog, Republicans who went to vote early found the electronic ballots already had Harry Reid's checkbox checked. Today we learn that those voting machines in Nevada are serviced and maintained by none other than SEIU - the very union that has so heavily invested in getting Obama elected. The former head of SEIU has visited the White House more than any other person. And many times Obama has cited his affinity and affiliation with SEIU.

And they maintain and service the voting machines that just happen to already have Dirty Harry's name checked off. Hm-m-m.

I find it very troubling that there are so many instances of major voter fraud throughout the country, involving hundreds if not thousands of Democrats. I find it even more disturbing that more perps are not going to jail for this.

Perhaps we should insist the next Congress take this issue up in earnest, and find better ways to regulate the voting system.

/

Matt Lauer - Hitman

Last evening Matt Lauer was "moderator" (and I use the term loosely) of a debate between Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown. And true to the biased liberal he is, he fired a loaded question at Meg Whitman - a question where there was no "right" answer.

That question was "Would you be willing to stop all negative attack ads?"

Why is that a loaded question? For the benefit of those who are not aware - especially those voters in California - there are two types of negative ads. One is good, the other is not. Acceptable and necessary negative ads revolve around a candidates political record, such as "Joe voted for Cap & Trade which would cost you "X" dollars". "Mary voted 96% of the time with Pelosi." Those are negative attacks ads, and they are necessary for making voters aware of issues.

The second type of attack ads are those that include personal smears and insults - personal attacks. An example would be, "George cheats on his wife," or "Louise wears falsies, or "She is a whore."And such ads are bad for everyone.

Matt Lauer has been in the business a long time. He knows the difference, so he KNEW his question was loaded, and designed to make Whitman look bad no matter what she answered. If she answered "no, I will not stop", people would accuse her of running smear campaigns, and she would effectively be admitting to running such ads, even though she has not run any personal smear ads. It's like the question, "When did you stop cheating on your wife."

If she responded, "Yes, I would stop", again she would be admitting to running smears, which she has not done, but she would also be swearing not to run the necessary attack ads on the other candidates political record. And if she stopped doing that, she would be ineffective.

Lauer, you are a rat of the lowest order. You knew you were setting Whitman up with a trap question, just like other liberal media people set up Palin, like "What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?" There WAS no "Bush Doctrine." What is that, anyway? It's not something that is published anywhere. It was a hitman question, made up by Charles Gibson, specifically to make Palin look foolish. He KNEW most people in the audience would not know there was no such thing, and would think Palin "dumb". Just like this question Lauer shot at Whitman.

To the voters of California, I suggest you first understand the two types of negative ads. Then I would suggest you try to find even one Whitman ad that entered the realm of personal smears. I cannot find any. But you will find many instances of such smear ads coming from the Brown campaign, but Lauer did not pidgeon-hole Brown on that, as he did Whitman.

Had she known that hit question was coming, she could have responded quickly with, "I don't have to make a promise not to use ads with personal attacks because I don't use them in the first place."

Today, the liberal media are making hay out of the fact that Whitman would not answer that question, trying to paint her as something she is not - a smear artist. But Whitman did the right thing - she refused to answer a question that was dishonest to begin with, and was, itself, a build-up to the media's own "smear campaign" against anyone conservative.

Californians, think about that when you go to the polls. And in the future, do not allow wiley, sneaky liberal "journalists" to manufacture phony issues in order to do harm, not only to candidates, but to the voters by being disingenuous and giving them false impressions.

People of California, when you go to the polls ask yourself two questions: Who has the proven ability and experience to CREATE JOBS as CEO of a multi-billion dollar business? Who has the proven ability and experience to EARN MORE THAN THEY SPEND?

Then ask yourself who should be your governor.

Lauer and his ilk are expert wordsmith's. They know how to use words, phrased in a specific way, to either build up or assassinate a candidate. It's time we make them to stop.

/

More Ballot Hanky-Panky

Yesterday I published a post showing the many ways Democrats have been trying to fix tight elections. Now a new one has cropped up. It seems when Republicans have gone to vote early for Sharron Angle in Nevada, they went to cast their vote and the box for Democrat Harry Reid was already checked off!

Of course, those in charge just cannot understand what went wrong...

Uh-huh.

/

Is YOUR Vote For Sale?

Is your vote for sale? Most Democrats believe it is - they are buying votes everywhere, and they are using taxpayer money to do it. In other words, they are using YOUR money to buy YOUR vote.

Don't believe it? Here is just one of hundreds of examples discovered...

California voted in 2008 to float a bond issue for $40 BILLION dollars to build a high speed choo-choo. The state is broke, but that did not matter.

Now guess what? The government just awarded them a $902 million grant for that train. Today the story broke with the following quote...

"Most of the $902 million announced Monday is earmarked for railways in the state's Central Valley, considered a key campaign spot in one of this year's more heated Senate races".

Think about that for a moment. This is BARBARA BOXER'S district, and she is in a tight race against Carly Fiorina. Boxer could easily lose, when suddenly, just one week before election, voters in her district are suddenly the recipients of a $902 million dollar grant. Coincidence? Don't kid yourselves - there's no such thing as coincidence in politics, folks.

The Obama Administration is apparently trying to buy the Senate seat for Boxer, as it has tried to buy hundreds of other Senate and House seats across the country using taxpayer funded grants and stimulus funds.

If the good people of California are so naive as to allow anyone to simply bribe them, then perhaps they deserve a state that is bankrupt and has a bleak future. Because once a politician buys you, they no longer serve YOU - you serve THEM.

As a side note, I find it truly amazing that in recent polls only 8% of California citizens believe that their state is headed in the right direction. EIGHT PERCENT! Yet they just keep right on re-electing the same people who got them into the mess they are in - they have had a Democrat legislature and Democrat Senators for decades. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over, and expect a different result each time. I sure hate to think 92% of Californians are insane, but their voting record would indicate they suffer from the same symptoms...

