Here's How To Tell Good People From The Bad...

In today's world it is not always easy to know who the good people are, and who to shun. But there is one simple rule of thumb that never fails...

A good person wakes up and wonders how many people they can assist today, and by how much. A bad person awakens and their first thought is "How many people can I make miserable today?"

Look around. Watch people. You will easily spot those who make it their life's work to bring misery to people. And it is just as easy to spot those who are kind and helpful.

When OWS protesters shout down legitimate speech by others. When someone spams you, or telemarkets you at dinner time. When the people at the Motor Vehicle Department give you the run-around. When a lawyer screws over an innocent person by using a technicality to subvert justice. Or the judge who ignores his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and decides instead he would rather push his personal agenda.

Unfotunately, it appears there are more people who work at making others miserable than there are those who make life more pleasant for others. In our society, evil is winning.

/

Before You Give To A Charity...

As you open your pockets for the next natural disaster, please keep these facts in mind:

� The American Red Cross President and CEO Marsha J. Evans salary for the year was $651,957 plus expenses

� The United Way President Brian Gallagher receives a $375,000 base salary along with numerous expense benefits.

� UNICEF CEO Caryl M. Stern receives $1,200,000 per year (100k per month) plus all expenses including a ROLLS ROYCE . Less than 5 cents of your donated dollar goes to the cause.

WHY NOT PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE IT WILL DO SOME GOOD:

� The Salvation Army's Commissioner Todd Bassett receives a small salary of only $13,000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization. 96 percent of donated dollars go to the cause.

� The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

� The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

� The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

� The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

� The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

/

I Am Looking For A Very Special American (details here...)

I am currently searching for a very special American citizen. If you are this person, or know of such a person, please leave a comment, below.

The person I am searching for, first and foremost, must be a legal American citizen. In addition, they must NOT do any of the following, ever, at any time. If you do even one of these things, you are disqualified:

1) Cash a check at a bank
2) Use a check at a store
2) Buy alcoholics beverages
3) Buy cigarettes
4) Drive a motor vehicle
5) Fly on an airline
6) Collect any form of public assistance, i.e. food stamps, fuel assistance, WIC, Section 8 etc.
7) Get a passport
8) Purchase a firearm
9) Get a marriage license

Now, if you never have done any of the above and never will, please let me know, because you are the elusive "disenfranchised voter" Eric Holder and his moronic liberal friends keep saying are being discriminated against by VOTER ID laws. Personally, I have never known such a person. Even when I was living among the homeless people of Manchester, NH, I noticed even they had photo ID - it was necessary for collecting the food stamps they would sell in order to buy alcohol - which they ALSO needed photo ID for.

If you know of any legal citizen who would LIKE to vote but cannot because they are unable to procure a photo ID, let me know and I will pay for them getting such an ID.

/

A Note To Husbands Everywhere

Statistics show that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. What the stats do not show is how many others are not as happy as they should or could be. So, to put in my two-cents worth, based on over 40 years experience, I offer the following tips for husbands.


If you haven't noticed, women see, hear and understand things differently from men. Until you understand that simple concept, you will never be the kind of husband your wife deserves.

If you think that all you have to do is say, "I love you" once in awhile, and give her a kiss, thinking she will then know that you love her, you are sadly mistaken. A woman needs confirmation. It is not enough to say it - you must also show it. Every day.

When it snows, do you clean off her car? On cold mornings, do you go out and warm the car for her? And if she works and helps provide for the family, do you do your honest share of the housework?

When was the last time you brought home flowers for no reason other than to show your appreciation? And have you EVER sent her a love letter through the mail since the day you said "I Do"? Or even a romantic card once in awhile?

And when was the last time you hugged her and said, "I'm taking you out to dinner because I appreciate all that you do that makes my life worth living"? It's not enough, guys, to just take her out to dinner. You need to TELL her that it is for HER, and that you appreciate her. It's all about confirmation.

Marriages get in trouble when the parties stop showing the love, appreciation and romance that was an integral part of falling in love in the first place. More marriages end because someone feels they are being taken for granted than for any infidelity. It is difficult to be unfaithful to someone you love, respect and appreciate. And showing those to her will also strengthen them in yourself.

Now, stop reading this, pull away from the computer, go find your other (and probably better) half and give them a meaningful kiss, and tell them you love them, and then find some one to show it's not just talk.

Merry Christmas, All

/

Sensenbrenner Takes Heat For Michele Obama Comment

Congressman Sensenbrenner is taking heat from the far-left whackos for telling the truth. In a PRIVATE phone call that some busy-body was eavesdropping on, Sensenbrenner said, "She lectures us on eating right while she has a large posterior herself."

As everyone knows, the statement is 100% true - she does lecture the rest of us while she, herself, does seem to have an oversized rear.

But the left finds the truth to be offensive. Go figure! At least Sensenbrenner did not make the comment publicly in an attempt to smear the First Lady. But the lefty who was eavesdropping DID make it public. So, which one is the louse?

As an after-thought I am reminded of Chef Paula Deen's comments about the First Lady's eating habits during breaks in the show - according to Deen, Mrs Obama pigged out, and even mentioned that the favorite food at the White House was Hot Wings.

Not exactly what she prescribes for us peons.

/

What Tebow Knows That His Critics Do Not...

When I was a child, and just before my mother passed away, she was adamant that I learn the Beatitudes from the Bible. She made me memorize them, and tested me often. And now, when I see Tebow on bended knee and hear his ignorant critics I am reminded of the last of the Beatitudes:

‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. ‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:10-12

'Nuff said.

/

How To Elect People Who nWill Turn This Country Around

There are so many choices, and so little information to go on in this election. We all know that politiciand will promise anything. So, how do we know who to vote for if we want to turn America's ship around, and heading in the right direction?

First and foremost, listen to the pundits on TV and in Washington - listen closely to see who they oppose. Find out who they hate. That will show you who they fear.

Second - VOTE for those people, because if the establishment politicians and pundits are routing FOR someone, rest assured that someone will be just like them, and nothing will change.

Want change? Vote for the people other politicians and media pundits can't stand. People like Newt Gingrich, or Tea Party candidates.

After all, if the Devil says he hates someone, isn't that a strong indication that the person is good?

/

A Novel Approach To Cutting Medical Costs...

Most people fully realize that "ObamaCare" will not reduce medical costs - in fact, will actually increase them. But there are ways to cut the costs, whether or not ObamaCare remains.

Of course, there are the well known points, such as tort reform, which reduces costs to doctors and hospitals, so the consumer saves. And being able to shop for insurance from other states increases competition, thereby reducing costs. But there is still something else we should look at.

Considering that medicine is a necessity and not a luxury, and eventually needed by all, to some extent, it should be a "public service", not unlike a minister or Rabbi. So I make the following proposal...

We, the People, via our government should offer medical college for free to all who aspire to become physicians, provided they a) can show the ability i.e. good grades etc., and b) formally agree to use their medical education for the good of the people for a minimum of 20 years. In addition, upon becoming a physician, We, the People would provide them with free housing, food, transportation and a cash stipend, which provides for their full needs. They would also be guaranteed a nice pension. Everything they require, paid for by the taxpayer.

In exchange, doctors would treat everyone for free, just as a minister does.

This is not unlike how we fund our military - they get free training, housing, food, medical care and a stipend.

Certainly, being a doctor would no longer insure a fat income, but it would provide a very good living without any of the associated hassles or costs of paying a half million in student loans, or thousands in medical malpractice insurance.

In fact, we would be more likely to get better doctors, and more of them. Under the current system, the cost of the education prevents most people from even attempting to become a doctor. Think of it - with the education provided for free, anyone with the capacity to be a doctor could become a doctor. No more shortage of M.D.'s.

Think about it - with something as necessary as medicine, doesn't it make sense for the community (We, the People) to make the provision to provide adequate help for ourselves?

/

The Real Threat Behind China's New Carrier...

Satellite photos have shown a huge aircraft carrier launched by China. It's their first. And a carrier has only one purpose - war!

That said, you should understand that we Americans paid for it, and are paying for all of China's growing military machine. We pay for the very military might that may someday be used against us, because we cannot resist saving a buck by buying Chinese goods instead of Made In The USA stuff.

Every time you buy something made in China (or anythying sold by WalMart), you help China build their military might.

And China is NOT our ally.

'Nuff said.

/

Gingrich Has Sometimes Worked With Liberals - Why? Find Out Here...

Everyone says how smart Newt Gingrich is, yet they condemn him and call him dumb, or "zany" (Romney's term) because he has been known to break bread and negotiate with liberals, and give in to some liberal causes. These people (mostly pundits and politicians, because we, the People know better) seem to think this means Newt is liberal.

No - it simply means he is smart enough to get a job done.

Newt understands the first principle of negotiating - always be willing to ngive up nickles for dimes.

As a real estate investor, I teach people to always put "nickles" in their purchase offer - things they are willing to give up in order to get something better. For example, if I want a seller to pay half my closing costs (usually worth about $4000) I will offer about $10,000 less than I am willing to pay. If the seller balks at paying half the closing costs, I then offer to "increase" my purchase offer by $5000 if he pays the $4000 in costs. If he still balks, I offer up to the $10,000.
Note that I was planning to pay that amount, anyway, so when the seller agress, I come out way ahead.

I use the same technique to get free stuff, from shoe polish to lawn tractors.
That is the art of negotiating, and Newt is VERY good at it. And that is why he would make an excellent president - he can get in and negotiate with a divided Congress and get what we, the People need, because he can negotiate better than any of those clowns.

