The unions held a rally in Washington D.C. One of the speakers was Van Jones, self-proclaimed communist who had been an Obama advisor. But that's not the thing...
In order to hold a rally a permit must be pulled. According to the Park Service the permit for this union rally, called the "American Dream Rally" was pulled by none other than ISO - the "International Socialist Organization".
An international organization of socialism pulled the permit on behalf of the union. And this quote is taken from their home page, "The ISO stands in the tradition of revolutionary socialists Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky".
Hey, union member - is that your idea of "The American Dream"? Is this REALLY where you want your dues money to go?
Union members are good Americans for the most part. But the people who run the unions are not - they are hard-core far-left socialists who are using you and your money to destroy the free markets and Western way of life you treasure. They are using you to pull the world into the pit of socialism, where they will be the elites and the rest of us merely the "worker drones", as it was in the Soviet Union, and still is in other communist and socialist nations.
WAKE UP, people.
The original purpose of unions was good. But today's unions have an agenda that, if you knew what it was, you would do everything you could to bring down the unions.
Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
/
Monday, February 28, 2011
Actually, Obama DOES "Get It", But It's All About Stealing Power From The Folks...
I watched incredulously as Obama spoke to the state governors today. The guy still does not get it! Well, actually he does, but he's not letting on. To him it's all about gaining federal power and limiting the power of the people.
He said we need to "invest" hundreds of billions for improving infrastructure. While that is true the point he is missing is that you do not do that when you are broke - you do it during the flush years. You just don't add a sunroom to your home when you are unemployed and dee3p in debt. You add it when you are flush.
He said that we need to "invest" in new technologies and ideas and "if you come up with the ideas we'll show you the money.". Yes, it is true we need to push new ideas, but the point he is missing is that the money is not supposed to come from government (taxpayers). It is supposed to come from the businesses developing those ideas - the free market, the companies that will profit from those innovations. When the government funds such things, the consumer ends up paying twice - first, we pay all the development and marketing costs, and then we pay again when we buy those products. Do you REALLY want to pay to develop the next iPad, and still have to pay $500 to buy one?
He said we need to invest in education. Two missed points here --- 1) the schools that have the highest SAT scores and graduation rates are schools that have the least money, and 2) it is not the job of the federal government to pay for education costs. That is the responsibility of the states. Stop taking the states' money just so you can use it to browbeat them into doing things your way. Let the states keep their money and use it in the way that best benefits their state.
The president said that "public employees (i.e. public unions) should not be villified, that they are entitled to earn the same as professionals in the private sector." But according to the statistics from both the Department of Labor and the IRS, public employees earn an average of 18-54% MORE compensation than similar people in the private sector, when both salary and benefits are included. And they are NOT entitled to that.
Obama did not sound like a president - he sounded like a monarch. Almost every comment he made came out, "you do the heavy lifting, we'll take your money then give it back to you only if you do things my way."
"We'll provide (your own tax) money for education but in return for getting your own money back we will make the rules and regulations."
The president and the Democrats in Congress need to be reminded that THEY serve US, not vice versa. Any powers not specifically granted to the federal government (there are only 8) are reserved for the states and the people respectively.
And if our leaders do not want to return the power they stole from the states and the people, then we, the people need to force them out and take the power back.
/
He said we need to "invest" hundreds of billions for improving infrastructure. While that is true the point he is missing is that you do not do that when you are broke - you do it during the flush years. You just don't add a sunroom to your home when you are unemployed and dee3p in debt. You add it when you are flush.
He said that we need to "invest" in new technologies and ideas and "if you come up with the ideas we'll show you the money.". Yes, it is true we need to push new ideas, but the point he is missing is that the money is not supposed to come from government (taxpayers). It is supposed to come from the businesses developing those ideas - the free market, the companies that will profit from those innovations. When the government funds such things, the consumer ends up paying twice - first, we pay all the development and marketing costs, and then we pay again when we buy those products. Do you REALLY want to pay to develop the next iPad, and still have to pay $500 to buy one?
He said we need to invest in education. Two missed points here --- 1) the schools that have the highest SAT scores and graduation rates are schools that have the least money, and 2) it is not the job of the federal government to pay for education costs. That is the responsibility of the states. Stop taking the states' money just so you can use it to browbeat them into doing things your way. Let the states keep their money and use it in the way that best benefits their state.
The president said that "public employees (i.e. public unions) should not be villified, that they are entitled to earn the same as professionals in the private sector." But according to the statistics from both the Department of Labor and the IRS, public employees earn an average of 18-54% MORE compensation than similar people in the private sector, when both salary and benefits are included. And they are NOT entitled to that.
Obama did not sound like a president - he sounded like a monarch. Almost every comment he made came out, "you do the heavy lifting, we'll take your money then give it back to you only if you do things my way."
"We'll provide (your own tax) money for education but in return for getting your own money back we will make the rules and regulations."
The president and the Democrats in Congress need to be reminded that THEY serve US, not vice versa. Any powers not specifically granted to the federal government (there are only 8) are reserved for the states and the people respectively.
And if our leaders do not want to return the power they stole from the states and the people, then we, the people need to force them out and take the power back.
/
Friday, February 25, 2011
Can You Spot What Is Wrong With This "News" Story?...
On Huffington's AOL this morning appeared a story from the (also) liberal AP about the bill passed in the Wisconsin Assembly. Take a look at this leaqd paragraph and see how you process it.
"MADISON, Wis. - Republicans in the Wisconsin Assembly took the first significant action on their plan to strip collective bargaining rights from most public workers, abruptly passing the measure early Friday morning before sleep-deprived Democrats realized what was happening."
Folks who are not prepared or able to think for themselves will read that and say, "Oh, those terrible, sneaky Republicans. How could they be so dishonest."
But people who don't swallow spin so easily would ask questions. Questions like, "How 'abrupt' can it be when everyone in the world knew this was going on, and was advertised heavily?" And, "How is it the Democrats were "sleep-deprived" and Republicans were not - what were the Democrats doing all night that Republicans were not?" And, Why did the Democrats not 'realize what was happening' when they knew exactly what they were in session for - they could not possibly have missed it."
In other words, any thinking person, regardless of which side you are on, would realize that HuffPost, AOL and AP have no intention of being objective or telling you the truth.
And just for the record - the bill does not eliminate collective bargaining. It simply limits it to things like wages. What they would NOT be able to bargain for is absurd freebies like getting free Viagra which costs taxpayers $700 million. If they want to screw us, they will have to do it without Viagra - or at least without taxpayers paying for it. That just adds insult to injury.
/
"MADISON, Wis. - Republicans in the Wisconsin Assembly took the first significant action on their plan to strip collective bargaining rights from most public workers, abruptly passing the measure early Friday morning before sleep-deprived Democrats realized what was happening."
Folks who are not prepared or able to think for themselves will read that and say, "Oh, those terrible, sneaky Republicans. How could they be so dishonest."
But people who don't swallow spin so easily would ask questions. Questions like, "How 'abrupt' can it be when everyone in the world knew this was going on, and was advertised heavily?" And, "How is it the Democrats were "sleep-deprived" and Republicans were not - what were the Democrats doing all night that Republicans were not?" And, Why did the Democrats not 'realize what was happening' when they knew exactly what they were in session for - they could not possibly have missed it."