/

How To Drive A Business Overseas

There is a lot of back-and-forth about the businesses that move overseas, taking the jobs with them. The Democrats blame the Republicans who, they claim, protect the wealthy and the corporations. The Republicans blame the Democrats for the policies that force businesses out of the U.S.

So, who is right?

First, most of the big money corporations tend to donate to Democrats, including 7 of the Top Ten. Among them are Goldman-Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Time Warner. And with the 7 wealthiest people in Congress being Democrats (led by John Kerry), the claim that Republicans are protecting the wealthy and big corporations is rather shallow at best. Particularly when you understand that in the last 60 years, the lawmaking body, Congress, has been held by Democrats for 44 of those years.

Let us, instead, look to the reasons a company moves overseas. A business has one primary objective - maximize profits, so it can expand, hire more, produce more and thereby enrich itself further. The beneficiaries of this are the people who have those jobs, and the consumers who want and use those products. Everyone wins. Everyone, that is, except the lazy, the useless and the clueless who would rather sit back and live off the sweat of others. But even they benefit, as a strong economy brings more even to them.

Now we must ask, what are the biggest threats to profits? The COB (Cost of Business) includes many expenses, but the highest expenses tend to be corporate taxes (35%), and union benefits (average of 20%). That's 55% off the top. After wages, inventory, R&D, marketing etc., most American businesses have a profit margin of 2-4%. And from that they must grow. Any business that does not grow will die.

In China, the corporate tax rate is a mere 15%. Unions, where they exist, are not a financial burden on the employers. This provides businesses with a great deal more profit - profit margins can spike up to 20% or more. And in China, their economy is bursting at the seams.

High corporate taxes in America are a Democrat standard, and they keep trying to raise that tax on the "wealthy" even more. And union power is also a product of Democrat legislation.

And that is why businesses go overseas.

But it is destined to get worse - much worse. The new health care law is going to impose much higher costs on employers. Already millions of employees are getting dropped from company paid insurance plans. McDonalds's made such an announcement yesterday. The corporations have a choice - pay dearly for more insurance, and more expensive insurance, or pay a $2,000 per employee fine.

As I listened to the news today about several large businesses already planning to make the move overseas, in self-defense, I grew sad. It does not have to be this way. There are better solutions. First and foremost, America needs to wake up, fast, and make this country a favorable environment for business. Unless we do that, you can kiss them all goodbye.

If you want jobs, great products and good services, you should not punish those who provide them. Drop the stick we use to beat up on business and pick up the carrot. Or suffer the consequences.

/

Voter Fraud Is Real

Do you live in a state where the political contest is close? States like Colorado, Washington, Arizona, New York, Texas, Illinois and California? If so, you should know that voter fraud has been found to be running rampant in hotly contested elections.

If you are familiar with the writings of Marxist Saul Alinsky you will know the socialist mantra is "by any means necessary". And that is the mantra of the liberal organizations behind the voter fraud. Organizations like SEIU.

Examples:

1) In Colorado, labor unions tried to deliver 6000 suspicious democrat absentee ballots after the time period had expired. A judge deemed the ballots to be fraudulent and refused them. This time the good guys won.

2) In Arizona, a group tied to the union (SEIU) also dropped of tens of thousands of suspicious ballots like the ones in Colorado. One union member dropped off 3000 of them at one time.

3) In Washington state, Democrat Patti Murray has illegal aliens campaigning for her. In a country where it is illegal for foreign nationals to influence our elections, this is unacceptable.

4) In Texas, ballots were discovered that were submitted by foriegn nationals - AND WERE ACCEPTED. Even though the foreigners had checked the box declaring they were not citizens.

5) In New York, phony absentee ballots were discovered - all Democrat. The state is conducting DNA tests on suspects in the election committee - all are Democrats.

6) In spite of warnings from the DOJ, New York (D) state did not get out absentee ballots to its 300,000 soldiers. Colorado (D) also attempted to do the same.

These are just a few of the attempts at voter fraud. And in EVERY case of voter fraud discovered so far, it is the Democrats who are the beneficiaries. There are no known instances of Republicans participating in voter fraud.

Al Franken pulled off a fraudulent election in 2008, to take the deciding seat in the Senate. And it now appears that the Democrats, following Alinsky's rule, are using any means necessary to retain power.

Frankly, I have no problem with any party winning from legitimate means. But any party that is found to support voter fraud should be strung up.

Barack Outdoes Michelle

When Michelle Obama went on her royal tout in Spain on the taxpayer's dime, she rented a whopping 60 rooms at a resort hotel.

Her husband, not one to care about the anger and frustration of the folks at home, who thought that to be extravagant, is planning a trip to Mumbai - and has reserved a whopping 800 rooms.

I don't know about you, but I think that his arrogance is only outweighed by his ignorance. And both are costing the taxpayers a fortune.

/

Redistricting - A Primer

Over the last several days I have written different posts concerning how the election of Governors this year are of particular importance, as this is the year states get to redistrict. And I have received several emails from folks who do not quite grasp how redistricting makes any difference. One person said, "It does not change the number of Republicans or Democrats in the state, does it?"

The answer is that while it does not change the raw numbers of each party, it can and does change the number of representatives in Congress for each party. Let me explain.

Let's say for the sake of argument that 50% of the people are Republican and 50% are Democrat in your state, and you have 6 districts. You would assume, all things being equal, that half your representatives (3) would be Republican and half (3) Democrat, insuring that all the state's citizens are represented fairly. You would be very, very wrong in making such an assumption.

Over the last 60 years the majority of Governors during redistricting years were Democrats, so they got to do the redistricting. Here is what would then happen in the 50/50 state we illustrated earlier, assuming there were 6 districts in the state...