Sure, he will "give in" to minor agenda items of the libs. But do not doubt that for every nickle Newt gives up, he will get us at least a dime.

If you want a president that can get the job done, then elect someone who knows how to negotiate. Obama knows nothing about negotiating - he simply tries to use force and threats. And while that may work in the Chicago mob, that will not work in Washington for very long.

/

Holder and Democrats Oppose Voter ID (natch)...

Eric Holder is preparing to sue more states (he is already suing more than any other 15 past AG's). They claim that poor minority people would be disenfranchised because they can't get a photo ID, so he is getting ready to hit the states that have passed Voter ID laws.

Here's a question for that corrupt moron and his minions - WHY can't they get a photo ID? They are easy to get.

More to the point, they all HAVE photo ID's - almost every one of those "poor minority people" collect public assistance, and/or smoke, and/or drink, and/or drive. And a photo ID is required for any of those things.

The odds of finding ANY minority person who does not collect any welfare, OR smoke, OR drink, OR drive is probably just south of zero.

Let's not kid ourselves - everyone with an I.Q. that is at least 2 digits knows exactly why Democrats do not want Voter ID laws - can you spell ACORN? Accounts of voter fraud have increased exponentially over the last three elections, and every case involved Democrats. If no photo ID is required, ANYONE could vote - even that guy who just snuck across the border last night. And that is what the Democrats want, because those are exactly the kind of people who would vote for the party of entitlements.

/

A Fan Of Ann Coulter's Books - But This Time She Is WAY Off...

Anne Coulter, often referred to as a far-right bomb-thrower, writes some of the funniest, yet pointed political books on the market. I gotta read every one. But lately she has been deluded.

Earlier this year, she raved about Chris Christie and sorely wanted him as the Republican candidate for President. She loves his candor and tough style - so do I. But she seemed to overlook that Christie is not all that conservative - and Coulter is very much so. She was blinded by his nerve and verve.

When Christie declined, Coulter is now strongly supporting Mitt Romney - yet another phony conservative. She says he's perfect because he is easily electable, as he was elected governor in the bluest state. But what she fails to understand is just how and why he was able to win in a blue state - he simply is not very conservative. He's democrat lite. HINT: A conservative cannot win as dogcatcher in Massachusetts.

Coulter is a strong conservative, but it appears she is easily fooled by charisma. Either that, or like establishment GOP in Washington (and the pundits) she has fallen victim to the belief that in order to win, republicans need to be "moderate".

And that is bull. McCain was moderate, and he lost badly. Reagan was not moderate and he won in a 49 state landslide. No, we do not need to run another Democrat-Lite, moderate RiNO. We need to run a true conservative - and no one who was ever governor of a very blue state (like Christie and Romney) can ever lay claim to being conservative.

Ann, I love ya, but you have been duped.

/

AOL/HuffPost Gets Funnier - And More Dishonest - By The Day...

OK, so the Republican house passed the payroll tax bill tonight. (SIDE NOTE: The Republican House has passed 23 bills that the Democrat Senate won't even bring to a vote, even though the Democrat Senate has passed almost NO bills at all they haven't even passed a budget in the three years the Dems have held the Senate).

So here's the headline at AOL/HuffPost:

"House Passes Payroll Tax Bill Packed With Poison Pills "

So, what do they consider "poison pills?" You ge the judge...

1) The plan would pay for the one-year, 2 percent payroll tax cut by means-testing Medicare so that recipients making $85,000 and above have to pay higher premiums. Considering the Democrats keep whining that people doing well should pay more, they somehow think this is a poison pill.

2) Another $62 billion would come from freezing federal pay for a year and making federal retirees pay more for health care. Even though the iconic president of the AFL-CIO and FDR - two liberal icons -  said public employees should not be allowed to "collectively bargain" because their compensation comes from taxpayers, the Democrats think it is a poison pill for public employees who already get more pay and benefits than everyone else should be required to pony up a bit more. Fed employees typically earn 30% more than their private counterparts. So why shouldn't their wages be frozen? And why shouldn't they contribute almost as much to their health care as you and I?

3) It circumvents an environmental review of the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline. Actually, the pipeline has been heavily reviewed by several agencies for three years, and there is nothing more to "review". The only reason Democrats want more "review" is so they can postpone a decision until AFTER the election. Strictly political. As a side note - the pipeline is estimated to immediately create 20,000 jobs. Last I heard, that was SUPPOSED to be a priority - and it is what the vast majority of Americans want. Still, Democrats call it a poison pill. Especially - and this is important - since the bill does NOT ask Obama to OK the pipeline. It only says that he must make a choice, yes or no. What's wrong with asking the president to make a decidsion? Isn't that waht leadership is all about? Apparently AOL/HuffPost and other liberals don't believe in leadership - just vote "present", as Obama did 90% of the time in as a Senator, so he could not be held responsible for anything.

4) Reduce emergency unemployment benefits from 73 weeks to 33 weeks. Frankly, most Americans (except the lazy) do not believe in LONG extensions for unemployment, because things can change. It is best to increase benefits about 6 months at a time, so Congress can review the need.

5)  Allow states to force the jobless to prove they're not on drugs in order to get unemployment benefits. How is this a poison pill, exactly? Do Democrats really believe that taxpayers want their taxes to be used by drug addicts to get high? This is a perfectly legitimate requirement for taking taxpayer money. After all, a corporation can require drug testing before an employee can take THEIR money - and so do most government agencies.

So, AOL/HuffPost and far left lunatics think the above (5) parts of the bill are "poison pills" because the far-left lunatics do not care about the financial health of America or its citizens. The do not care that 20,000 will not get good middle-class jobs with Keystone, as long as Obama can postpone a decision until 2013, so as not to anger any of his base voters. You see, his base consists of LABOR, which is FOR the pipeline, and ENVIRONMENTALISTS who are OPPOSED to the pipeline. For him to make any decision before the election will alienate some of his base. Purely political. Meanwhile, no jobs for Americans, and no increase in the availability of domestic oil.

This only goes to prove why we have to toss the far-left liberals out of Washington. Sure, let's keep the honest Democrats, like Mansion of WV. But the liberals like Reid who have hijacked JFK's Democrat party should be kicked to the curb. Until we do that, Congress will be deadlocked and America will continue to careen out of control without a driver.

/

Yes, The Founding Fathers Warned Of The Threat From Shariah Law...

Most people believe that any threat from Shariah Law is either a recent thing, or the threat is minor. What they are not aware of is that Shariah Law caused serious concern to our Founding Fathers.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England met with the Islamic potentates of Tripoli regarding demands being made by "Barbary pirates". Afterward, they presented a report to Congress which read in part:

"We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury. The Islamic ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their (Muslim) authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise."

Yep - that sure enough sounds like a religion of peace, as liberals like to tell it. If you are not Muslim, you must either be converted, enslaved or killed. No exceptions. That's their Law. Shariah Law. No, not just the "extremists" - that is what Shariah says, and all muslims are supposed to ascribe to.

In a 136 page of essays by our 6th president, John Quincy Adams, he writes, "[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as part of his religion, against all the rest of Mankind...The precept of the Quran is perpetual war against all who deny that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God (Allah). No state paper from a Christian hand could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation  of his discourse."

In other words, no Christian could ever proclaim a hatred of any group of people, but Islamists make it the very foundation of their beliefs. In fact, here it is, direct from the Qur'an (Q 9:5):

"Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war. But if they repent [convert], and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them; for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (but only to those who convert).

And Q 9:29 states, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle {Muhammed], nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the people of the Book (the Bible, meaning Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya (tax on non-Muslims) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

So, to the liberal, uneducated elitists who say Shariah and the Constitution are somehow compatible, Sharia is actually in perfect, diametrical opposition to our Constitution.

/

Liberal AOL/HuffPost Smearing Christianity - Again...

Today's top headline on AOL: "Home Invasion Leads Police To Christian Paramilitary 'Savior Unit' "

However, nowhere in the story does it say the people involved are Christians. It only says that they are "trained in religion."

The "Savior Unit" does train in religion, but not Christianity. Christianity follows the teachings of Christ - the New Testament. The Savior Unit concentrates on the Old Testament, which is pre-Christ, and therefore not especially Christian.

But the greater point is that a person or group can CALL themselves whatever they wish - that does not make it so. I can call myself the Imperial Potus Of The Patriarchal Planet Of Xenos - but that does not make it so.

Christianity is not a "label" that can be applied to a person simply by going to church or reading Scriptures. Christianity is a lifestyle - the actual following (or sincere attempt at following) the word of Christ. Anyone who does not follow Christ and His teachings is not a Christian. Period!

If Charles Manson had been a Catholic churchgoer, he still would not be a Christian because he did not act or live like a Christian. And if a church preaches hate and bigotry as the Reverend Wright church has always done, that does not make Wright - or his followers - Christians.

So, even if the "Savior Unit" were to call themselves Christian, that does not make them Christian. Ergo, AOL?HuffPost is again being deceitful and dishonest in their reporting in an attempt to minimalize Christianity in America so the far-left loons can push their crazy agenda on the rest of us.

/

Liberal Playwright Calls Palin A "Witless Bully", But It Seems HE is...

Aaron Sorkin's recent attack on Sarah Palin, calling her a "witless bully" once again shows that he, not Palin is the witless one. And a bully.