In other words, any thinking person, regardless of which side you are on, would realize that HuffPost, AOL and AP have no intention of being objective or telling you the truth.
And just for the record - the bill does not eliminate collective bargaining. It simply limits it to things like wages. What they would NOT be able to bargain for is absurd freebies like getting free Viagra which costs taxpayers $700 million. If they want to screw us, they will have to do it without Viagra - or at least without taxpayers paying for it. That just adds insult to injury.
/
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
In Canada A Baby's Death Is Court Ordered - Fast Forward To Obamacare - Death Panels?
The "Affordable (lol) Health Care Act" known as Obamacare is nearly identical in its regulations as the health care system in Canada.
In Canada, a 13 month old baby is dying. The parents want a breathing tube inserted so they can bring him home, give him a few happy months, and then allow him to die at home in dignity.
The Canadian health care system will not allow that. Instead, the government got a court to order the death of the baby, in the hospital, by removing the breathing tube now. In fact, the court ordered the parents to consent to the removal. ORDERED the parents! The parents refused. So now the court is turning custody for making such decisions over to a court appointee.
That's what I call a Death Panel.
The parents, who supposedly have rights, really don't. The government, who has no right to order the death, actually does.
The scary part - Obamacare is almost identical in its granting of decision-making in health issues for individuals. You have the right to make those decisions - except when the government disagrees. Which means you really have no rights at all.
/
In Canada, a 13 month old baby is dying. The parents want a breathing tube inserted so they can bring him home, give him a few happy months, and then allow him to die at home in dignity.
The Canadian health care system will not allow that. Instead, the government got a court to order the death of the baby, in the hospital, by removing the breathing tube now. In fact, the court ordered the parents to consent to the removal. ORDERED the parents! The parents refused. So now the court is turning custody for making such decisions over to a court appointee.
That's what I call a Death Panel.
The parents, who supposedly have rights, really don't. The government, who has no right to order the death, actually does.
The scary part - Obamacare is almost identical in its granting of decision-making in health issues for individuals. You have the right to make those decisions - except when the government disagrees. Which means you really have no rights at all.
/
Obama and Holder Announce They Will No Longer Enforce The Law...
Today, President Obama and Attorney General Holder stated they no longer intend to enforce laws they do not agree with.
Are there no Democrats in America who feel obligated to do their jobs? Wisconsin dems run and hide, to thwart the democratic process. Indiana dems run and hide. And even the president and his henchmen are unwilling to live up to their oath of office - to uphold the laws.
Just for the record, no one - not even the president - has the right to arbitrarily decide which laws will be enforced. Under the Constitution, EVERY law must be enforced. Congress writes the laws, and once written they are the law of the land unless and until they are repealed by Congress or overturned by the courts. The president and AG do not have the power or autrhority to repeal, overturn or even ignore the law.
Apparently, Obama and Holder do not care about that. If they do not like a law, they will not enforce it.
We got our first taste of this anti-American and anti-Democratic strategy when Holder's Department of Justice announced they will not pursue any case of voter intimidation where the victim was white. Then they chose not to enforce immigration laws they do not like. And now both Obama and Holder have announced they will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.
It matters not if the law is good or bad; whether you like it or not. All that matters is that it is the law, and as such it is the job of the DOJ and the president to uphold that law.
In case they missed it, that is in their oath of office - they swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.
Obama and Holder have placed themselves above the law, and feel they have no need to enforce or obey laws they disagree with.
That is unconscionable! If they refuse to live up to the oath of office, they need to go. The law is the law. And it's their job to uphold and enforce it, and not to virtually overturn it by ignoring it. If the law is bad and they do not like it, the ONLY legal recourse they have is to try and get Congress - the lawmaking body - to repeal it or to get the courts to rule it unconstitutional. Until then, it is the law, to be upheld. By everyone. Especially by those who swore under oath to uphold it.
If you doubt it, think of this: take the Defense of Marriage Act out of the equation. Instead, look at the basics:
1) Congress passes a law
2) A sitting president signs it into law
3) Later, a new president decides HE does not like the law, so he refuses to enforce or defend it
That is the OPPOSITE of democracy. It violates the rule of law. The president is acting as a king, acting by decree.
What if congress and the president passes a law making it legal for immigrants to get as guest worker pass. And two years from now a new president says, "Nope. I don't like that. Screw Congress and the previous president. Screw the law and the Constitution. I do not like that law so I will not enforce or defend it."
Or, there is already a law that says molesting children is illegal. What if a president gets elected that belongs to the Man-Boy Love association and decides he will not enforce that law?
This is why we have rule of law. It is why every elected official must swear to uphold the law.
Obama and Holder don't care about that. They have declared themselves monarchs.
/
Are there no Democrats in America who feel obligated to do their jobs? Wisconsin dems run and hide, to thwart the democratic process. Indiana dems run and hide. And even the president and his henchmen are unwilling to live up to their oath of office - to uphold the laws.
Just for the record, no one - not even the president - has the right to arbitrarily decide which laws will be enforced. Under the Constitution, EVERY law must be enforced. Congress writes the laws, and once written they are the law of the land unless and until they are repealed by Congress or overturned by the courts. The president and AG do not have the power or autrhority to repeal, overturn or even ignore the law.
Apparently, Obama and Holder do not care about that. If they do not like a law, they will not enforce it.
We got our first taste of this anti-American and anti-Democratic strategy when Holder's Department of Justice announced they will not pursue any case of voter intimidation where the victim was white. Then they chose not to enforce immigration laws they do not like. And now both Obama and Holder have announced they will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.
It matters not if the law is good or bad; whether you like it or not. All that matters is that it is the law, and as such it is the job of the DOJ and the president to uphold that law.
In case they missed it, that is in their oath of office - they swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.
Obama and Holder have placed themselves above the law, and feel they have no need to enforce or obey laws they disagree with.
That is unconscionable! If they refuse to live up to the oath of office, they need to go. The law is the law. And it's their job to uphold and enforce it, and not to virtually overturn it by ignoring it. If the law is bad and they do not like it, the ONLY legal recourse they have is to try and get Congress - the lawmaking body - to repeal it or to get the courts to rule it unconstitutional. Until then, it is the law, to be upheld. By everyone. Especially by those who swore under oath to uphold it.
If you doubt it, think of this: take the Defense of Marriage Act out of the equation. Instead, look at the basics:
1) Congress passes a law
2) A sitting president signs it into law
3) Later, a new president decides HE does not like the law, so he refuses to enforce or defend it
That is the OPPOSITE of democracy. It violates the rule of law. The president is acting as a king, acting by decree.
What if congress and the president passes a law making it legal for immigrants to get as guest worker pass. And two years from now a new president says, "Nope. I don't like that. Screw Congress and the previous president. Screw the law and the Constitution. I do not like that law so I will not enforce or defend it."
Or, there is already a law that says molesting children is illegal. What if a president gets elected that belongs to the Man-Boy Love association and decides he will not enforce that law?
This is why we have rule of law. It is why every elected official must swear to uphold the law.
Obama and Holder don't care about that. They have declared themselves monarchs.
/
Collective Bargaining - What It REALLY Means...