The Democrats would first determine which communities - and even which neighborhoods - are primarily Democrat or Republican by reviewing voter registration and census counts. They would then draw a district that is designed to include 60% Democrats and 40% Republicans, insuring that a Democrat would be elected in that district. They would do that for 5 of the 6 districts. The final district would be made up of primarily republicans.

And now, in a state where Democrats and Republicans are equal in number you have 5 Democrat representatives and 1 Republican representative.

Not very fair or equal, is it? When one party can, by design and intent negate the votes of 40% of the people you end up with a government that does not represent the people.

That is also why we have "career" representatives who, no matter how bad they may be, can remain in office for life.

Take one more look at some gerrymandered districts, and you begin to see just how crooked the system really is, and why this election year for governors is of great importance for Republicans, since the vast majority of all districts nationwide have been drawn by Democrats. Republicans need to try and equal it out a bit. If they do not, we are guaranteed another 10 years of Congressmen who do not represent America and refuse to listen to their constituents - because they do not have to.

/

Since When?

The U.S. Constitution states the qualifications for running for office. The ONLY qualifications. Anything else is up to the voters.

So why is it a corrupt jusge has just ORDERED Joe Miller (R) to release his past employment records? Employment has no bearing on legal qualification, so the judge is WAY out of bounds by ordering those records released.

What a contrast - when another politician incurred questions on whether he was Constitutionally qualified, I.E. born here, no judge ordered him to release his birth records. An no judge ordered him to release his college records, either.

This move by a corrupt judge to help Murkowski to win an election is not only unprecedented, but is also the epitome of judicial corruption in trying to illegally influence an election.

When we get rid of the corrupt politicians next week, what say you we start on getting rid of corrupt judges and corrupt media?

/

Do You Want Honest People In Office?

In New York, absentee ballots showed up in the last election that were proven to be phony. They were all Democratic ballots.

In close races like Nevada and several other states, Democratic campaigns are actually pushing and supporting 3rd party candidates in an effort to split the Republican vote.

One Ohio school bused students to a place they could vote early and they were given ONLY Democratic ballots. And then they rewarded the students with ice cream. Both acts are illegal.

And, of course, we all remember the Al Franken theft of office, where Franken lost handily, but insisted on a recount and, suddenly, enough Democrat ballots miraculously appeared out of someone's car to give the Senate seat to Franken. It did not seem to matter that those ballots could not be validated.

And then there was A.C.O.R.N., which was indicted in several states for voter fraud and voter registration fraud - all in favor of Democratic candidates.

And, finally, the worst act of all - in Portland, Maine, Democrats have placed a referendum on the ballot that would give ILLEGAL ALIENS the right to vote. You read that correctly - people who are not even allowed to be here legally would have a legal right to vote, and affect how things are run. The reason for this insanity is simple - illegals want rights, and the Democrats would give them amnesty. So, they would likely vote Democrat. Just another attempt at fixing elections. And with Portland's large Somali community, residents had better understand that it is possible that the city could end up being run by Somali nationals.

If a party has to lie, cheat and steal in order to get elected, I do not think they should get any votes at all, not even from their mothers (who should be ashamed of their children).

I only have one question - are these the kinds of people whon should be in control of this great nation? If you say yes, then you get what you deserve. If you say no, then you have an obligation to get out and vote on November 2nd.

/

When Is Green Not Green?

Still hearing from "green" people about increasing sources of ethanol - corn, switchgrass, stinkweed - the list goes on. And these people actually believe this is a sound, "green" alternative. Why have they not thought it through? Why do they ignore the facts?

Let's start with the most obvious point - lack of arable land to use for ethanol production. If we were to use EVERY acre of tillable land in America for growing ethanol sources, it still would not produce enough ethanol to keep our cars going. And even if it could, we would be able to drive to the supermarket, but the shelves would be empty because there is no land being farmed for FOOD. It is just plain stupid to burn your food supply.

Because of ethanol production, the cost of food worldwide has risen sharply - and the poor, already hungry, are now starving. But it gets even worse. For every gallon of ethanol produced, it takes 1.7 gallons of fossil fuels to produce it. So, it is not even green. It actually INCREASES the CO2 levels. It takes fuel to till the soil. Fuel to fertilize. Fuel to irrigate. Fuel to harvest. Fuel to transport to the processing plant. Fuel to process into ethanol. Isn't it strange that somehow the "greenies" overlook such things. Instead, all they can see is the end product - "WOW! Fuel from weeds!"

And what about those "electric" cars? Again, it's "WOW! Run cars without burning fossil fuels!" The problem lies in the simple fact that it takes fuel to create the electricity! Simple physics teaches us that there is ALWAYS some loss when you change from one energy to another. So, it takes more fuel to create the electricity than it would have taken to simply fuel the car in the first place.

Sure, perhaps the electricity comes from nuclear, or water. But currently, most of our electricity comes from oil, gas and coal. And we already suffer "brownouts" - a lack of sufficient electricity. Imagine if all vehicles used electricity - we would be living in the dark.

And then those stupid CFL lightbulbs. They require up to 10 times more glass, which must be produced with great heat, requiring huge amounts of fuel. They contain toxic mercury, so the government mandates they be disposed of only at hazardous waste dumpsites. Most people live at least a gallon of gas away from such a site. In reality, the incandescent bulbs are much "greener" and environmentally friendly - and produce better, higher quality light. Oh, and let's not forget that those florescent bulbs can trigger seizures in epileptics - how will they fare?

The folks who want "green" solutions are correct in believing our future depends on green solutions. But they are absolutely looking in the wrong direction. They are not thinking things through. They are going forth while wearing blinders. And ignorance is even worse than burning oil. Just because something LOOKS green at first blush does not mean it really is green.

/

Common Sense Approach to Health Care Reform

The new health care law is a debacle that requires radical reform. The following is my suggestion. If you think it sounds sensible, please copy it and send it to your own congressman (after the election - if you send it before, they may no longer be your congressman). I will post this again on November 3rd, just as a reminder:

First, Congress should go over the health care law, line by line and throw out anything that does not pertain to health care, such as the item requiring all businesses to file 1099's for every $600 of purchases

Congress should then go over the law, item by item and ask, "Does this make health care more expensive without any true benefit?" If the answer is yes, throw it out.