After successfully shooting a caribou, Palin said, "I feel a lot better now." Sorkin wrote, "Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral  problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them."

In other words, it's OK to eat meat and use leather, but it's not OK for anyone to kill the animals from whence they come. That is as hypocritical - and as weak - as it gets.

I certainly hope I am not the only one to see that Sorkin and his ilk are completely witless in that they want to eat meat, but they don't want that meat to come from a dead animal. Frankly, I know of no other source. As for his assinine claim that the animal was tortured, it was not. It was a quick, clean kill, unlike the animals that are raised, mistreated and then slaughtered without any chance of escape - you know, the animals that Sorkin and his friends buy at the supermarket and is OK with. So, if anyone is responsible for the torture of meat animals, it is Sorkin, not Palin.

So it would appear that Sorkin's issue is not really that Palin killed a caribou. His issue is simply that he does not like the fact that Palin is more of a man than he is; that he is eager to eat meat only if his squimish little tummy does not have to turn over knowing that it did not really come from a package at the grocery store, but that it actually came from a dead animal.

Sorkin's problem is not that Palin killed a caribou. His problem is that he cannot. In the real world where it is still survival of the fittest, Palin would survive and Sorkin would perish. THAT is Sorkin's problem. In a world of predators and prey, Sorkin is the prey, and that offends him.

As it should.

/

Yahoo! Starting To Sound Like AOL...

Like AOL/Huffington Post, Yahoo! has always has a liberal bias. But normally they at least try to keep it from being too obvious. That may be coming to an end as Yahoo! is beginning to remove the veil and show its bias.

From a Yahoo! "news blog" this morning they make the claim that Newt Gingrich wants to change the mission of the Federal Reserve by removing their mandate to increase employment. They also claim in the same story that Gingrich wants to  give wealthy financial industry tycoons like Warren Buffett a big tax cut.

On the surface, and in their reporting, these claims appear valid.

Except...

Until 1975, the only lawful mission of the FED was to control inflation. In '75 a Democrat congress expanded that mandate to include increasing employment.  While that sounds good, it is not. The two are not compatible. No one can serve two masters and do a good job of both.

Gingrich wants the Fed to focus on inflation, as was their task since 1913. He understands that "money maneuvering" is not the way to increase employment, at least not in any permanent or meaningful way. This has been proved by the Fed's succession of "quantitative easing" programs aimed at spurring growth and jobs. Those measures haven't produced a strong and sustained recovery, yet it has cost our nation dearly. And in printing all that money, they set the stage for inflation - violating their first and most important mandate. As Gingrich states on his website, "The same policies that the Fed uses to try to force job and economic growth are also the mechanisms that most dangerously weaken the value of the dollar by promoting inflation..."

Yes, we want higher employment. But the task of achieving that should never be in the hands of the Fed.

As for giving big tax cuts to Buffett and his ilk, only fools fall for that line. Buffet does not pay taxes. No matter how high you tax the wealthiest folks, they will not pay those taxes. They do not have to. There are loopholes, and shelters. For example, Buffett only pays himself $1 a year. So go ahead, liberals, increase his tax from 35 cents to 50 cents. Do you really think he will mind?

Furthermore - and I have proved this many times over the years - only the poorest Americans pay taxes. That's because they are in no position to "pass them down the line" because there is no one below them.

When you increase the taxes for Bill Gates, he simply raises the cost of Windows products, and thereby has the consumer pay his taxes for him.

By increasing the tax on the wealthy, the only ones who pay the price are consumers - and usually the poorest ones. And when consumer prices increase because of higher taxes on the wealthy, consumers have less to spend, resulting in reduced demand. Reduced demand results in manufacturing cut-backs, which ultimately results in lay-offs and higher unemployment.

Hence, increasing taxes on the rich only results in higher prices, lower demand and higher unemployment. That has been proved over and over in the last several decades since Woodrow Wilson and the Democrat Congress illegally created the FED in 1913, and later when the government changed the Constitution to allow "progressive" taxation.

So, Gingrich is correct - the Fed needs to get out of the business of creating employment because they cannot do it. And taxing the rich will hurt the economy, not help it.

Obama and the Democrats keep saying Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize winning "trickle down theory" does not work. But it was used by Reagan and the American economy boomed for 20 years. The Dems say, "Yeah, but it finally burst." Yes, it did burst - but only because Dems again took the helm, passed overly-burdensome regulation, failed to reign in Fannie Mae (which Dems created), and the huge "dot-com" bubble burst and THAT is what caused the economic failure.

Free markets for the first 170 years of our nation, with limited regulations from the government is what built America into the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth, in record time. To say free markets do not work because government regulations strangled those markets is an absurd idea.

You live, you prosper, you grow. But if someone puts a noose around your neck and tightens it, or ties your hands and feet to restrict your free movement, you will wither and die.

And so will business, our economy and our nation.

/

Dems Say Obama Should Win Because He Is A Good Family Man...

As I listen to the pundits who say Obama (or even Romney) should easily beat Gingrich because Obama is a good family man, all I can say is, "So what?"

I agree he is a apparently a good husband and father. So was Ozzie Nelson. Or even Ozzie Osbourne. But I wouldn't want them leading our country!

What we need is a strong leader, even if he is not a perfect family man. And I trust the American people will realize that when they enter the polling booth.

/

I Have Solved The Global Warming Problem...

The United Nations would like for us to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by at least 30 billion pounds per year.


Liberals are actively seeking to have us accomplish this.

The average person exhales about 1000 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.

So, if we eliminate 30 million people, we can achieve that goal.

According to polls, there are roughly 30 million liberals in America.

Since liberals are the ones who want to reduce the CO2, if they drop dead - Voila! We're there.
 
/

Has Anyone Seen My Country? (more...)

Has Anyone Seen My Country?

When I was a young lad, Americans were proud to proclaim their self-reliance. Independence and self-sufficiency was a thing to be proud of. I had to build my first bicycle from random parts from around town. I had to barter, trade, and even work to get what I wanted.

When Dad needed to build a new addition because of yet another brother coming into the world. he simply built it. No permission or permits were necessary.

There were no mandatory laws that forced people to be safe - if we wanted to risk ourselves, being a free people we could do so. There were no laws to determine what we ate, nor regulations on how high the grass in our lawns could grow.

In the first 150 years, Americans were actually FREE. And it was that freedom and the strength it nurtures that made this the greatest, strongest, wealthiest nation the Earth has ever known.

But that is all gone. No longer are Americans free to be strong, self-reliant and independent. Where once those traits were considered good, we are now penalized for them, as a liberal "progressivism" started by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and pushed by FDR, LBJ and now Obama are making this a country where the weak are in charge. Those who are self-reliant and play by the rules are forced to pay the way of those who are weak, lazy and unwilling to play by the rules.

That which made America strong and great is now outlawed, and the very traits that are destroying the European nations are being adopted here.

It reminds me of the weak little geek who, in school, never had a hot muscle car or a hot girlfriend, and hated the people who did. And now those geeks have taken control, and are punishing those with the muscle cars and pretty women, and are passing regulations and laws that make muscle cars obsolete.

Our nation, once built by the strong to protect the weak is now a nation being run by the weak that we protected. And from their envy and jealousy they are now penalizing the strong for being strong.

When America was born, the People were king, and the government served us. We were free to grow, expand, build, innovate. Now the government is our tyrant, and we are forced to serve it. No longer are we permitted to grow, individually. Only collectively. And that, my friend, whether you like it or not is the very basis of communism.

Where once we were like the crew of the Starship Enterprise, we are, unfortunately, being forced to become more like the Borg collective.

Has anyone seen my country lately?

/

Does This Happen To Anyone Else?...Please Read

When I was 4 years old my mother gave me a 78 record of "Blow The Man Down", followed by "The Ballad of Davey Crockett". That was my introduction to music. It's also as far back as my memory takes me. And ever since that day, I cannot recall a time when there was not music in my head. Let me explain (if I can)...

Every time I awaken, there is already a song going through my mind, as though it had been playing all night as I slept. And every day it's a different song. This morning it was "Heart of My Heart" from the '40's I think. Yesterday it was "Joy To The World" by Three Dog Night - in the '70's. Every morning, without fail, a song is already playing like a radio that is permanently on, with no commercial interruptions.

And the music continues throughout the day, changing songs every now and again. The only time the music stops is when my mind is working on something. But when idle - music. Constant music. Thousands of different songs, spanning centuries (I sometimes "channel" Pachebel or Strauss).

I cannot stop it. As a child in school my teacher complained to my parents that I was constantly humming. I was not aware I was doing so.

I do not know where the music comes from, or why it afflicts me so. And I am curious to find out if anyone else "suffers" from this. Not that it is suffering - I love music. But after 60 years of it, it can get frustrating when you cannot shut it off.

Naturally, I grew up wanting to be a singer - the next Elvis or Dion. And while I can carry a note pretty well, and even sang in a band for a few years, I was no Elvis.

I could understand being constantly plagued by music in my mind if I were destined to be a great singer or musician. But that was not my calling. So I just do not understand it.

But I would like to hear from others (if there are any) who suffer from similar symptoms, even if it is not music. Perhaps your mind plays with math all the time.

So, if you can relate, please post a comment below.

/

Why Our Eyes Face Forward...