Collective bargaining is the backbone of socialism, as it thwarts the free market If you have a great teacher who inspires students, and another teacher that does nothing but molest students - both get the same pay and benefits. There is no incentive to be better, or try harder, or to excel. And that is what happens under socialism, where everyone is "equal" no matter what they do.When you hear the word "collective" in any context, beware. Think of the BORG collective, if you must. Just realize what consequences come from any collective. Don't just look at the good, warm & fuzzy side. Look underneath - it erodes our freedoms, our will, our individuality.
Frankly, I would rather pit myself against the other employees in an effort to push myself to new heights so I can get the coveted raise, or management position. As a union member, there is precious little incentive to excel because you can't get any more than the lazy bum beside you.
Unions are great for those who have no faith in themselves or their abilities, and those that don't want the pressures of trying to grow and excel. The lazy, the drones, the uneducated - they love unions.
I had a liberal science teacher in High School. He gave every student a "B", regardless, thinking it was only fair for all to be equal. Needless to say, there was no need to learn science - why bother if you will get a "B" whether you do or don't? And why would an"A" student even try, knowing he will get cheated with a "B".
That is the effect of a union. Ask yourself why the unions AND communism have the same motto (and the same roots, actually) - "Workers of the world unite".
Collectives - another word for "drones", all slaving for the "common good" that really isn't good at all.
/
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Did Sir Harry Just Show His True Colors?
Over the years we have heard Harry Reid and his ilk steadily cry out the pro-abortion mantra, "A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body."
Yesterday, Sir Harry spoke to his constitutents and called for abolishing legalized prostitution in his home state of Nevada. And I have to ask, what happened to a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body?
I guess a woman's "Constitutional rights" all depend on whether or not Sir Harry agrees with the woman's choice. But when was Sir Harry elected God?
Look, generally I disapprove of prostitution as it is practiced in most states, but the way Nevada regulates it, it seems to perform a needed service in a relatively safe manner. I say this because I know some guys who could not get lucky in a woman's prison with a pardon in each hand. If not for prostitutes, they would live out their entire existence having never gotten lucky.
To Harry Reid I would suggest he stop playing both sides against the middle, and stop playing God - you are the least qualified of all the people I know. If a woman truly does has the right to choose what she does with her own body, then she has that right whether or not you approve of what she uses her body for.
I also find Mr. Reid to be an incredible hypocrite insofar as he has spent many years in Congress prostitutiing himself for pork or support. Reid supported a bill that gives a Chinese company a very lucrative position in Nevada - and coincidentally they contributed a lot to his re-election. That, my friend, is prostitution.
/
Yesterday, Sir Harry spoke to his constitutents and called for abolishing legalized prostitution in his home state of Nevada. And I have to ask, what happened to a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body?
I guess a woman's "Constitutional rights" all depend on whether or not Sir Harry agrees with the woman's choice. But when was Sir Harry elected God?
Look, generally I disapprove of prostitution as it is practiced in most states, but the way Nevada regulates it, it seems to perform a needed service in a relatively safe manner. I say this because I know some guys who could not get lucky in a woman's prison with a pardon in each hand. If not for prostitutes, they would live out their entire existence having never gotten lucky.
To Harry Reid I would suggest he stop playing both sides against the middle, and stop playing God - you are the least qualified of all the people I know. If a woman truly does has the right to choose what she does with her own body, then she has that right whether or not you approve of what she uses her body for.
I also find Mr. Reid to be an incredible hypocrite insofar as he has spent many years in Congress prostitutiing himself for pork or support. Reid supported a bill that gives a Chinese company a very lucrative position in Nevada - and coincidentally they contributed a lot to his re-election. That, my friend, is prostitution.
/
When The Media Takes Sides, America Loses. And this is an excellent example...
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour says if a proposal to issue a license plate honoring a Confederate general -- who became an early leader of the Ku Klux Klan -- ever reaches his desk, he won't approve it. The special tag would commemorate Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Civil War general and later a Klan member. It's not going to happen, Barbour said.
In answer to a reporter's question about whether he would condemn those advocating for the new plate, the Republican governor also said he wasn't in the business of denouncing people -- in this case the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Now here is why that last sentence is so important - it shows the continued dishonesty of the liberal media. In case you have not noticed, the liberal media have been constantly and incessantly badgering Republicans with similar questions, asking if they will denounce these people or those people. And they are trick questions that have no good answer - which is why the media is asking them.
"Journalists" like Stefanopolis, Gregory and Matthews have all asked Republicans if they will denounce "birthers". And now, if they denounce the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Even though such things have no real relevance. So, why do they pursue such frivolity?
Here's why - no matter what response the Republican offers, it can be used to harm his or her chances of re-election. If, for example, Barbour had said, "Yes, I denounce them", then he would lose the votes from the SCV and many others. He loses. If he answers, "No, I will not denounce them", then the media pounds them, making the claim that their failure to denounce shows that they support such people. Again, he loses. And if he deflects the question, as he so deftly did, by saying it's not his place to denounce nor support, then the media condemns him for not taking a position. And he STILL loses.
I realize the left-wing media will never do the right thing, and that they will continue asking such stupid and disingenuous questions of Republicans. But that does not change the fact that ANY and ALL media have an obligation to be objective and unbiased, and provide factual information and should never, ever find themselves taking sides. Because when they do that, they harm the nation, they confuse the folks with smoke and mirrors and they lie to us all.
And that kind of liberal media should never be confused with the legitimate "press" that has the protection of the Constitution. If they intentionally deceive people, or if they take sides, they should be held accountable, just like anyone else.
/
In answer to a reporter's question about whether he would condemn those advocating for the new plate, the Republican governor also said he wasn't in the business of denouncing people -- in this case the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Now here is why that last sentence is so important - it shows the continued dishonesty of the liberal media. In case you have not noticed, the liberal media have been constantly and incessantly badgering Republicans with similar questions, asking if they will denounce these people or those people. And they are trick questions that have no good answer - which is why the media is asking them.
"Journalists" like Stefanopolis, Gregory and Matthews have all asked Republicans if they will denounce "birthers". And now, if they denounce the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Even though such things have no real relevance. So, why do they pursue such frivolity?
Here's why - no matter what response the Republican offers, it can be used to harm his or her chances of re-election. If, for example, Barbour had said, "Yes, I denounce them", then he would lose the votes from the SCV and many others. He loses. If he answers, "No, I will not denounce them", then the media pounds them, making the claim that their failure to denounce shows that they support such people. Again, he loses. And if he deflects the question, as he so deftly did, by saying it's not his place to denounce nor support, then the media condemns him for not taking a position. And he STILL loses.
I realize the left-wing media will never do the right thing, and that they will continue asking such stupid and disingenuous questions of Republicans. But that does not change the fact that ANY and ALL media have an obligation to be objective and unbiased, and provide factual information and should never, ever find themselves taking sides. Because when they do that, they harm the nation, they confuse the folks with smoke and mirrors and they lie to us all.
And that kind of liberal media should never be confused with the legitimate "press" that has the protection of the Constitution. If they intentionally deceive people, or if they take sides, they should be held accountable, just like anyone else.
/
Picture this...
I must say I am more than a little perplexed with Michelle Obama. She is on the "eat right" bandwagon, promoting it nationwide and intimidating the American Restaurant Association and schools. That part I can understand, though I strongly disagree - it is not the government's job to choose what we eat.