Congress should then remove any personal mandate against any American citizen, and any unfunded mandate to the states

Then Congress should go over each remaing item and ask, "Does this make health CARE better, without increasing the costs?" If the answer is that it does make care better but at a cost, take it out and set it aside for the moment.

Congress should then ADD items that make health care either better with little or no expene, such as tort reform and buying insurance across state lines.

What you now have is a health care law that is all about health care, and makes care better without increasing the cost appreciably. And that would be the new law.

THEN...

Congress should then take up each of the items that were set aside - the ones that make care better, but more expensive. Like buying a car, these are the "extra cost options". The actual benefit, in clear terms should be listed, along with a true cost. These items should then be presented to the people to see which options America wants, based on the cost vs the benefit. Americans should be encouraged to let their congressmen know which options they want. The congressmen should take the desire of their constituents into consideration before voting YEA or NAY.

To insure America is informed, Congress should be required to post the options, true benefits and true cost in ALL media outlets, at least 3 days per week for 4 weeks, which would also list a webpage where they can get the contact info for their congressman.

No lobbyists should be allowed to participate in this. Lobbyists do not represent Americans - they represent only a small, select portion. When pitted against a lobbyist, the average American will lose every time.

/

Just Thinkin'

Yesterday, NPR fired one of their news analysts, Juan Williams. Juan is often the liberal viewpoint on several Fox News shows. He has always been fair, reasonable (most of the time) and is certainly not a bigot of any kind. I am conservative, but I like and respect Juan. He is one liberal you can actually have a discourse with, without him twisting everything out of shape with liberal talking points.

NPR supposedly fired him for a comment he made on Fox on Tuesday night's "Factor".

But I'm thinking that was not the reason they fired him - only their excuse for doing so.

Juan is a liberal, true. But he is not far left, and he is not always rigidly politically correct.

Now think about this - this is the week of NPR's fundraising drive. And coincidentally, the powerful person who is on the far left of the far left, and a known anti-semite, anti-black and anti-Fox News - George Soros - just donated 1.8 million bucks to NPR. A far-left, racist kook who hates Fox donates 1.3 million, and suddenly a black, not-so-far-left news analyst who is a Fox contributor is fired.

Say what you will, but I learned early in life that there is no such thing as coincidence. When you add 1+1, it is no coincidence that the result is 2.

It matters not if you are liberal or conservative - no one should be finding any reason to excuse the firing of a man simply for exercising his freedom of speech. And every one of us should be calling on the Congress to end taxpayer funding of NPR. Particularly since so much of their other funding is coming from the far, far left, and influencing their decisions. Anything funded by taxpayers should be fair and balanced, and unbiased. That does not describe NPR.

It's time to pull the plug. And it's time we all stood up to be counted. Contact your congressman (while they are still in office) and tell them to stop funding NPR.

/

Why Governor's Races Are More Important This Year

A lot of states are electing governors this year, and this is a particularly important year for such races.

Every ten years, states are allowed to "redistrict" the state, which helps determine which party will have the most power in Congress for the next decade.

Redistricting means that the state is divided into districts for representation in the House of Representatives in Congress. How the districts are drawn will determine who gains the most power at the polls.

To illustrate, look at the gerrymandered districts that exist today. You will see they were drawn specifically to include voters of primarily one party, and excluding voters of the opposing party. Here are the Top 9 Gerrymandered Districts (8 of which are Democrat)...

This is actually crooked, though perfectly legal. And since Democrats have typically held power in Congress for 44 of the last 60 years, you can see why drawing districts is critical. Currently, the districts with the craziest, crookedest gerymandering are held by long-term Democrats like Barney Frank and Luis Gutierrez.

And that is why it is so important to vote this year, particularly for your Governor position. Because it is the Governor who will authorize changes in districting. And electing your party into your atate legislature will help your Governor redistrict in ways that benefit your party.

So, if it really is a change you want, this is where it begins - redistricting. And that will only happen if you get out and vote.

/

The Answer, My Friend...

Before reading the rest of this post, it is important for you to look closely at, and try to find what is wrong with this picture...

Do you see it?

There is nothing wrong with it. It is a picture of a number of people, all with different thoughts, different opinions, different problems all coming together to work for a common goal, and solve the problem at hand. The PEOPLE are doing it, not the government.

And this is exactly what built this great nation into the most prosperous and powerful nation the Earth has every seen.

This sense of community, once the norm in America, is all but gone now. How many barn raisings have you been involved in recently? Or ever?

America has been history's greatest success story only because we knew the value of all pulling together in spite of all our differences, and because we had the personal freedom to do so. We knew we did not have to agree with our neighbor - only that he was our neighbor and an important part of the wholeness of the community.

Today, America is more divided than it was in 1859 with the buildup to the Civil War. The sense of community has been replaced by a growing desire to fill our own personal goals at any cost - even at the expense of others. We have shed our responsibility towards ourselves and one another in favor of letting the government handle that for us. We have become lax and lazy.

Whenever we give up any power or authority to a government, we give up some of our own freedom. And as our freedoms wane, so does the need for that sense of community. Let the government take care of the poor and needy. Let the government take care of education. Let the government take care of the elders.

We can clearly see that is not the solution. In fact, it is the problem. There was a time when we had the right solutions. We had barn raisings. Each family, community and church took care of their own, directly. Each township had a Community Chest. We all worked together to overcome trials and tribulations, and it worked.

Please take another look at that picture, and burn it into your consciousness. Remember it. And then go out and do some little thing every day that will bring you - us - closer to that sense of community.