No, this is not a joke. In the animal kingdom (yes, Man is an animal), some critters have eyes on the sides of their head (horse, cow, rabbit etc.) and others have eyes on the front (man, owls, canines, cats etc.) But do you know why a creature has one and not the other?

If you look at the ones whose eyes are on the sides of the face you might notice that they are all herbivores, otherwise known as "prey". Having eyes on the side allows them to view much more of the environment, looking out for predators. It gives them a better chance at survival.

Carnivores and omnivores have eyes in the front because it provides depth perception necessary for hunting, and attacking. It's difficult to jump on prey if you can't judge its distance from you.

Just one more piece of proof that in nature, Man was intended to hunt and eat meat to at least some extent. It helps prove that vegetarianism is probably not the best way to go. We need to be what we were created to be - hunters.

Take that, PETA.

/

Why "Political Correctness" Is Morally Wrong...

Political correctness was started by liberals for the express purpose of changing the conversation by changing the language. This accomplishes two liberal goals - it prevents the truth from being told, and it gives liberals a way to relieve themselves of any guilt.

Let's look at fat people. Liberals decided it was "kinder" and "more sensitive" to call fat people "weight challenged." Truth is, it is less kind and less sensitive. Think about it - if you call fatso "weight challenged" do you really think he does not know you are calling him fat, but hiding it in nice words so you don't have the guilt associated with calling him fat? He knows! And it insults him even more than if you had been up front and called him fat.

Political correctness is like shooting at people while you hide in the bushes.

Liberals are always looking for ways to escape responsibility, and do whatever they want without guilt. That is why liberals strongly support abortion - the politically correct word is "choice". They conveniently overlook the fact that it has nothing to do with choice, since the choices were already made - the choice to sleep with someone. The choice of not employing protection. So, abortion is nothing more than escaping the responsibility for choices already made. And again, political correct verbiage colors the issue - it is simply "choice" and no one can argue that people deserve a choice! It changes the language to change the conversation.

It is politically correct to not allow Christians to employ any public displays, in spite of the 1st Amendment which clearly states we all have the right to practice our religions without government intervention or restriction. Liberals are using PC to weaken the power that Christianity holds, because it is Christianity that provides a moral fabric - one that many committed liberals want nothing to do with. As long as Christianity has a hold on America, drugs will never be legalized. Man-Boy Love will never be legalized. All the sins will become OK once Christianity is gone, which relieves them of guilt.

Christianity requires personal responsibility, and lays guilt upon those who do wrong. Most liberals want nothing to do with personal responsibility or guilt. That is why they use PC to weaken Christianity's hold on America.

Political correctness keeps people from telling the truth. Mitt Romney wants to use PC to make sure he does not offend the Palestinians. Newt Gingrich says "to Hell with PC - let's tell the world that Palestinians are terrorists and an invented people (which they are, in fact). But all the establishment GOP, the liberals and the media think Gingrich said a bad thing - they have all been conned by liberals into believing PC is good, truth bad.

Reagan believed PC was wrong, truth good. Against all advice from all sides, he called Russia an "evil empire" and told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". Had he chosen the PC manners of Romney or any of the others, the wall would still be standing.

Political correctness is a sign of weakness and always morally wrong. Always. Because it is diametrically opposed to MORAL correctness.

/

A Valid Question For Anyone Who Supports The "Occupy" Protesters...

Here is the real question that I would ask of any "Occupy Wall Street" supporter, who believe some people have too much wealth.

Let's say a person builds a certain item. It costs him $95 to manufacture, market and ship the item. Do you believe it is too much for him to ask and deserve a $5 profit for all his work and trouble?

Sane people would say a 5% profit is more than reasonable.

Now let's say his product is so useful and popular that he sells 10 million of those things (think Apple iPad). In the process, and directly because of his efforts and investment, he has to hire 1000 people to produce those items. Since his cost is $95 per unit, that means he is directly responsible for pumping $950 million into the economy for salaries, inventory, marketing, shipping etc. And he still gets $5 per unit. But that $5 per unit now comes to $50 million.

NOW you suddenly have a problem with him. But why? He has invested everything he has. He has worked hard. He has provided jobs for 1000 families. He pumps $950 million into the economy. And he is still only earning the same 5% he did in the beginning. Meanwhile, let us not forget that he has sold 10 million items - which means 10 million people now have a useful item they did not have before. All because of him. Thank GOD for him, and those like him!

And you begrudge him his profit!

And now for one last question - if we take away his right to earn that much, what are the odds he would have designed, built and marketed the first one? What are the odds he would have hired 1000 people, or pumped $950 million into the economy. If Steve Jobs could not hope to become wealthy, what are the odds we would have the iPad or iPhone today? I'll tell you the odds - about zero. No one will go to that much trouble, and risk their capital and sanity just to make a modest income that is no different from the income they could earn working in some factory.

If the world were to operate the way "Occupy" people and socialists want, the world simply would grind to a halt. It happened in the USSR. It is happening in the socialist nations of Europe as you read this.

One thing the "occupy" folks fail to acknowledge - it is "wealth" that is the incentive for progress, for innovation, for research and development. It is the promise of wealth that causes some to risk everything. Without that incentive, no one would put in the resources or effort. And there would be no iPads, smartphones or computers. There would never have been automobiles, airplanes or electric lights. All those things required risk, effort and capital. And no one would invest those things just to achieve a mediocre income. The short take -- If Bill is going to end up with everything that Joe has, why would Bill try harder. Why risk your capital, home, work, family etc. when you know that you will not get anything more for it - you will still have the same as Joe, the guy who is camping out in a park on Wall Street.

If the "occupy" bunch want to have what the so-called "1%" have, all they have to do is do what the 1%-ers have done. Risk everything you have, work a hundred ours a week, work harder and think smarter than most people, and drive yourselves nuts trying to beat your way to the top.

Anyone not willing to do that does not DESERVE to have what the 1%-ers have. And you won't get it by camping out in tents in a public park for months, making a mess, doing drugs and just complaining.

/

The Way Romney Spins, You'd Think He Was A Liberal. Examples...

I always suspected Mitt Romney was a liberal in disguise, having come from being governor of the bluest state. And now that he is resorting to spinning the truth out of shape just like liberals do, his colors are showing. Here are just two of the latest examples...

Newt Gingrich says he wants to find a way to legalize - without citizenship - those illegals who have been here a long, long time, have raised their families here and have been good neighbors. That represents maybe one million folks. But today Romney stated that Gingrich "wants to legalize all 11 million illegals." And that is obviously a blatant lie - er, spin.

Newt also stated clearly that he thought some teens from poorer families might benefit from being given jobs as school janitors, to develop a work ethic, and earn them some money. I, myself, was assistant school janitor when I was 14 and it helped pay my way into college.

But Romney stated that Gingrich "wants to violate child labor laws." Again, liberal spinmeister crap. It is perfectly legal for young teens to work, provided they have permission (work papers) to insure it will not interfere with family or school. Romney purposely - and deceitfully - wants people to think Gingrich wants to force child labor of little children.

Here is the summary, folks, as I see it --- if a candidate has to spin, or be deceitful in order to earn votes, that candidate should not be getting any votes at all - and certainly will not get mine. I'm tired of having a liar in the White House.

/

What The Pundits Just Don't Understand About Gingrich...

It seems none of the pundits are capable of understanding the rapid rise of Gingrich, and it leaves them all scratching their (empty) heads. So, for those that may get wind of this blog, I'll try to explain it in terms that even pundits can comprehend.

Congress has the lowest approval rating in history - BOTH parties. The People do not like the politicians in Congress.  That said, it is common knowledge that neither party in Congress has any love for Gingrich. That tells the People that maybe Gingrich is the man they are looking for. It's kinda like that old saw about "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The People dislike Congress. Congress dislikes Gingrich. Hence, Gingrich is the guy they need to beat Congress into line (because that is what it will take).

So, when either party of Washington insiders trashes Gingrich, it actually HELPS him

It shows that Gingrich, though he knows his way around D.C., is still an outsider, because he is an outsider politically.

And that is what the folks are looking for - an outsider who has been inside long enough to know how it works and can get in there and repair some of the damage.

The fact that he is also the only one who can out-debate Obama doesn't hurt, either.

/

Whose Awkward Moment Is This?..

Michele Bachmann was left speechless after an encounter with a young 8 year old activist named Elija.


"My mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing," Elijah said to Bachmann, after some coaxing from his mother.

Then HuffPost goes on to claim this was an "awkward moment" for Bachmann. If you ask me, it was Elijah's mom, exploiting her own child who was having an awkward moment. Joined by the awkward moment of HuffPost/AOL for slanting the story in such a biased way.
 
/

Unemployment Rate Drops To 8.6% - NOT! Here's the truth...

Today the administration pointed out that the unemployment rate in November dropped to 8.6%. But did it?

Until the 1970's, the government counted all unemployed people in their calculation to determine unemployment rate. But under Carter, when the unemployment rate got out of control, it was decided to only count those who were collecting unemployment benefits. If a person was unemployed but was no longer collecting, that person would not be counted.

And that is how things are done to this day.

So, when the government says the unemployment rate has gone down, it is more likely that it actually went up, as people fall off the "collecting" list.

Also, this is the season where businesses hire a lot of temp help for the holidays. Even though those jobs will end in a month or two, the government still counts them, which also fraudulently reduces the unemployment figures.

I'm afraid the unemployment rate as stated by the government is just meaningless BS designed to help politicians paint a rosier picture. The true unemployment rate today is estimated at over 17%.