But then we discover that she put out a huge, calorie and fat ridden banquet for the Super Bowl. OK, that's a celebration I thought. Once a year. Fine. But now it comes down that while in Vail CO this last week she feasted on ribs at 1400+ calories and 141 grams of fat.
And that is what I don't get - she tells us we have to eat nuts and berries while she's pigging out on ribs and such.
Now, someone did bring up that people who are not overweight, including Michelle Obama should be able to eat whatever they want. But I say we should ALL be able to eat whatever we want - it's a free country. Eating poorly may not be a good thing, but it is our right to choose.
More to his point - even if he were correct, it would appear he has not taken a look at Mrs. Obama lately. She has a caboose that Northern-Pacific would envy, and thighs that could crush walnuts. Frankly, I don't care - she can be as chunky or as slim as she wishes - that is her right. But it is also OUR right!
Mrs. Obama - before you go out stumping for dietary restrictions for the rest of us, you may want to look in a mirror - when you see the next cover of Sports Illustrated in it, then maybe you have a leg to stand on.
/
But then we discover that she put out a huge, calorie and fat ridden banquet for the Super Bowl. OK, that's a celebration I thought. Once a year. Fine. But now it comes down that while in Vail CO this last week she feasted on ribs at 1400+ calories and 141 grams of fat.
And that is what I don't get - she tells us we have to eat nuts and berries while she's pigging out on ribs and such.
Now, someone did bring up that people who are not overweight, including Michelle Obama should be able to eat whatever they want. But I say we should ALL be able to eat whatever we want - it's a free country. Eating poorly may not be a good thing, but it is our right to choose.
More to his point - even if he were correct, it would appear he has not taken a look at Mrs. Obama lately. She has a caboose that Northern-Pacific would envy, and thighs that could crush walnuts. Frankly, I don't care - she can be as chunky or as slim as she wishes - that is her right. But it is also OUR right!
Mrs. Obama - before you go out stumping for dietary restrictions for the rest of us, you may want to look in a mirror - when you see the next cover of Sports Illustrated in it, then maybe you have a leg to stand on.
/
Monday, February 21, 2011
Where Will You Be If It Hits The Fan? Scientists Say It Is Likely...
Plucked from today's news...
"Worsening solar storms could shut down telecommunications, ground airline service and even lead to global blackouts, scientists and government officials warned in Washington, D.C. People need to be aware of the dire consequences a massive solar storm could have on the global infrastructure, Helena Lindberg of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency said at a panel discussion on solar storms at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting this weekend.
"A small flare leaves the sun, upper left. Scientists say we're entering a new solar cycle characterized by more intense and frequent solar storms."I'm not talking about days or weeks, but several months without electric power, blackouts, across large regions of Europe and the U.S.," she said"
The current solar cycle peaks in 2012.
OK. If you have been a regular reader of this blog you will know I have been suggesting this for more than 3 years, and also suggesting that my readers try and take certain precautions to minimize the adverse effects if this should happen. And no the so-called experts are validating it.
But it could be much worse, because of certain little-known facts that even "solar experts" are not aware of. They DO know that a large solar flare could easily knock out all power grids in an entire hemisphere, or even world-wide. And they say it could last for "months". But that is a huge understatement due to facts they have not considered. Such a blackout, should it occur, could last for as long as 10 years or more. The reason: blown transformers must be replaced. Currently there are only two countries that manufacture transformers - China and Brazil. And neither has a whole lotta love for America. Assuming they still have power so they CAN manufacture transformers, which is unlikely, they may not want to ship any to America - no one at the bottom of the hill is going to help the King of the Hill to get back on top. America would be at the mercy of the world.
And even if they do ship to the U.S. you can be sure we will be the LAST customers on their list.
If we were to begin building our own transformers, first we would have to find or create new sources of electricity that do not require transformers so we can fire up a facility. And it could take up to 10 years or more to build enough transformers to get our grid back up.
In short, it would be a disaster capable of destroying America. And that is no exaggeration.
What can you do? You can set up at least a small solar or wind set-up capable of running the basic necessities - your water pump and your refidgerator. You could stock up on MRE's (meals ready to eat) that do not require refridgeration or even cooking. You can buy some heirloom seeds (store-bought seeds cannot reproduce healthy seeds for next year) and start a small garden so you can cab some foods, and provide fresh food when the grocery stores are empty.
If you live in the north, install a woodstove so you can keep warm when the power is gone.
Basically, insure you can get food, water and if you live in the north, heat. These are things you require for survival. Everything else is just icing that could be done without if necessary.
If you take basic steps, you cannot lose. At worst, you will be able to survive many a catastrophe - even a small one where an ice=storm knocks out power for a few days. At best, no catastrophe will occur and you canb rest easy knowing you are ready, anyway. You can't lose by being prepared.
/
"Worsening solar storms could shut down telecommunications, ground airline service and even lead to global blackouts, scientists and government officials warned in Washington, D.C. People need to be aware of the dire consequences a massive solar storm could have on the global infrastructure, Helena Lindberg of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency said at a panel discussion on solar storms at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting this weekend.
"A small flare leaves the sun, upper left. Scientists say we're entering a new solar cycle characterized by more intense and frequent solar storms."I'm not talking about days or weeks, but several months without electric power, blackouts, across large regions of Europe and the U.S.," she said"
The current solar cycle peaks in 2012.
OK. If you have been a regular reader of this blog you will know I have been suggesting this for more than 3 years, and also suggesting that my readers try and take certain precautions to minimize the adverse effects if this should happen. And no the so-called experts are validating it.
But it could be much worse, because of certain little-known facts that even "solar experts" are not aware of. They DO know that a large solar flare could easily knock out all power grids in an entire hemisphere, or even world-wide. And they say it could last for "months". But that is a huge understatement due to facts they have not considered. Such a blackout, should it occur, could last for as long as 10 years or more. The reason: blown transformers must be replaced. Currently there are only two countries that manufacture transformers - China and Brazil. And neither has a whole lotta love for America. Assuming they still have power so they CAN manufacture transformers, which is unlikely, they may not want to ship any to America - no one at the bottom of the hill is going to help the King of the Hill to get back on top. America would be at the mercy of the world.
And even if they do ship to the U.S. you can be sure we will be the LAST customers on their list.
If we were to begin building our own transformers, first we would have to find or create new sources of electricity that do not require transformers so we can fire up a facility. And it could take up to 10 years or more to build enough transformers to get our grid back up.
In short, it would be a disaster capable of destroying America. And that is no exaggeration.
What can you do? You can set up at least a small solar or wind set-up capable of running the basic necessities - your water pump and your refidgerator. You could stock up on MRE's (meals ready to eat) that do not require refridgeration or even cooking. You can buy some heirloom seeds (store-bought seeds cannot reproduce healthy seeds for next year) and start a small garden so you can cab some foods, and provide fresh food when the grocery stores are empty.
If you live in the north, install a woodstove so you can keep warm when the power is gone.
Basically, insure you can get food, water and if you live in the north, heat. These are things you require for survival. Everything else is just icing that could be done without if necessary.