Let's stop giving our power, our stength and our freedom to a government. No government has ever used that power well or wisely. A government is like any other entity - it wants to grow and gain power. To do that, it must consume. And what it consumes is the freedom of its people.

The Founding Fathers knew the importance of having a central government, but they also understood that we, the people, needed to keep it small and within OUR power. In essence, they wanted the strength of a tree, but decided it would be best to cultivate it as a Bonzai variety - trimmed, pruned and trained to remain small, and not overly consuming.

We can bring back that crucial, warm sense of community. But to do so, we must have the need to do so. And that means taking back our power and freedom from a government that has gone rogue, and replacing that government with one that serves its people without consuming their freedoms with overbearing regulation and burdened with excessive taxes.

Vote on November 2nd.

/

Is It Really "Immigration"?

In Germany, Chancellor Merkel said their multicultural immigration policy is not working. It appears that Muslims are "immigrating" into Germany - and almost all countries - in large numbers. They do not assimmilate - they simply set up Islamic mini-countries within the host country.

The same thing is happening throughout Europe, and even in North America. In the United States, the Islamic community is not the only one that does not assimilate - the Mexican community is doing the same thing. They come, refuse to assimilate, set up their own communities and pretty much ignore American culture and even its laws. In fact, they insist on incorporating THEIR laws and culture, trying to impose Sharia law in America, for example, and flying flags of their homeland, and not flying the American flag.

Some people still refer to this as immigration. It is not. It is infiltration. These cultures are infiltrating the host nations who permit multiculturalism (non-assimilation) and from there they have every intention of spreading, like a cancer.

France is already in trouble with its huge muslim population, as is the Netherlands, and now Germany. England is also on the verge of losing its control over the muslim population in that once great nation.

In America it is not yet too late - but soon will be if we don't wake up and give the heave-ho to multiculturalism and liberal ideas on open borders. Multiculturalism, coupled with liberal Political Correctness will be America's suicide pact if we do not stop it.

I am not saying we should keep other cultures from coming to America. What I am saying is if someone comes here, they should be required to assimilate, or go home. This is not Mexico, and it is not Yemen. This is America. Come here if you wish, but you had better understand you need to assimilate, and become American. You fly the AMERICAN flag. You learn ENGLISH. And you abide by OUR laws.

Otherwise, you are not welcome to stay.

/

Obama The Reactionary

Todays headline reads:

Obama Wants to End Tax Breaks for Companies that Move Jobs Overseas

People like Obama just don't get it. And they don't get it because they are reactionaries. Instead of finding the cause of a problem and fixing it, they react to the result of the problem and try to fight only the symptoms using punishment, not positive incentives.

If a person chooses to get to the core of a situation, they will find the solution is usually simple and effective.

The problem APPEARS to be that businesses are moving jobs overseas. This is what liberals see. It is what a community organizer would see. It is what someone would see if they did not bother to think it out.

But businesses moving jobs overseas is not the problem - it is only a sympton of the problem. Consider...

A business has one function - to make as much profit as possible. If they move jobs overseas it is only because they can make more profit by doing so. Therefore, the solution lies in finding out WHY it is more profitable overseas, and what can we do to offset that and give businesses a profit motive for staying in America.

If you have followed me this far, you are now beginning to see the problem, and not just the symptom.

The four highest cost factors (COB - Cost of Business) are wages, inventory, taxes and union benefits and costs. To make America more competitive so businesses will stay here, those costs must be reduced - preferably to a level below the costs of doing business overseas, to entice them to return to America.

Because of our chosen lifestyles of excess, we cannot compete with China when it comes to wages. And inventory is pretty much a wash - the same, regardless. That leaves two areas where America can make changes.

In this regard, we can make two major changes. High corporate taxes (federal and state) can add 48% to the COB, and union benefits and costs can add from 20%-30%. Together, they add at least 68% to the cost of doing business in America.

That is more than two-thirds the COB. Therefore, if we reduce taxes (instead of increasing them further as proposed by Democrats) and if we reduce the impact of unions (instead of increasing it as proposed by Democrats), we could easily reduce the COB by as much as 48% or more.

How would that translate in terms of competitiveness?

In most American industries, wages account for roughly 18% of costs; inventory 10%; taxes 48% and unions 20%. The remaing 4% is profit.

In China, wages (which, by the way are rising rapidly) account for 8%; inventory 15%; taxes between 15% and 25%; unions 0%. Profit is 52%.

See the problem?

If Congress were to reduce federal corporate taxes to 10% and reduced the union stranglehold by half, that would add 48% to the profit margin of businesses, giving a total profit of 52% - the same as China - while still retaining our high wages structure and the most necessary union benefits. There would be no incentive to move to China.

And if states could be convinved to reduce corporate taxes to 5% (from the average of 10% currently), that would give businesses already in China an incentive to move back to the states - particularly since China's wages are quickly rising.

And America would have plentiful jobs - even enough for all the illegal aliens.

I know many of you, particularly liberals, will scream that we are just making the rich richer. But think about that a moment - do poor people hire employees? Do poor people spend billions on R&D to create the products you want? Making the rich wealthier is the only way of creating more jobs. The rich make our lives better - they are the ones, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs - that make our lives richer. Yes, they get a bigger share of the pie, but they are also making more pies, so we all benefit.

The rich will be rich, either here or in China. So the choice is clear - in which country do you want them to live, and produce jobs and products?

/

The "BIG LIE" Keeps Surfacing

It never fails - whenever an election comes around, Democrats pull out the "Civil Rights" card, claiming that minorities owe the Democrats for the Civil Rights Act, and claiming Republicans were against it.

The facts, should anyone care to actually check the Congressional Record, show just the opposite.

I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again...

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the life-long senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd (who filibustered the bill to keep it from passing) and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Al Gore, "global warming" alarmist.). The Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster, led by Byrd.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

In proportion to their numbers (Republicans were the minority) more Republicans than Democrats voted in favor of Civil Rights, and therefore more Democrats voted AGAINST it than Republicans.