/

Do We REALLY Need A Businessman As President? Think about this...

Mitt Romney, and most pundits, claim that Romney is the best GOP candidate because he is a businessman, and therefore knows how to create the jobs we need. But I have just one question...

How does a President, who does not have the authoritarian position of a CEO, go about creating jobs?

Look, businesses already know how to create jobs, and if the government will get out of their way, they will create all the jobs we need. We do not need a businessman President for that. What we need in a President is someone who knows enough about the lawmaking body to be able to direct Congress in getting out of the way of business.

No, we do not need a businessman in the Oval Office. We need a true conservative (which Romney is not) who will work with Congress to remove the government as an obstacle to businessmen who can and would create jobs.

Having looked over all the candidates carefully, only two stand out as persons who would reduce government interference - and knows HOW to do that - Gingrich and Santorum. Of the two, I believe only one has the legislative power and strength to succeed - Gingrich.

No, I do not like Newt's "smarter-than-thou" attitude. But I can put up with attitude if he will do what needs to be done! Besides, it is that very attitude that would benefit America in foreign affairs.

/

Tim Geithner & Ben Bernanke - Looting America...

Ben Bernanke (Fed chairman) and Tim Geithner (Treasury Secretary) gave banks a secret bailout of $7 TRILLION, without Congressional approval or oversight. And much of that money went to European banks, to help the European economy.

Those people should be arrested and imprisoned for life.

Think about this - if that money had been given to American citizens, each and every person - man, woman and child - would receive about $25,000. That's $100,000 for a family of four. Now think about that - they would spend that money. They would buy things - LOTS of things. And companies would have to hire millions of people in order to produce those "things". The GDP would go through the roof. And the debt would shrink.

But no! Those lying, theiving clowns with their liberal, socialist agenda preferred to redistribute America's wealth to the bankers, and to Europe. They want we, the taxpayers, to pay for the regrowth of Europe and other foreign nations, to "level the playing field". Which is liberal-speak for taking wealth away from America and giving it to some Third World country. Dragging America down while building others up.

The only way to level the playing field is if the rich nations become poorer. Is that really what we want for America? Do we really want to have less just so others can have more at our expense?

Socialist liberals say yes. I say "NO"!

/

Don't Listen To What They Say - Watch What They DO!...

It never ceases to amaze me that so many Republicans allow Democrats to lead them astray. I'm talking about those Republicans who BELIEVE Democrats when they say they would be happy to have Gingrich as the nominee because THEY think Romney would beat Obama.

BULL! They do not believe any such thing. One of the first tenets of the Democrat play book is to use reverse psychology. They know full well that if enough of them say Gingrich would be easy to beat, a lot of Republicans will think they are being sincere, and would then vote for Romney because they don't want to vote for someone who is supposedly easy to beat.

In other words, folks - the Democrats are deathly afraid of Gingrich and would rather run against Romney. They know Obama cannot stand against Gingrich in a debate. They know Obama would have a field day with all of Romney's flip-flops, and RomneyCare. And they have seen Romney get flustered more than once in the Republican debates.

And they saw Gingrich was solid, and had the right answers. They saw Gingrich will not allow the media or the Democrats to control the conversation. They saw he actually has solutions and that he is rising rapidly in the polls as people catch on to those solutions.

Yes, the Democrats know Gingrich can pummel Obama in the debates and election. So they try to convince Republicans to vote for Romney in the primaries. And they know the best way to do that is to convince Republicans that Romney would be the bigger threat.

I know - you say Gingrich has too much "baggage". But does he, really? Or is that another ploy to convince Repubs to abandon Gingrich?

Yes, Gingrich cheated on his wife 15 years ago and divorced her to marry his mistress. But most fair-minded people realize that WAS 15 years ago. Since then, Gingrich has matured, connected with a strong faith in God and has spent years seeking forgiveness. His actions of the last 15 years show that. And most people can forgive if a person is truly repentent.

And the money he got from Freddie Mac? He was a civilian at the time. Freddie Mac offered to pay him for consulting services. Most people understand that, when someone offers to pay you well for your services, it's fair to accept. Imagine if lawyers refused to represent the guilty! Their job is to represent the accused, regardless of guilt. It's the same here - Gingrich did not have to agree with Freddie Mac in order to provide services to them. And in no case was their any lobbying. They offered to pay for his services, and he accepted the job.

And his stance on immigration? Contrary to what some are wrongly saying, he is not proposing blanket amnesty, nor a path to citizenship. He has made that clear, but pundits who want Romney to win the primaries (both Dems and Repubs) are muddying up the water and trying to convince us that Gingrich wants amnesty and citizenship for illegals, which is blatantly false. He stated he wants a fence, wants the National Guard on the border and wants employers to be prosecuted for knowingly hiring illegals. But he also wants America to be compassionate when it comes to those who have been here a long time, whose kids are citizens and have been educated here. If they have a long history of being good people, the kind we want as neighbors and friends, then we should cut them some slack and make their residency legal - no, not citizenship, but a "guest worker" program. After all, Americans are generally fair, and it would be fair to treat good people with compassion. The rest would face deportation.

No, I don't think Gingrich has baggage that will do him any harm among the fair-minded, informed folks.

But I trust the Democrats will do their best to tear Gingrich down - and bear in mind, they only do that to people they view as a real threat to the liberal agenda.

When Democrats put more effort into tearing down Gingrich than Romney, THAT tells the real story. Don't listen to what they say - watch what they DO!

/

Is Gingrich Advocating Amnesty? Not Really - And Here's Why...

When most folks think "amnesty" they are thinking a "path to citizenship." But Newt Gingrinch specifically stated there would be no path to citizenship for those who came here illegally. However, if they have been here a long time, have kept their noses clean, raised a family etc., they would have the opportunity to be classed as legally here - a permanent visa, so to speak. But not citizenship.

In other words, it seems Newt took a page from my blog from last year. I had suggested that, since we cannot (and should not) deport all illegals as it could break up families, we should, instead, make the most of what we have - when life gives ya lemons, make lemonade.

So...

If a person has been here at least 5 years, has been employed and has not committed any crimes (other than illegally entering the country), we should offer that person a choice - if they eventually want citizenship, they must go home and return legally, as that is the ONLY path to citizenship. But if they can live without citizenship and want to stay to give a better future to their family without the benefits of citizenship, they can choose to stay on a permanent visa (which can be revoked for criminal acts). Anyone choosing the latter would never be permitted to apply for citizenship - they made their choices. Their children, however, if brought here as minors would be apply to apply for citizenship upon reaching maturity.

Anyone choosing the latter would receive a special I.D. that they can use to procure a driver's license, etc. However, EVERY piece of identification issued to a non-citizen would be visibly different from that of citizens - perhaps a special color. This would preclude them from being able to vote. Any non-citizen who is caught using any ID that is not so colored or easily defined would immediately lose their visa and be deported.

Non-citizens who desire a permanent visa must adhere to certain conditions - for example, they must remain employed, and not be involved in anything criminal.

I think this is pretty much what Gingrich is advocating. If someone is an honest, productive resident (though not a citizen), and they have been here a long time, raised a family and been a "good neighbor", why on Earth would we WANT to deport them?

That is what Gingrich said. And, frankly, as conservative as I am, I agree. I would also add that any illegal immigrant who volunteers for active duty and serves this country faithfully and well should be placed on a "short list" for a path to citizenship.

I'm just sayin'...

/

Why "Redistribution Of Wealth" Would Never Work...

The "Occupy Wall Street" protesters (and most liberals and Democrats) want "income equality" - a redistribution of wealth. What they apparently are not bright enough to comprehend is that it could never work.

For the sake of argument, let's say we redistribute all the wealth - everyone has the same amount of bucks. How long do you think it would be before the previously rich are rich once again, and the previously poor are poor once again?

The fact is, most of the poor and low income folks are in that predicament not because of a lack of money, but because of a lack of a) education, b) know-how, c) ambition, and d) desire.

The poor do not know how to make money or create wealth - they only know how to spend it. Give a broke, homeless guy $100 and odds are 99.9% that he will be broke within 2-3 days. He will spend the money, and that $100 will find its way into the hands of people who provide goods and services (the "rich").

What needs to be redistributed is not the wealth, but the ability to create it. If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime.

The Occupy bunch only want to be given a fish. They have no interest in earning it, nor in cultivating an ability to do so. They will simply eat the fish, throw the bones and leavings on the ground and extend their hand for yet another fish. Any seal can do that.

As Jesus illustrated in his parable of the talents, any person who does not use what he already has to increase his own wealth deserves no wealth.

/

Barney Frank Makes Outrageous Claim About Fannie Mae...

Senator Barney Frank today said that Republicans are responsible for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle - you know, the stuff that brought down the economy.

I think Mr. Frank needs his head examined - or at the very least, he needs a basic history lesson.

1) Fannie Mae was created by FDR (D) in 1938

2) LBJ (D) privatized Fannie Mae in 1968

3) Jimmy Carter (D) signed the Community Reinvestment Act which literally forced banks to make risky loans to people of limited means and poor credit. Of course, these loans were transferred to Fannie & Freddie

4) Bill Clinton (D) signed the Bliley Bill in 1998 which reinforced the Community Reinvestment Act by mandating that banks had to make at least 50% of all loans to low income/bad credit folks

5) Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D) were in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Just months before they went broke, Frank stated on the record that Fannie & Freddie were sound and not in need of the regulation proposed by Republicans.