If you take basic steps, you cannot lose. At worst, you will be able to survive many a catastrophe - even a small one where an ice=storm knocks out power for a few days. At best, no catastrophe will occur and you canb rest easy knowing you are ready, anyway. You can't lose by being prepared.
/
Beware the "Smart Meter" Being Installed On Your Home...
Today a meter guy for Central Maine Power showed up to install a "Smart Meter" on my house.
I sent him packing.
The government is desperately trying to make Smart Meters mandatory on every home. They claim it is simply so you will be able to see your useage and control it better.
Hogwash! For one thing, how many people would even bother to do that after having unfettered access all their lives? More to the point, that is an incredibly weak excuse for mandating a trillion dollar system. The government does not do anything in a regulatory manner unless it is to gain more regulatory power. Period.
The government wants to have control over our electrical useage just as it has co-opted control of our health, our educational system and many other aspects of our lives. Government gains power by regulation. If they control what you need, then they control you.
During his campaign Obama told the press that he intended to make the cost of electricity skyrocket. He said we need to reduce useage. But he also knows we will not do so willingly. So, it will be done by force, through the new "Smart Grid" run by these Smart Meters.
In California and other states they have "rolling brown-outs" to cut useage. Yet, the government is pushing electric cars. So, what gives?
The government needs to be able to regulate your useage of power in order to force you to comply with its "green" standards. To do this, they would drive the price up, and they would reduce the amount that is available (by using it in electric cars, which are fueled in "docking stations" that, by their nature would be exempt).
Smart Meters can then be used to initiate INDIVIDUAL brown-outs, wherever the government deems a person is using too much. They can shut of your meter with the press of a computer key. They can - and eventually will, if we allow them - regulate how much electricity we can use, and when we can use it.
Is this a conspiracy theory? Absolutely not. The president, himself is on record as to the government's purpose for the "Smart Grid." He is also on record saying that our days of keeping the thermostat at 72 degrees are over, that we need to cut our heating and cooling use, by force if necessary.
It is all geared to a "global" government, which is what the president and all progressives want. They have said so. In short, they feel the playing field world-wide must be made level. To make it level, those on top (America) must give up a lot to those on the bottom (Somalia) so we can "meet in the middle." This is what the U.N. has been actively pursuing for decades - because most of those nations stand to gain from America giving up its wealth and power. Consider it a large scale "taxing of the rich and giving to the poor", with America being the rich and all other nations being the poor.
America, are you ready - or even willing - to give up your place in the world? Your wealth? Your power? You individualism? If "yes", and you want to be a "third world" nation, join the progressive socialists. In "no", then fight them at the polls and every place you can.
And when the meter guy comes to YOUR house, send him packing!
/
I sent him packing.
The government is desperately trying to make Smart Meters mandatory on every home. They claim it is simply so you will be able to see your useage and control it better.
Hogwash! For one thing, how many people would even bother to do that after having unfettered access all their lives? More to the point, that is an incredibly weak excuse for mandating a trillion dollar system. The government does not do anything in a regulatory manner unless it is to gain more regulatory power. Period.
The government wants to have control over our electrical useage just as it has co-opted control of our health, our educational system and many other aspects of our lives. Government gains power by regulation. If they control what you need, then they control you.
During his campaign Obama told the press that he intended to make the cost of electricity skyrocket. He said we need to reduce useage. But he also knows we will not do so willingly. So, it will be done by force, through the new "Smart Grid" run by these Smart Meters.
In California and other states they have "rolling brown-outs" to cut useage. Yet, the government is pushing electric cars. So, what gives?
The government needs to be able to regulate your useage of power in order to force you to comply with its "green" standards. To do this, they would drive the price up, and they would reduce the amount that is available (by using it in electric cars, which are fueled in "docking stations" that, by their nature would be exempt).
Smart Meters can then be used to initiate INDIVIDUAL brown-outs, wherever the government deems a person is using too much. They can shut of your meter with the press of a computer key. They can - and eventually will, if we allow them - regulate how much electricity we can use, and when we can use it.
Is this a conspiracy theory? Absolutely not. The president, himself is on record as to the government's purpose for the "Smart Grid." He is also on record saying that our days of keeping the thermostat at 72 degrees are over, that we need to cut our heating and cooling use, by force if necessary.
It is all geared to a "global" government, which is what the president and all progressives want. They have said so. In short, they feel the playing field world-wide must be made level. To make it level, those on top (America) must give up a lot to those on the bottom (Somalia) so we can "meet in the middle." This is what the U.N. has been actively pursuing for decades - because most of those nations stand to gain from America giving up its wealth and power. Consider it a large scale "taxing of the rich and giving to the poor", with America being the rich and all other nations being the poor.
America, are you ready - or even willing - to give up your place in the world? Your wealth? Your power? You individualism? If "yes", and you want to be a "third world" nation, join the progressive socialists. In "no", then fight them at the polls and every place you can.
And when the meter guy comes to YOUR house, send him packing!
/
Would You Like To Multiply Your Money Quickly & Easily? Here's One Way...
Here is an incredibly powerful strategy for generating real estate profits in any market. Please note, however, that this technique may require an investment of two or three thousand dollars, and that the money invested is a bit more "at risk" than usual. But the return on investment can be phenomenal, and can build your net worth incredibly fast. Even after taxes, your investment can more than quintuple (x5) in just one year! Even gold (or oil) is not doing that well.
The basic structure is in the form of an option, but this is no ordinary option (a copy of the actual form used by the author is included in "The Simple Man's Guide to Real Estate", and can be created easily by editing the option agreement in the agreement maker software included in the program). the course is also more detailed in outlining this method.
Up until now, the problem with options has been in getting a seller to accept one - most sellers do not want to take their property off the market until it actually sells. The author has overcome this hurdle by inserting a "kick-out" clause, which allows the seller top continue trying to sell his property. If a qualified buyer makes a legitimate offer, the seller then notifies the person holding the option, who now must either commit to closing on his option within 45 days, or forfeit his option - and the money he has invested (the risk that was mentioned earlier). Because of this kick-out clause, it would be wise if you are, if necessary, prepared to actually purchase the property long enough to resell it, or for rental purposes. But this is rarely necessary. In the event you are called upon to close early or forfeit, you could always choose to forfeit, especially if the bulk of your investment is your own labor and very little cash.
Here’s how it works (terms may vary):
Seller owns a $150,000 home that is, for the moment, vacant - he has already moved out. The home needs a bit of work, and you estimate that about $3000 and some hard work can increase market value to $160,000. Since the seller has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by accepting your one year option offer, you negotiate a purchase price of $145,000, putting up $1000 option money (applied to purchase price if you buy, but forfeited if you do not buy).
You immediately go in and do the necessary repairs - usually completed in about a month - and immediately place it up for resale at its new, higher value of $160K. When you find a qualified buyer, you simply exercise your option and double escrow. At closing, your buyer and his bank put up $160,000. From this, the escrow officer pays off your seller - $144,000 (you already gave seller $1000). That leaves you $16,000. After subtracting the $3000 you invested, your profit is $13,000 - more than 4x your investment.
Now let’s say you draw out $40,000 of the equity in your own home, and used this $40,000 as investment capital. At roughly $4000 per deal, you could work ten such deals simultaneously. Your $13,000 net is now $130,000 net!