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]

I know these facts will not change perceptions among liberals and minorities - the "Big Lie" has been tol;d so often for so long that it has become truth in the minds of the uninformed.

/

The (One-Sided) View

Today on "The View", a show watched only by bored liberal housewives waiting for their daily soap operas, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off-stage because Bill O'Reilly was expressing HIS view. Apparently, those liberal ladies believe their view is the only view, and no one has a right to disagree.

Frankly, while it showed they have no class - and even Barbara Walters said as much - it showed even less class when they returned. The show would be much better if they had left permanently. Behar is hateful, vicious and enjoys spreading lies. She has repeatedly insulted Christians, the Church, Tea Partiers, Republicans and just about everyone else who is not a personal friend of George Soros. Whoopi, usually more reserved than Behar will all too often show her real colors with hot-button issues. Neither is tolerant of the views of others, which indicates they do not belong on a show called "The View".

Perhaps "The View" should be renamed to "The Liberal View", or "The One-Sided View". Or even "No Joy With Joy".

Two people on "The View" show any class at all - Ms. Walters, a liberal whom I respect, and Elizabeth Hasslbeck, the lone conservative whom I also respect.

And that, too, is very telling - a show that has three or four liberals and only one token conservative. Makes one wonder if "The View" has a very limited view, and one that is not really worth watching.

/

The Big Lie

I don't think I am the only one who is tired of being lied to on a constant basis by partisan spinmeisters. And one of the biggest, most consistent lies is the one about the big, bad corporations supporting Republicans while the Democrats have to rely upon the support of the "little people".

So I decided to do some research. Feel free to check these stats out for yourself. Of the TOP TEN donors to politicians, most of them contribute to the Democrats, not the Republicans. Here are examples from the Top 10...

Time Warner -- $20 million to candidates, the vast majority of whom were Democrats. Currently, the company's top five contribution recipients are Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Howard Berman (Calif.), Harry Reid (Nev), and Charles Schumer (N.Y.). All are Democrats.

JPMorgan -- $20.3 million - Currently, the company's top beneficiaries include New York Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Scott Murphy, as well as Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln

Microsoft -- $21 million - For the most part, Microsoft's money has gone to Democrat candidates from the Pacific Northwest.

Citigroup -- $27.5 million - In 2010, three of its top candidates were New York Democrats: Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Joseph Crowley.

Goldman Sachs -- $36.7 million - In the 2009/2010 election season, most of its money has gone to Democrat candidates, including Nevada's Harry Reid and New York Representative Michael McMahon

AT&T -- $45.6 million In the 2009-2010 cycle, its biggest contribution was $30,000 directly to the campaign of Nevada Senator Harry Reid

And for those who think Republican donors may be coming from overseas (of which ZERO evidence has been brought forward), most of the above mentioned corporation have earnings from foreign nations, so some of those contributions could be from foreign sources.

The next time someone tells you that the Republicans are in the pocket of corporations, you may now set them straight with the facts.

Oh - and seven of the wealthiest Congressmen are Democrats, with John Kerry the wealthiest. So the next time you hear liberals bemoan how the "rich people" are responsible for our problems, you can agree, and point out that Congress has many millionaires.

/

How To Fix An Election, NY Style

The MOVE ACT is a federal mandate that every state send absentee ballots to its militasry personnel and overseas voters not later than 45 days before an election.

The New York State Board failed to send out ballots to all their 320,000 military and overseas voters, in direct violation of the law.

The Department of Justice gave them an extra two weeks to comply. Again, New York failed to send the ballots.

What makes this particularly disturbing is the fact that New York is a very liberal state. And studies consistently show that military personnel are predominantly Republican. For those who doubt this, all you need to remember is that liberals are anti-war and anti-gun, and far less apt to sign up for military duty.

A thinking person cannot help but see a possible correlation between the liberal nature of New York politicians and the fact that ballots are not being provided to a third of a million possible Republicans.

A third of a million votes, in the most contentious election in New York in half a century. Coincidence? Not likely.

Several other Democrat led states also failed to get out absentee ballots to our soldiers, but apparently did meet their extension date, but only under threat of legal action.

Folks, if anyone has a right to vote it is the men and women who are risking their lives to keep America free and strong. If you live in New York, send the state board a strong message on November 2nd.

/

Whatever Became of Transparency?

Remember the promise of TRANSPARENCY?

Obama's hidden records: Why are these off limits?

1. Certified copy of original birth certificate. (I am not a "birther", but this is still an unanswered question - no original copy has been produced to date, so this question remains pertinent here concerning transparency)

2. Columbia University transcripts sealed.

3. Columbia thesis paper sealed.

4. Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups. (millions were donated via untraceable pre-paid cards which could have come from anywhere - even Iran or China)

5. Harvard University transcripts sealed.

6. Illinois State Senate records limited access.

7. Illinois State Senate schedule limited access.

8. Law practice client list and billing records/summary

9. Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother

10. Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)

11. Occidental College Transcripts hidden.

12. Parent’s marriage Certificate not available.

13. Record of baptism.

14. Did Obama Actually Ever Register for Selective Service?

15. Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007

16. Passport records for all passports.

17. Scholarly articles not available.

18. SAT and LSAT test scores not available.

19. Access to his grandmother in Kenya.

20. List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists.

21. Punahou grade school records.

22. Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.

23. Obama 1964 Divorce Papers - 13 Pages - Missing Pg 11.

24. Why isn’t Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?

25. Why isn’t Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?

Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could. These are pretty easy things to produce. Why are they all missing or sealed? For what purpose?

Just wondering...as we all should be.

/

The Big Lie

I could not believe what she said, or that she could be either that stupid, or that dishonest. Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, said food stamps and unemployment give the biggest bang for the buck; that every dollar we give out in that way will come back as $1.79.