If you are observant, you might have noticed that everything about Fannie & Freddie, from its inception until this very day, has been pushed by Democrats.

And true to the form of liberals who can't open their mouths without spinning, Frank says Republicans are responsible.

Hey, Massachussetts - when are you going to dump that stupid bum and elect a Senator worthy of representing you?

/

"Patriotic Millionaires" - NOT!

A group calling itself the Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength traveled to Capitol Hill during the week of Nov. 14 to ask Congress to raise their taxes.

Sounds patriotic, eh?

But when reporter Michelle Fields approached each with the IRS donation form, and asked them to make a donation to the I.R.S. so they could "lead by example", each and every one of those phony "patriotic millionaires" refused to pony up a dime. Not a one!

Here's the REAL story - each one of those phony hypocites knows that even if Congress raises taxes on the wealthy, THEY will still avoid taxes, as they usually do, because of all the loopholes. So, they don't want to pay Uncle Sam any more money, not by a long shot. What they DO want to do is push the socialist/progressive agenda that they all ascribe to.

Folks, it's not about taxes. It's about "fundamentally changing" America. And we can see what that is doing to us.

/

HuffPost/AOL Really Shows Its Far-Left Bias...

Today on HuffPost/AOL they ran a story about a young girl suspended from school for wearing a sweatshirt with the Confederate flag. At the end of the story, they had a ridiculously biased poll, as follows - see if you can find what is wrong with it:

"Is this a case of ignorance or a mother defending her daughter's racism under the guise of the first amendment?

1) Just a case of ignorance. But she needs brush up on her history


2) It's totally racist and the mother should know better."

If you noticed that choosing EITHER response results in making the mother out to be wrong, congrats. Basically, HuffPost, in their own ignorance and arrogance have already assumed that everyone believes the mother was wrong in allowing her daughter to wear the sweats. They seem to think that the only question to be resolved is whether or not the mother was either ignorant or racist.

Here's a clue for ya, HuffPost - maybe she is neither. Perhaps YOUR insistence that she is wrong makes YOU ignorant and/or racist.

While some uneducated, or otherwise thin-skinned people may believe that the Confederate flag is somehow "evil", most educated and more tolerant folks understand it is nothing more than a symbol of a part of our history. And history, if we do not wish to repeat it, must be remembered.

Frankly, I think it is incredibly ignorant to think that ANY symbol should be banned as being "evil". For example, there are many who believe the swastika should never again be represented because it is associated with Hitler. But most of those people are not aware that Hitler "stole" the symbol - before he (mis)used it, the swastika was a symbol of good fortune in several cultures for over a thousand years - even the Hopi Indians used that symbol as good luck. I used to have a pre-war American token that had the swastika, and in each "cup" was yet another good luck symbol - a 4 leaf clover, a horseshoe, a wishbone and one other I do not recall. The theory behind it was that no matter which way it turned, the good fortune would never pour out.

So, if the swastika is evil because Hitler used it, by the same token it is good because the Hopi's and others used it.

The point is - it's ONLY A SYMBOL. The ONLY meaning any symbol has is the meaning each of us gives to it. And if you allow ANY symbol to have that kind of power over you, you may as well roll over and croak, because you have no control over your own life.

What if, in the future, some evil despot such as Hitler were to adopt the cross as his symbol. Should we then ban it from ever being represented again, simply because some idiot misused it? Lest we forget - there are already those who truly believe the Cross is a symbol of evil and ignorance, and should be banned. Bill Maher comes to mind. What do you suppose would happen if someday the majority of folks begin to think like Maher? You guessed it - the cross would be banned.
Ironic how many people who think it stupid to believe in an unseen God do not think it stupid to believe a symbol has power.

But I digress. The real tragedy here is that there are people like those at the Huffington Post who actually believe their own crap, and think that it is somehow "racist" to wear a flag - any flag.
Just for the record, HuffPost - slavery was not the only issue behind the attempted secession of the south. It was much more complicated than that and had been brewing for decades. But then, I don't expect you to know that - or even care. After all, you have an agenda to push.

/

The Super Committee Farce

Here's a little tidbit that most Americans do not know - if Congress does NOTHING at all on the debt, it will automatically grow by another $9 trillion in the next 10 years. That is the level of growth.

Now, the Super Committee is trying (?) to find ways to "cut" $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, even if they succeed, the debt will still GROW by another $8 trillion.

Um -- hey Congress, that is not "cutting spending". That's cutting GROWTH of spending.

In order to cut spending by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, we actually have to cut $9 trillion - in other words, we have to freeze growth for 10 years so nothing more is added to the debt, PLUS cut $1.2 trillion.

Unless we do that, we are doing nothing.

To put this in lay terms, it's like going on a diet. If you are consistently increasing your caloric intake by a 100,000 calories a year, you will gain about 50 pounds. If you then promise to "cut" your intake by by 10,000 calories, you would STILL be increasing intake by 90,000, and would still pack on another 45 pounds.

If you want to actually LOSE weight, you have to give up the increases altogether, PLUS cut some calories.

Got it?

/

Please Remind Me Why We Need Unions?

Back at the turn of the 20th century, businesses would often take undue advantage of workers, offering low wages, no benefits and even the use of child labor. To protect themselves from such abuses, workers began to form unions. A good thing.

At first.

Today, unions have trespassed far beyond the bounds of preventing abuse of the worker, and is now guilty of abusing the businesses - and dues payers and tax payers.

Today, we have laws that prevent too-low wages. We have laws to prevent child labor. We have laws that, for all intents and purposes do what the unions were created to do. So, now that we have those laws protecting laborers and preventing abuse, exactly WHY do we still need unions, and why do we allow them to control us all, and steal our wealth?

Here is just one example: In Michigan the SEIU (union) pressured the Democratic legislature to pass a law that requires special needs kids to pay union dues - to the tune of $6 million a year. The state checks issued to special needs families to help support special needs kids are being automatically deducted of union dues. Why? What benefit is the union providing to these kids? And why should anyone too young to even work be required to pay union dues?

$6,000,000 that was supposed to help special needs kids is ending up in union coffers each year. And that is only one, small example of union abuse in just one state!

If there is a legitimate need for unions today, I fail to see what it is. They have become highwaymen, robbing everyone - businesses, taxpayers and dues payers alike - to fulfill their own agenda of stuffing themselves with our money while turning America into a socialist state.

It is time to break up and ban ALL unions. If workers need protection, that is the job of Congress to provide those protections, as they have done.

/

Do Nothing Congress? Really? An Honest Look...

President Obama and the Democrats are campaigning heavily on the "do nothing Congress" platform. The liberal media (which is 87% of all media) are playing the same tune, trying to convince the public that the President is doing all the right things, but "Congress" won't do their part - mainly because of those darned Republicans who block everything.

But let's take an honest look for a change.

The Republican controlled house has passed 22 bills - including budgets and bills to help businesses create jobs - this year. Those bills have been sent to the Democrat controlled Senate. Where they sit, while the crickets chirp. Not one of those bills was even put to the floor for a vote. In fact, in the three plus years the Democrats have controlled the Senate, they have not even passed a single budget. Not one.

Meanwhile, the Republican controlled house keeps trying to get things done. And all the while the Democrats in the Senate, led by Sir Harry Reid, sit on their thumbs, making believe that they are seriously trying to get things done.

So the fact is, we do not have a "do nothing Congress". What we have is a "do nothing Senate". We should not be blaming everyone for the refusal of the few to let things get done. And we certainly should not let the President, the Democrats or the media to lie to us about who is responsible for the gridlock.

The Republicans are passing bills. The Democrats are not. And that is a fact you will never hear in the "mainstream media". Go to the Congressional Record and see for yourself.

If we, the people want our government to get back to work and do the right thing by us, what we really need to do is replace those who are responsible for inaction - the Democrat Senate and the President. And if you REALLY want more honesty being reported so you actually have the facts, each of us should boycott EVERY branch of the mainstream media. Don't by the liberal newspapers, or watch the liberal news stations. Do that, and they will be forced to become more honest and objective, or go bankrupt. Then, and only then will Americans be able to make the best decisions, because then the decisions will be based on truth, and not political spin.

/

A Timely Message That Bears Repeating --- Often...

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina).. Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'YE SHALL REAP WHAT YE SOWETH.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussionof God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks

If you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
/

A New Huffington Post/AOL Lie Exposed...

Today the HuffPost ran a story with the headline, "New Witness In Cain Controversy." However, the "witness" is not even close to having witnessed anything at all. In fact, the story later states, "Later that year, Zuckerman said, Bialek told him that Cain inappropriately touched her when, at Zuckerman's suggestion, she met him in Washington to seek employment help."

So, HuffPost, along with the ambulance-chasing Gloria Allred both seem to think that someone who was not there, and could not have witnessed anything, is somehow a "witness".

Here is the real truth behind this liberal attempt to smear a conservative - Allred knows the accusation is phony, but does not care. She only wants to discredit someone that liberals view as a threat - just as she did with Meg Whitman. By bringing this non-witness out, she is merely attempting to drag this non-story out for as long as she can, knowing that, eventually, if she drips and drabs it, people will begin to believe it.

The longer she can keep it - and herself - in the news, the better she likes it.

/

Is Mitt Romney The John McCain of 2012?...