You may notice that the author’s option agreement includes a clause that "quietly" states that, except for a few minor costs, the seller pays virtually all closing costs, which keeps your profits high, and makes it easier for you to sell the place. It also includes full right of possession, which means you could live there, if you need to, during the option period - or sublet it while you try to find a buyer. Furthermore, if your seller finds another buyer, and you are not ready to close, you are not obligated to complete the agreed upon repairs. Better yet, the "kick-out" clause provides you with a four month excluse option - seller cannot offer his property to another buyer for the first four months (this can be changed to three, etc., if seller balks). Seller’s biggest objection will be taking his property off the market. You can overcome this objection by telling him if a buyer comes along, he will still buy it - from you - and you will exercise your option, so he does not miss out on any sale. In fact, because the property has been fixed by you, it is even more likely to sell more quickly.
In many cases, you need not put up any option money (that $1000). Instead, you can first try using the value of the repairs as the consideration for the option. And if those repairs are all labor and no cash, you need not invest a dime into this project.
For those of you who have fix-up abilities, and access to just a small amount of cash, this could be your ticket to multiplying your cash quickly.
/
The basic structure is in the form of an option, but this is no ordinary option (a copy of the actual form used by the author is included in "The Simple Man's Guide to Real Estate", and can be created easily by editing the option agreement in the agreement maker software included in the program). the course is also more detailed in outlining this method.
Up until now, the problem with options has been in getting a seller to accept one - most sellers do not want to take their property off the market until it actually sells. The author has overcome this hurdle by inserting a "kick-out" clause, which allows the seller top continue trying to sell his property. If a qualified buyer makes a legitimate offer, the seller then notifies the person holding the option, who now must either commit to closing on his option within 45 days, or forfeit his option - and the money he has invested (the risk that was mentioned earlier). Because of this kick-out clause, it would be wise if you are, if necessary, prepared to actually purchase the property long enough to resell it, or for rental purposes. But this is rarely necessary. In the event you are called upon to close early or forfeit, you could always choose to forfeit, especially if the bulk of your investment is your own labor and very little cash.
Here’s how it works (terms may vary):
Seller owns a $150,000 home that is, for the moment, vacant - he has already moved out. The home needs a bit of work, and you estimate that about $3000 and some hard work can increase market value to $160,000. Since the seller has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by accepting your one year option offer, you negotiate a purchase price of $145,000, putting up $1000 option money (applied to purchase price if you buy, but forfeited if you do not buy).
You immediately go in and do the necessary repairs - usually completed in about a month - and immediately place it up for resale at its new, higher value of $160K. When you find a qualified buyer, you simply exercise your option and double escrow. At closing, your buyer and his bank put up $160,000. From this, the escrow officer pays off your seller - $144,000 (you already gave seller $1000). That leaves you $16,000. After subtracting the $3000 you invested, your profit is $13,000 - more than 4x your investment.
Now let’s say you draw out $40,000 of the equity in your own home, and used this $40,000 as investment capital. At roughly $4000 per deal, you could work ten such deals simultaneously. Your $13,000 net is now $130,000 net!
You may notice that the author’s option agreement includes a clause that "quietly" states that, except for a few minor costs, the seller pays virtually all closing costs, which keeps your profits high, and makes it easier for you to sell the place. It also includes full right of possession, which means you could live there, if you need to, during the option period - or sublet it while you try to find a buyer. Furthermore, if your seller finds another buyer, and you are not ready to close, you are not obligated to complete the agreed upon repairs. Better yet, the "kick-out" clause provides you with a four month excluse option - seller cannot offer his property to another buyer for the first four months (this can be changed to three, etc., if seller balks). Seller’s biggest objection will be taking his property off the market. You can overcome this objection by telling him if a buyer comes along, he will still buy it - from you - and you will exercise your option, so he does not miss out on any sale. In fact, because the property has been fixed by you, it is even more likely to sell more quickly.
In many cases, you need not put up any option money (that $1000). Instead, you can first try using the value of the repairs as the consideration for the option. And if those repairs are all labor and no cash, you need not invest a dime into this project.
For those of you who have fix-up abilities, and access to just a small amount of cash, this could be your ticket to multiplying your cash quickly.
/
The Lesser of Two Evils...
Everyone seems to have a problem with the possibility of shutting down the government if the Senate and President reject the necessary spending cuts and budget amendments.They say it would do great harm to America by lowering our bond rating and not being able to pay our debts. Oo-h-h! That would be a disaster!
NOT!
For starters, any shut-down would be temporary. And we already "suffered" through one in 1995. The world did not end. I know - I was there.
But more to the point - and this is a point the Democrats are trying to keep silent - is that the alternative would be worse by a hundred-fold.
Consider - if the government shuts dwn for a few days, it hurts our credit rating. That's bad, yes. But if we do not get spending under control and cut the debt and deficit, we will lose a lot more than our Triple-A credit rating. We will be bankrupt.
To put it in perspective, it can be likened to the difference between lowering your credit rating because of late payments on your credit card, or going bankrupt and losing everything because you cannot pay ANY debts. Which is worse? A few late charges and a lower credit score, or losing everything?
That is the choice we are faced with. The conservative Republicans want to get our fiscal house in order, but if the Democrats make that impossible, then those conservatives would rather shut down the government than to go bankrupt. The Democrats would rather take it slow, in small steps.
But small, slow steps will not work. We are driving over a cliff - everyone understands that. The conservatives want to SLAM on the brakes and stop the car. The democrats want to tap and pump the brakes hoping they can avoid disaster simply by slowing down.
The next time you are headed over a cliff, or aimed toward a tree, do you think it would be wise to just "slow down"? No, because you will simply go over the cliff more slowly - but you WILL go over it.
I, for one, would rather not.
/
NOT!
For starters, any shut-down would be temporary. And we already "suffered" through one in 1995. The world did not end. I know - I was there.
But more to the point - and this is a point the Democrats are trying to keep silent - is that the alternative would be worse by a hundred-fold.
Consider - if the government shuts dwn for a few days, it hurts our credit rating. That's bad, yes. But if we do not get spending under control and cut the debt and deficit, we will lose a lot more than our Triple-A credit rating. We will be bankrupt.
To put it in perspective, it can be likened to the difference between lowering your credit rating because of late payments on your credit card, or going bankrupt and losing everything because you cannot pay ANY debts. Which is worse? A few late charges and a lower credit score, or losing everything?
That is the choice we are faced with. The conservative Republicans want to get our fiscal house in order, but if the Democrats make that impossible, then those conservatives would rather shut down the government than to go bankrupt. The Democrats would rather take it slow, in small steps.
But small, slow steps will not work. We are driving over a cliff - everyone understands that. The conservatives want to SLAM on the brakes and stop the car. The democrats want to tap and pump the brakes hoping they can avoid disaster simply by slowing down.
The next time you are headed over a cliff, or aimed toward a tree, do you think it would be wise to just "slow down"? No, because you will simply go over the cliff more slowly - but you WILL go over it.
I, for one, would rather not.
/
If You Doubt The Trend We Are In Since 2009, Here Are The Figures...