I have a degree in economics. I have run the numbers every way possible, and Pelosi's statement doesn't even begin to hold water - or make any sense at all. She claims that money goes to companies who then have to hire people to meet the increased demand.

First, there is no indication food stamps or unemployment increases demand enough to force any company to hire more employees. But even assuming it does, here is the great flaw in her "thinking" (I use the term "thinking" in a very loose sense when referring to Pelosi).

The average business has a profit margin of 4-20%. Most run at the low end. Assuming a profit margin of even 10% on average, it would require $300,000 in subsidies like food stamps to provide a company with just $30,000 profit - enough to pay for an employee. But it gets worse. A company cannot use all its profits for hiring because, in order to increase production they must aslso increase costs, like the cost of inventory on goods needed to produce their product. So, in order to pay a new employee $30,000, the company would have to collect closer to $1.2 million dollars worth of subsidies like food stamps.

$1.2 million spent to create one $30,000 job. And since most Americans earning $30,000 pay ZERO taxes, none of that money makes it back to the Treasury.

Again, I have tried running the numbers in every possible light and could find no way to make a spent dollar come out to $1.79. Except one...

When money is given, free, to lower income people, it earns their support. By Democrats increasing the amount of food stamps and unemployment, they increase the number of people who are indebted to them, and will vote for them to insure the money keeps coming. This is the ONLY scenario in which a spent dollar earns a profit in votes and power for Democrats.

That said, on the other hand a dollar invested rather than spent can, indeed, result in $1.79 return. Investing money is the ONLY way to make it grow. Hence, if those dollars were given to small businesses (which employ 97% of all employees), the money could be used directly for growth, which means hiring. After all, the only reason for selling shares of a business to investors is to provide growth capital.

The figures do not lie. I wish I could say the same for people like Speaker Pelosi.

Ms Pelosi, if there is a way to turn $1.00 of taxpayer money into $1.79, perhaps you should pass a law that forces the U.S. Treasury to use the method. We could then pay off our debt and deficits in no time at all.

Now, I'm sure there will be those who will claim I am advocating putting an end to entitlements, but there is nothing in this post that says I am against food stamps or unemployment. I am not. But I am against giving so much, for so long to people who COULD be caring for themselves but just do not want to. Fully 70% of all government entitlements are wasted; given not to the needy, but to the clueless and useless.

The government needs to put "welfare" back into local hands, and the federal governments only role should be to make sure all localities are doing the job. Local communities know who is needy and who is just lazy. By cutting even 50% of the waste, we can do much more to help those who really need it while saving taxpayer money. Instead of giving $100 to needy Joe and $100 to lazy Mike, we could give $150 to needy Joe and put $50 back into the Treasury. Lazy Mike can fend for himself.

Frankly, I am tired of giving my hard-earned money to drug-dealers, drunks and child molesters simply because they "qualify" using "income guidelines". Instead of using income guidelines, we need to start using more sensible methods of determining need, such as physical ability, mental ability and/or unforeseen personal crisis (short term only).

Everyone else can and should fend for themselves. Except for the severely impaired mentioned above, everyone can earn a living. Nothing stops a poor person from getting a job of some sort, or if that is not possible, to give themselves a job by hiring out. Be the local handyman. Do baking or housekeeping for busy people. Do shopping for busy people. Mow lawns. Everyone can do something.

When the steelworker's union killed the company I was working for in '72 I could have collected unemployment and food stamps. Instead, I grabbed my wife's ballpoint paints and painted T-shirts. It paid the bills, along with some metal detecting on the side. And again in '76 when I got laid off at my newest job, I supported my family by starting a small business that connected local college students with residents who needed work done - I would send Don over to put up Mrs. Murray's storm windows, and Margie would go over to babysit for the Davisons. My "Work For Education" company provided a lot of cash in commissions, without me having to work very hard at all. After all, instead of earning 100% of one income I was earning 10% of 50 incomes.

The point is this - if someone is incapable of supporting themselves due to causes not within their control, help them. Everyone else needs to help themselves or pay the consequences - if they get desperate enough, they will work. Even homeless drunks go "canning", picking up aluminum cans and cashing them in so they could buy their next bottle of MD 20/20.

The short take - Pelosi and other liberals care nothing about helping the poor. All they want to do is stay in power, and are using the disadvantaged for that purpose. They are simply buying gratitude - and votes. It's time to take the politics out of charity and to do more to help those who truly are needy.

/

Obama Indicates He Is Not President of the U.S.

Let's get something straight right at the start - anyone elected to be the POTUS is supposed to be the President of ALL people in the U.S. But Mr. Obama does not believe that, nor does he act accordingly. Rather, he has set himself up, publicly, as the President of the Democrats and Liberals of the United States. A President is not supposed to take sides of one American against another. But he does it all the time.

I have gone over several hundred tapes, and in every case where Obama got in front of the camera he made it a point to be partisan - to slam Republicans at every opportunity. Sometimes for no other reason than they are Republican.

He constantly insults Republicans. I am Republican. He forever condemns the Tea Party. I am a Tea Party member. And he degrades Fox News viewers as uninformed. I watch Fox and I am very well informed. In short, Obama spends his Presidency insulting ME, personally. Yet he expects me to consider him my president. Well, Mr. President, when you start ACTING like my president then I could then accept you on that basis.

Never once did we see President Bush do that.

Mr. Obama, if you cannot act like EVERYONE'S president, without bias, then you should step down and let a real leader step up to the plate. Someone who wants to represent ALL Americans, and not just those who agree with your personal ideology.

You are a disgrace, Mr. President. And I am beginning to suspect that when you got up to the podium the other day, proclaiming to be President, that it was an Act of God that the Presidential Seal fell off the podium. At the very least, it would appear to be an omen.