Every day I hear Democrat pundits and strategists telling everyone that Romney would be the Republicans' best bet to beat Obama. In fact, they push it to the extreme, and belittle every other Republican candidate. It's as if the are actually rooting for Romney to win the Republican primary.

They are.

The Democrats fully understand that Obama would easily beat Romney in the general election, regardless of what the polls say, because Obama would tear Romney apart in debates. He would thank Romney for helping design ObamaCare. He would point out that Romney was pro-choice until he decided he could win votes by becoming pro-life. And it has not escaped Obama's attention that no matter what has transpired, Romney's poll numbers have never varied from the low to mid 20's. No matter what. And that makes Romney the John McCain of 2012 - a far-too-moderate who cannot galvanize the conservatives. A RiNO (Republican in Name Only).

Remember - Romney was governor of the bluest of all states. A Republican doesn't get elected in Kennedy country unless he is Democrat lite, and willing to flip-flop at the toss of a voting lever.

The horror of it is that too many Republican pundits BELIEVE what the Democrat pundits are saying, and rally around Romney as though he were the second coming of Reagan. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hey Republicans, get your heads outta your butts and stop believing what the Democrat pundits are pushing. If Romney wins the primary, Obama will be president for 4 more years.

So, who should Republicans consider? Far be it from me to pick one out of the crowd. I just know who I think would be most apt to a) beat Obama in any and all debates, b) have solutions for fixing what's wrong, and c) has demonstrated enough leadership ability to make it happen. OK, so he has baggage from 15 years ago, but if he can mend this country, I really don't give a damn if he used to be a womanizer. Hell, if he'll fix things, I'd vote for Attilla the Hun. Time enough to seek out a "perfect" person after we get things back on track.

And, thankfully, recent polls indicate that more and more voters are starting to catch on. A year ago I wrote that it would be unwise to write Gingrich off. And last month when everyone was saying he was toast, I wrote that he was apt to be the "last man standing."

And he may well be. OK, so he's not perfect. But he has 10 times the chance of beating Obama than Romney has. And you know where he stands.

/

Proof That "Social Justice" Is A Threat To Us All...

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's "social justice" worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.


The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan"..

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A....
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they did not bother to study.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F, because no one studied.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward and incentive away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there is a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

Bank of America Has A New Way To Screw Unemployed...

Bank of America has yet another sneaky, insidious way to put the screws to people - this time, the unemployed.

You see, BofA has a contract with the government in many states, whereby a person's unemployment benefits are deposited into the bank, and the person gets a prepaid debit card.

And this is where it gets rotten...

To draw their own money out, an unemployed person must actually visit a BofA branch, or they can use an ATM.

And therein lies the problem - most small communities do not have a BofA branch, so the unemployed must use ATM's - and BofA charges a fee for using any non-BofA ATM.

If you are unemployed, live in a rural community that does not have a BofA branch or a BofA ATM, then you pay heavy fees to get your unemployment benefits.

Yes, the person could drive to a city that has BofA, but the gas for that would eat even more heavily into their already-too-small benefits.

For many years BofA, CitiBank and other large banking institutions have been mercilessly raping the public financially. And in this case, they are aided by the government, which awards these contracts.

When America was founded, banks were not even allowed to operate here. The founders knew they were dangerous to a person's wealth.

Pretty smart guys, those Founding Fathers.

/

Do we now have Obama's "civilian security force"?

On July 17, 2008, while campaigning, Mr. Obama stated that he intended to establish a "civilian national security force", a civilian army.

I look at the Occupy Wall Street mobs all over the country and the union mobs in Wisconsin, Ohio and Washington state and it appears he has done just that.

This is right out of Saul Alinski's book, and the writings of Karl Marx.

/

Where vegans are going wrong...

While I readily admit to being a "meat & potatoes" man, I do understand the health benefits of fruits and veggies, and I try to consume my share. But I have a real problem with vegetarians who seem to think everyone should adhere to THEIR diet. Mainly because "their" diet is unnatural. Here's why...

If we travel space, we will never find a planet similar to Earth where there is only vegetation and no animals. Vegetation breathes carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen. Without animals to produce carbon dioxide, eventually the plants would use up all CO2 and become extinct. Plants need animals as much as animals need plants.

So, imagine for a moment that you are the "intelligent design" behind all of this, here on Earth. What would you do to create a balance?

First, you would create plant life, without which a planet would remain forever barren. But unless you do something to prevent excessive proliferation, plants would, as described earlier, use up all the CO2 and die off. So, as a thinking person, you introduce herbivores - plant-eating animals. This not only prevents over-proliferation of plants, but the animals also convert oxygen to CO2, so the plants will have an endless supply. But now you have a new problem - unless you figure a way to prevent over-proliferation of herbivores, they will become so plentiful that they would consume all vegetation. Vegetation becomes extinct, and so do the herbivores that need vegeation for food.

What to do?

You introduce carnivores - meat eaters. Now you have plant life, in balance and under control; herbivores in balance and under control, and things are balancing. But what keeps carnivores under control? Frankly, it is availability of food.

If too many carnivores are born, they consume too many herbivores. As herbivores become less readily available, the carnivores start to die off from starvation. This creates the "cycle" often seen in nature - every few years there is an abundance of rabbits. This leads to an abundance of predators, which leads to a shortage of rabbits, which leads to a shortage of predators. The new shortgage of predators allows more rabbits to mature and reproduce, causing a new glut of rabbits, and the cycle goes on.

So, as intelligent designer, you would create plants, plant-eaters and meat eaters, to keep everything in balance.

Man, by design, is an omnivore - we are designed to eat both plants and animals. This is easy to see just by looking in the mirror and smiling. Nature gives each animal the teeth it needs for the diet it is supposed to have. Man has both kinds of teeth - molars, as well as canines. Mother Nature (or God) says we are supposed to consume a diet of both meat and vegeatables.

Vegetarians say we should eliminate meat from our diets. Assuming Mankind could do so and still achieve optimal health, what about the unintended consequences? If we no longer consume meat several really bad things would happen, some of which would cause our own extinction.

First, millions of people would loose their jobs - anyone who raises, processes or sells any meat items. Next, vegetables, themselves would suffer, as roughly 90% of real fertilizer would disappear - livestock currently produces the fertilizer necessary to grow vegeatables. No livestock means no fertilizer, which means no veggies.

And we also face the dilemma of a serious reduction of CO2. Livestock produces much of the CO2 that plants require in order to breathe. If plants start to die off due to a lack of CO2, WE start to die off, because it is those plants that produce the oxygen we need, as well as the food we require.

So, here is the short take why Man should consume both meat and plants - SURVIVAL. We cannot survive if nature loses its balance, which is what would happen if we stop consuming meat.

As a final note, it is precisely nature's well-thought-out balance that helps proves the existence of "intelligent design". Could a dummy figure all that out? If not, then what are the odds that it all happened by "chance"?

/

Gotta Give Huffington Post Credit - For Idiocy...

Earlier this week HuffPost/AOL ran a story that praised Nancy Pelosi for saying "Our unemployment rate is 9%, but if not for what Obama has done, it would be 15%."

And today they follow up with a story that says, "The jobs crisis has left so many people out of work for so long that most of America's unemployed are no longer receiving unemployment benefits." Of course, if they do not collect benefits, they are no longer counted in the government unemployment figures.

What this means is, our actual unemployment rate is closer to 20% than 9% - and well above the 15% Pelosi said it "would be" if not for Obama.

I don't blame liberal Democrats for spinning, because without spin they can't get elected. But I think we should draw the line at outright lying - a trait for which Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Barack Obama are becoming famous for.

/

The song most radio stations are banning...

The following song, sung in Las Vegas at a Diamond Rio concert, is a wonderful piece. Unfortunately, you are unlikely to hear it on any radio station because it is "politically incorrect."

Give it a listen - and then either tell your friends about this (or retweet it), or copy it and email it to everyone you know.

This song NEEDS to be heard.

Bill

/

Here is an intriguing question for thinking people to dwell upon...

While this question may seem superfluous, please understand that it is relevant to today, as you will see below.

So here's the situation, and the question:

You and your friends do not like, or approve of, a certain activity being performed by ACME Company, so you pressure your lawmakers to make it illegal. As it turns out, making it illegal results in unintended consequences that hurt you. Who do you blame?

If you blame ACME, note that ACME is only doing what was ordered by the lawmakers. If you blame the lawmakers, bear in mind they only did what you and your friends pressured them into. So, if you are a person who believes in personal responsibility, you would have to blame yourself and your friends - you instigated everything.

Fast forward to Occupy Wall Street and their uninformed cronies.

They are angry at BANKS and WALL STREET and blame them for their economic troubles. But let's look at it honestly...

STEP 1: In the 1970's, liberal activists and community organizers (most notably ACORN) forced lawmakers to enact the Community Reinvestment Act, signed by Jimmy Carter. This law literally forced banks to make loans to people who were poor credit risks. It was "social justice".

STEP 2: In 1998 Bill Clinton signed the Bliley Bill, which literally ordered banks to issue at least 50% of all mortgages and loans to people with poor credit and little income. Again, this was because liberals wanted the poor to have the same as the rich. "Social Justice." The problem, of course, is that the poor could not afford to pay for it.

STEP 3: Banks are in business to make money. That is their only purpose. No one goes into business saying, "Gee, let's lose money!". But being forced to make risky loans placed banks in a position to lose a lot of money, since many of those low income borrowers would default. Now, as any business knows, you can reduce your overall risk by "bundling". In other words, if you hold one risky mortgage and it defaults, you lose 100%. But if you hold 100 of them, and ten default, you only lose 10%. So, to protect themselves, they turned those mortgages over to Fannie Mae to be bundled, creating "derivatives" that investors on Wall Street could invest in.