All of us need a dose of reality that neither the government nor the media is telling us about. All of the information below is sourced from the U.S. Energy Information Administration; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Census Bureau; USDA; U.S. Dept. of Labor; FHFA; Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; RealtyTrac; Heritage Foundation and WSJ; The Conference Board; FDIC; Federal Reserve; U.S. Treasury
Since Obama's inauguration:
Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S. is up 69.6%
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel) is up 127.7%
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel) is up 135.9%
Gold: London (per troy oz.) is up 60.5%
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL is up 78.1%
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL is up 42.3%
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob is up 164.7%
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall is up 23.7%
Unemployment rate, blacks is up 25.4%
Number of unemployed is up 24.7%
Real median household income (2008 v 2009) is DOWN 0.7%
Number of food stamp recipients (current as of 10/10) is up 35.1%
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10) is up 22.2%
Number of long-term unemployed is up 146.2%
People in poverty in U.S. (2008 v 2009) is up 9.5%
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date) is up 17.1%
U.S. dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate is DOWN 8.6%
National Debt in Millions is up 32.2%
Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history. Over 27 times as fast! Metaphorically, speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane 27 times faster . . . it would be doing 1,755 MPH! This is a disaster!
Since Obama's inauguration:
Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S. is up 69.6%
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel) is up 127.7%
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel) is up 135.9%
Gold: London (per troy oz.) is up 60.5%
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL is up 78.1%
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL is up 42.3%
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob is up 164.7%
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall is up 23.7%
Unemployment rate, blacks is up 25.4%
Number of unemployed is up 24.7%
Real median household income (2008 v 2009) is DOWN 0.7%
Number of food stamp recipients (current as of 10/10) is up 35.1%
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10) is up 22.2%
Number of long-term unemployed is up 146.2%
People in poverty in U.S. (2008 v 2009) is up 9.5%
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date) is up 17.1%
U.S. dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate is DOWN 8.6%
National Debt in Millions is up 32.2%
Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history. Over 27 times as fast! Metaphorically, speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane 27 times faster . . . it would be doing 1,755 MPH! This is a disaster!
Sunday, February 20, 2011
I Needed a Good Laugh, and This Never Let's Me Down...
I needed a good laugh today so I went to the Huffington Post and read some of their stuff. And I was not disappointed - I'll be laughing for days.
One person wrote how conservatives don't really want fiscal responsibility, that it is just a ploy. The writer conveniently ignores all the polls and studies that show the majority of Americans do want fiscal responsibility - all but the 20% who claim to be far-left liberals (like those at HuffPost) who want the government to spend us into forced socialism.
Another writer claims it is the conservatives that are responsible for the huge debt and deficit - in spite of the fact that it was the current Democratic administration that single-handedly, and without any conservative assistance, tripled our debt and deficit in just two short years. That is not opinion - it is fact that comes from the government, itself.
There was even a post claiming Wisconsin's Governor Walker is acting contrary to the will of the majority. As proof, they point to the large (?) crowd of protestors (many of which are imported from out-of-state). Of course, they fail to realize two important points: 1) the protestors only account for one 1/1000th of the population, and 2) the governor ran on - and got elected on - promises to do exactly this. Since he won, it would seem the majority are behind the governor. But that does not stop HuffPost from spinning their webs of deception.
Of course there were other postings about the Wisconsin protests. Naturally, HuffPost is on the side of the unions and are against the will of the populace. They view the cowardice of the Democrat Senators who ran and hid in Illinois as some sort of heroic adventure. Frankly, running and hiding is never considered heroic to any sane and reasonable person. But then, those at HuffPost are not exactly known for sanity or reason. They even condone the criminal acts of the unions and doctors who are writing phony doctor's notes for the teachers who seek to escape the responsibility of "skipping school" like adolescent delinquents.
But that is the very core of liberalism - not having to be held responsible for anything, no matter how reprehensible. Abortion is nothing more than running away from responsibility. Legalizing drugs - same thing. Unions that refuse to pony up for their share of the needed sacrifices - more escapism. There are even liberal organizations dedicated to making it easier - even legal - to molest children. In short, liberalism is dedicated to the hippie mantra of "if it feels good, do it", and to Hell with any consequences. Because they do not accept the consequences of their actions. Backed by people like George Soros and promoted by media like HuffPost, liberals want to legalize everything that allows them to live in whatever sin suits them and remain guilt-free. No moral repercussions for their choices. Not to say that all liberals are atheists, but all atheists are, indeed, liberals.
Some liberals have publicly lauded Mao Tse-Tung as a great leader - in spite of the historical fact that he murdered over 2 million of his own people. They have publicly adored Castro, who spent 50 years destroying his people under communist rule. And many of them have gone on record in their adoration of Hugo Chavez, a dictator who has turned a democracy into a communist regime. And they have printed and sold T-shirts honoring the murderous Che Guevera.
And now the HuffPost far-left liberal garbage is permeating AOL. Already liberal, AOL has recently become ultra-liberal since buying HuffPost and putting Huffington in charge of content. That's like putting a rabid fox in charge of the henhouse.
/
One person wrote how conservatives don't really want fiscal responsibility, that it is just a ploy. The writer conveniently ignores all the polls and studies that show the majority of Americans do want fiscal responsibility - all but the 20% who claim to be far-left liberals (like those at HuffPost) who want the government to spend us into forced socialism.
Another writer claims it is the conservatives that are responsible for the huge debt and deficit - in spite of the fact that it was the current Democratic administration that single-handedly, and without any conservative assistance, tripled our debt and deficit in just two short years. That is not opinion - it is fact that comes from the government, itself.
There was even a post claiming Wisconsin's Governor Walker is acting contrary to the will of the majority. As proof, they point to the large (?) crowd of protestors (many of which are imported from out-of-state). Of course, they fail to realize two important points: 1) the protestors only account for one 1/1000th of the population, and 2) the governor ran on - and got elected on - promises to do exactly this. Since he won, it would seem the majority are behind the governor. But that does not stop HuffPost from spinning their webs of deception.
Of course there were other postings about the Wisconsin protests. Naturally, HuffPost is on the side of the unions and are against the will of the populace. They view the cowardice of the Democrat Senators who ran and hid in Illinois as some sort of heroic adventure. Frankly, running and hiding is never considered heroic to any sane and reasonable person. But then, those at HuffPost are not exactly known for sanity or reason. They even condone the criminal acts of the unions and doctors who are writing phony doctor's notes for the teachers who seek to escape the responsibility of "skipping school" like adolescent delinquents.
But that is the very core of liberalism - not having to be held responsible for anything, no matter how reprehensible. Abortion is nothing more than running away from responsibility. Legalizing drugs - same thing. Unions that refuse to pony up for their share of the needed sacrifices - more escapism. There are even liberal organizations dedicated to making it easier - even legal - to molest children. In short, liberalism is dedicated to the hippie mantra of "if it feels good, do it", and to Hell with any consequences. Because they do not accept the consequences of their actions. Backed by people like George Soros and promoted by media like HuffPost, liberals want to legalize everything that allows them to live in whatever sin suits them and remain guilt-free. No moral repercussions for their choices. Not to say that all liberals are atheists, but all atheists are, indeed, liberals.
Some liberals have publicly lauded Mao Tse-Tung as a great leader - in spite of the historical fact that he murdered over 2 million of his own people. They have publicly adored Castro, who spent 50 years destroying his people under communist rule. And many of them have gone on record in their adoration of Hugo Chavez, a dictator who has turned a democracy into a communist regime. And they have printed and sold T-shirts honoring the murderous Che Guevera.