Mr. Obama, you were elected to be the President of ALL Americans. Start acting like you know what that means. It means setting your partisan ideology aside, leaving that to Congress, as THEY were elected to represent their party. You were not! Stop acting like a cheap community organizer and start acting like a President or get out of the way for someone who will. Even Biden would be more qualified - at least he understands what integrity is.

/

Go Figure

The National Security Advisor, General Jones, is stepping down. But it is incredibly surprising as to who has been appointed by Obama to be his successor.

An old friend of Obama's, a Mr. Donilon, has been appointed. What is surprising about this is the fact that Donilon is not even a military person - he spent his entire adult life as a political advisor and lawyer.

Most people cannot see any connection to qualifications as National Security Advisor. I know this does nothing to make me feel more secure!

It seems that in this administration, friendship trumps national security.

/

To Pledge Or Not To Pledge

A southern judge held a southern lawyer in jail for contempt of court because the lawyer refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance when court convened. The lawyer claims he has a legal right to remain silent.

But here is a point the lawyer seems to be missing. In American courts, the law of the land is the Constitution. All "friends of the court", i.e. attorneys, prosecutors etc. are required to pledge allegiance to the flag because it represents the nation, and its laws. By refusing to pledge, a judge can assume you have no allegiance to America, and therefore no allegiance to its laws. If you have no allegiance to America or its laws, you have no right to be practicing law in American courts.

And while the attorney certainly does have a right to remain silent, the judge also has the right to deem that to be contempt of court.

/

How Liberals Think

In reference to the Meg Whitman vs Gloria Allred fiasco concerning Whitman's former maid, who turned out to be illegal, the far-left newspaper, the L.A. Times ran a poll among its liberal readers (yes, most of their readers are indeed liberal). The poll question was, "What should Whitman Have Done When She Learned Diaz Was Here Illegally?"

Only 11.3% said she should have notified Immigration. But a whopping 44.64% said she should have hired an immigration attorney to help Diaz stay in the country!

That is amazing, for several reasons. The first is that it is not Whitman's obligation to spend thousands of her own to help someone stay in the country who had duped her. Another reason - as an illegal alien, not even an immigration attorney could have helped Diaz. Diaz admits to perjury, identity theft and fraud, all felonies. There is no way she would legally be permitted to stay.

But the liberal mindset is pretty much automatic in its responses - that the "underdog" is automatically a victim of some sort and everyone should bend over backwards to serve them. It matters not that felonies were committed, nor that Diaz had duped Whitman for 9 years, or that Whitman had been paying her $23 per hour. All that matters to the liberal is that every tack should be taken to push forward the "no borders" agenda.

That is their choice, of course. But I prefer making my choices based on thought, facts and logic.

As a side note, some folks are taking odds whether ICE will actually do anything about Diaz. In spite of the fact she has confessed to committing several felonies, odds-makers believe ICE will do nothing, as it would harm the administration's agenda of not "recognizing" illegals unless they murder someone. Currently the odds are 7-2 that ICE will look the other way.

/

Were Critics of Civilian Trials Correct?

Many people have been opposed to holding civilian trials for terrorists, claiming that the stricter legal rules and loopholes that are non-existent in military tribunals would make it much more difficult to get a conviction.

Well, it appears they may have been right and the more liberal DOJ was wrong. Today, the trial of the terrorist who bombed two embassies was supposed to go on trial in a civilian court. The trial has been postponed because the judge has BANNED the prosecution's key witness.

And this is only the first day of just one such case.

Folks should understand - on the battlefield, the soldiers cannot and should not be reading Miranda rights to those they capture. In civilian trials, that, alone can get the entire case tossed out.

My question goes deeper - WHY would Eric Holder and his DOJ want to make it more difficult to stop our enemies? What is THEIR agenda.

I feel safer with the terrorists, since I at least know what their agenda is. Not so sure about the DOJ.

After all, they dropped the charges against the New Black Panthers on charges of voter intimidation even after they were found guilty. And Holder wanted to try the Sheik who was behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in a civilian court in NYC. And Holder sues a state for trying to protect itself. And now this.

And to add insult to injury, (11) countries in Central and South America have decided to gang up on Arizona, and asked the liberal 9th Circuit to permit them to speak against the Arizona illegal immigration law. When Eric Holder's Department of (in)Justice was asked if they will stand with Americans or with the other countries, they stated that they stand with the other countries. That is as wrong and as unAmerican as it gets, folks - the administration wants to replace our Constitution with "international law", and they see this as an opportunity to push that agenda forward.

Yes, at least we know which side the terrorists are on. The sooner we rid ourselves of the corrupt, unAmerican progressives in our government, the better.

/

We Can Make Election Campaigns More Honest

Every election season it is the same old crap - politicians often resorting to smears and personal attacks instead of standing on his or her record and on policies - a PLATFORM.

And it can get nasty - and very dishonest.

None of us like that sort of campaign mudslinging, and more often than not it serves no purpose other than to divide us even further, which is something we as a nation certainly do not need. So, what to do?

That's easy - we, the people have it within our power to put a stop to the dishonest, unsavory antics of the Graysons' and Browns' simply by refusing to vote for any candidate that reduces the mentality of their campaign to personal attacks and smears. If we stop voting for them, they will have to stop using such tactics. Stand up to YOUR representatives and tell them flat out - if they use smears or personal attacks in their campaigns, you will vote for the opponent. Period. And then follow through.

If enough people do this, it will be quite clear to all remaining politicians that we simply are not going to tolerate the BS anymore. Be civil, be honest, tell us what you stand for, or get lost - we do not need you.

That simple.

/

DOW vs Gold

As many of you know, I got into gold in late 1999. I said at that time that wise investors would follow suit.

Below are the 10 year charts for both gold and the DOW. As you can clearly see, the DOW has LOST about 1% of its value after 10 years. But gold has risen about 500%, and still rising.

While I would not sell the farm to buy gold today, since the price is so high, I would still strongly recommend investors put at least 10% of their portfolio in gold. Just my opinion...again...


/