STEP 4: Eventually, the house of cards collapses, and too many of those risky loans are going into default, and foreclosures rise dramatically. The economy collapses.

Instead of going back to the beginning to find what really caused it, liberal activists had to find a scapegoat to blame, since they did not want to blame their "social justice" Driven by the activists, both lawmakers and the folks only went back one or two steps, and blamed Wall Street and the banks.

But as we saw in the earlier scenario, Wall Street and banks were only doing what they are supposed to do, and required to do by law. So, if you go back a third step you would blame lawmakers - had they not passed the Bliley Bill and the Community Reinvestment Acts, this could not have happened, because those risky loans would never have been made.

But we really need to go back to the first step - where liberal community organizers pressured Congress into passing those laws. THEY are the real culprits here. Had the commu nity organizers not forced Congress into their warped sense of "social justice", none of this would have happened. None of it.

So, now we have these same idiot "social justice" liberals at Occupy Wall Street who are so misinformed and downright ignorant that they are holding Wall Street and Banks responsible for what THEY, THEMSELVES caused. It was they, and those like them that forced lawmakers to pass the laws that forced banks to make risky loans, which forced banks and Wall Street to bundle them, which in turn helped collapse the House Of Cards created by FDR (when he created Fannie Mae, who was, after all, the "bundler" of record).

Wall Street is responsible only to the extent that they have, like all businesses, one reason to exist - making profits. That is the very nature of business. No one would go into business to lose money.

Banks are responsible only to the extent that, by nature, they had to protect themselves from defaults.

Lawmakers are responsible only to the extent that they are driven by the next election, and not by what is good for America.

But ultimately, it is the people who caused it all - those liberal community organizers and rabble-rousers like ACORN and Occupy Wall Street that are responsible. Their quest for "social justice" is what caused every ounce of this.

So I find it more than ironinc that the liberal "social justice" set who caused this are now blaming the victims of what their "social justice set" has done.

If the morons at OWS had half a brain and would actually take a few moments to find out the real reason for todays' economic mess, they would not be blaming the banks or Wall Street. They would, instead, understand that they, and their quest for "social justice" are to blame.

We are all "created equal". But nature does not permit us all to remain that way. In life there must be winners, so that the species can survive (survival of the fittest). In order to have winners, you must also have losers. That is a fact of life. But "social justice" idiots don't think anyone should be a loser - everyone has to win.

And that just is not possible. If no one loses, what can possibly be won? Anyone who has ever played a hand of poker, or purchased a lottery tickets understands that.

/

Mother Nature Is Warning Us Again...

After years of quiet, the sun is coming alive with solar storms in a big way. The sun shot off a huge flare Thursday afternoon from a region that scientists say is the most active part of the sun since 2005.

Thursday's flare wasn't aimed at Earth. However, this active region is now slowly turning toward Earth, and scientists say it will be directly facing Earth in about five days. And it will face us for two weeks.

Odds of a direct hit by a large flare is still relatively small, but high enough to cause concern if you are wise enough to understand the potential damage that can be caused.

Moreover, the sun will grow increasingly active over the next two years, increasing the chances of a direct hit.

For those of you coming late to the party, a direct hit by a large flare can destroy the satellites, knocking out virtually all communications. It can also knock out the entire power grid of an entire hemisphere.

Just so ya know...

The Truth Behind "Alleged Sexual Harassment...

So, it now comes out from (dubious) sources that Herman Cain was "accused of sexual harassment" back in the '90's.

To liberals, that can only mean Cain is a Clinton-esque whoremonger. But what does it REALLY mean?

First, he was ACCUSED. He was not found guilty of anything. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. As they say, you can indict a ham sandwich.

Second, it was supposedly "sexual harassment." What, exactly, constitutes sexual harassment? It all depends on who is complaining. As a man, I have had to ask women out on dates - it rarely works the other way around. But if you ask a lady on a date and she happens to hate men, she can accuse you of sexual harassment.

And if a man makes any kind of a pass at a woman, which is how nature intends for folks to get together, it could be construed as sexual harassment. And whatever you do, don't flirt with a lesbian - you'd be begging for a charge of harassment.

Of course, none of those things constitute sexual harassment. But the charge or allegation is an easy way to extort money from a hapless victim like Cain. When a wealthy person is hit with such allegations, even if there is no basis for them, it is simply easier and cheaper to pay off with a settlement than to spend a bundle fighting the bogus charges in court.

So, being accused means nothing. Allegations that were never substantiated mean nothing. Being accused of sexual harassment by man-haters or women looking for easy money is nothing. And paying a settlement in order to put an end to bogus charges means nothing.

So, what have liberal pundits got with this "sexual harassment" story?

Nothing. But liberals will eat it up like ice cream, and assume every dirty thing their sewer minds can conceive.

Strange, though. Liberals are screaming about Cain being a "sexual predator" because of an allegation of mere harassment, and unfit for office, but those same liberals had no problem when Clinton was actually caught and found guilty of an affair with Lewinski.

The difference - Cain was only accused, and it was only "harassment", but unfortunately for him he also happens to be a black conservative - and liberals cannot tolerate black conservatives or female conservatives. They strike at the very heart of their base. And THAT is Cain's real "crime".

/

Should more Americans have "skin in the game", or should more get a free ride?

Michael McAuliff, a very far left liberal who writes for Huffington Post put forth a laughable story today that concerns the growing call for more Americans to "pay a fair share". Many conservatives feel it is an obligation for any working American to pay at least a little something in income taxes, for several reasons. The biggest reason, of course, it to broaden the tax base to reduce the deficit. But it also gets the 47% who pay ZERO taxes to have skin in the game, and that is extremely important.


You see, liberals want more than 50% of Americans to NOT have skin in the game, because if they pay no taxes, they will always favor higher taxes on others and more government benefits for themselves. This empowers liberals, and gets them elected. Look at it this way - if someone is feeding you, housing you and providing you with free medical care, are you going to vote AGAINST them? Of course not. So Democrats are determined to get "dependent" Americans past the 50% point, to insure they will always retain power.

Conservatives, on the other hand, realize that making people dependent upon government only feeds the government at the expense of personal liberty. For example, if the government provides you with food, that gives them the right to determine what you can and cannot eat, if they so choose.

By making every American pay at least some income tax, every American becomes an interested stewart of tax revenues - we all have an interest in our taxes being used wisely, and not wasted. If you do not pay taxes, you just don't care if they are wasted.

So, here are some of McAuliff's "points" in his story, and my uptake on each...my comments are in bold italics:

"It's most often expressed in the growing complaint that about half the nation's households pay no federal income tax -- an accurate figure that varies from 46 percent to 51 percent, depending on which set of statistics are being used."

[REPLY] McAuliff admits that nearly half of all Americans pay no taxes, but goes on to claim that those who pay no taxes are "the poor" (see below). Seems to me that "the poor" do not constitute 50% of Americans.

"It also ignores the fact that the half who pay no federal income tax do pay sales taxes, federal payroll taxes, state and local taxes, and -- if they own a home -- property taxes."

[REPLY] I see. Although they are "the poor" according to liberals, they obviously earn enough to buy stuff, and many even own homes. That does not sound like "poor" to me. In fact, government statistics show that the majority of the lowest income families in America own TV's, computers, cellphones and even iPads. Pardon me for saying so, but America's "poor" are actually wealthy by the standards of most of the world, where "poor" actually means poor.

"Hatch and Cornyn were opposing a nonbinding Democratic resolution that would have done nothing more than declare that the wealthy should share the burden for digging the country out of its economic ditch and reducing the deficit. Yet they were hardly alone in the pushback against the poor."

[REPLY] Yes, Republicans oppose taxing the wealthy even more, for several reasons. 1) if you take EVERY DOLLAR on income from the wealthy, it would not have much impact on the deficit; 2) money taken from those who we depend upon for our products, services, product development and jobs is money that cannot be used for those things; 3) the top 1% of earners already pay 40% of all taxes, so I don't want to hear the BS mantra about "paying a fair share"; and 4) giving the government MORE money to waste only insures they WILL waste more, putting us in a deeper hole.

"Advocates for a progressive tax system hear in Sessions' words a return to anti-welfare arguments that, while they were ultimately proved to be false, nevertheless had impact."

[REPLY] The "progressive tax system" was actually a violation of the Constitution until the turn of the 20th century when a progressive President and Congress pushed through a Constitutional amendment to change it to a progressive system - the first socialist step to destroy "home rule" - government by the people. And that is when America's troubles began. But McAuliff's absurd assertion that "anti-welfare arguments" were "proved to be false" is, itself, a falsehood (a lie). The Gingrich tax reform plan of 1996, which was "anti-welfare", resulted in more people working than ever before, and greater tax revenues because of it. So, anti-welfare arguments actually were proven to work.

And that's the real point here. McAuliff and his Democrat/liberal/progressive/socialist buddies want everyone to be on welfare of one kind or another, because that empowers government. And that is what socialists need if they are to succeed. As long as the people run government, socialists cannot win. Socialism is built upon the premise that government needs to control the people, not vice versa. And that is as un-American as it gets, because we are founded as a government OF the People, BY the People and FOR the People.



/