And now the HuffPost far-left liberal garbage is permeating AOL. Already liberal, AOL has recently become ultra-liberal since buying HuffPost and putting Huffington in charge of content. That's like putting a rabid fox in charge of the henhouse.
/
Perpetrating A Fraud To Negate The Voting Process? Unions and Doctors Say Yes...
In Wisconsin, unions have brought in liberal doctors to write bogus doctor's notes for the teachers who are breaking the law by calling in sick in order to protest.
This, in itself, is illegal - it is fraud, and the unions should be held accountable. It is also fraud and unethical conduct by the doctors participating and they, too, need to be held accountable.
I would hope the Governor require that all teachers who called in sick to produce those notes. If an inordinate number of those notes are signed by a specific doctor, the state should then require that doctor to produce proof that the individual signed in at their office, had a diagnosis, had tests etc.
If the doctor cannot provide such evidence, he or she should be arrested on charges of fraud, and their license to practice medicine permanently revoked for ethics violations.
It is a sorry state when liberals and their union friends resort to criminal activity and unethical conduct. If you have to do that in order to win, then you have already lost.
And this is precisely why the majority of Americans are opposing the power of unions and fighting back. If you want and deserve change, in a democracy that is done at the polls, not by perpetrating a fraud.
/
This, in itself, is illegal - it is fraud, and the unions should be held accountable. It is also fraud and unethical conduct by the doctors participating and they, too, need to be held accountable.
I would hope the Governor require that all teachers who called in sick to produce those notes. If an inordinate number of those notes are signed by a specific doctor, the state should then require that doctor to produce proof that the individual signed in at their office, had a diagnosis, had tests etc.
If the doctor cannot provide such evidence, he or she should be arrested on charges of fraud, and their license to practice medicine permanently revoked for ethics violations.
It is a sorry state when liberals and their union friends resort to criminal activity and unethical conduct. If you have to do that in order to win, then you have already lost.
And this is precisely why the majority of Americans are opposing the power of unions and fighting back. If you want and deserve change, in a democracy that is done at the polls, not by perpetrating a fraud.
/
Friday, February 18, 2011
What We Need In These Tough Times Is A Bright Spot - Like This One...
In 1933 America was in the midst of the worst depression the world had ever known. America needed hope - some bright spot to focus on.
And that bright spot came via the ultra talented and inimitible Ginger Rogers in this opener...
Maybe Ms Rogers can perform that miracle for us a second time.
/
And that bright spot came via the ultra talented and inimitible Ginger Rogers in this opener...
Maybe Ms Rogers can perform that miracle for us a second time.
/
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
This is not a "You go first, or I go first" thing. Oh, really?
When asked why he did not include any of the recommendations of the Debt Commission in his budget proposal, President Obama said, "This is not a 'You go first, I go first sort of thing'."
Really, Mr President? That's strange. The definition of "leader" is "the one who leads; goes first." And when the American people elect someone as their leader, they kinda expect him to lead. To go first.
If this, or anything else is not a "you go first" sort of thing, then you are saying we do not need a leader, and that you have no intention of leading.
May I then make a suggestion?
LEAD, or get the Hell out of the way and let someone who can lead us do so.
/
Really, Mr President? That's strange. The definition of "leader" is "the one who leads; goes first." And when the American people elect someone as their leader, they kinda expect him to lead. To go first.
If this, or anything else is not a "you go first" sort of thing, then you are saying we do not need a leader, and that you have no intention of leading.
May I then make a suggestion?
LEAD, or get the Hell out of the way and let someone who can lead us do so.
/
Monday, February 14, 2011
Arizona Strikes Again - But Off The Mark This Time? Here's A Better Idea...
Arizona is considering a bill that would require patients to show proof of citizenship.
Normally I would agree with most measures designed to curb the illegal immigrant problem, but in this case the attempt is off the mark. And there is a better solution.
First, the reason it is misguided: if an illegal has a dangerous, contagious disease and avoids medical treatment because they do not want to risk deportation, they could spread the disease to countless others - including American citizens.
As to a better solution: require proof of citizenship with a guarantee their status will not be reported to authorities, then send the bill for the treatment to that person's government. If the government refuses to pay, take it out of any aid or trade that government gets from the U.S.
This way, the sick can be treated in a humane manner, yet the American taxpayer is not saddled with the expense of paying the support of people who are here illegally and citizens of another country.
/
Normally I would agree with most measures designed to curb the illegal immigrant problem, but in this case the attempt is off the mark. And there is a better solution.
First, the reason it is misguided: if an illegal has a dangerous, contagious disease and avoids medical treatment because they do not want to risk deportation, they could spread the disease to countless others - including American citizens.
As to a better solution: require proof of citizenship with a guarantee their status will not be reported to authorities, then send the bill for the treatment to that person's government. If the government refuses to pay, take it out of any aid or trade that government gets from the U.S.
This way, the sick can be treated in a humane manner, yet the American taxpayer is not saddled with the expense of paying the support of people who are here illegally and citizens of another country.
/
The Washington Shell Game (or "When is saving not saving?")
Todayt President Obama unveiled his proposed budget. Supporters say it makes a trillion in cuts over the next 10 years.
But here is what they are not telling:
1) Spending is to be frozen at current levels - the same level that got us into this mess. To put this in perspective, think about what would happen if your family were to start spending 5 times more than it earns, and when you get too far into debt you declare, "We will freeze our spending at that level." At 5 times what you earn.
2) Every penny - literally EVERY penny - of Obama's cuts are to be spent on other projects. So not a single penny gets saved. There is a vast gulf between cutting spending and then SAVING that money. And Obama is unwilling to cross that gulf. Cuts to pell grants, defense etc. would immediately be spent on things like high-speed rail.
The purpose of CUTTING spending is to SAVE money and reduce the deficit and debt. To cut spending and then spend it elsewhere makes no sense at all.
And lest we overlook it, Mr. Obama is also proposing tax increases in his budget - the same increases that were rejected by the Democrats in the last congress for being dangerous to a fragile economy, and are also opposed by the new republican congress.
* Freeze spending at the current highest spending rate in history.
* Raise taxes in a fragile economy
* Cut spending, but blow the savings on other spending
The economic policy of this administration is insane. Unless, of course their true objective is one-world, global governance. And Obama has already stated that to be the goal. So think about this - in order for there to be a global government, all countries must be at the same level. And that can only happen if America gets cut down quite a bit. In order for all nations to be equal, the wealth of rich countries must be distributed among the poor nations. Capitalism must become a casualty.
Redistribution of wealth only begins with individuals and families, but does not end until it applies to nations as well.
/
But here is what they are not telling:
1) Spending is to be frozen at current levels - the same level that got us into this mess. To put this in perspective, think about what would happen if your family were to start spending 5 times more than it earns, and when you get too far into debt you declare, "We will freeze our spending at that level." At 5 times what you earn.
2) Every penny - literally EVERY penny - of Obama's cuts are to be spent on other projects. So not a single penny gets saved. There is a vast gulf between cutting spending and then SAVING that money. And Obama is unwilling to cross that gulf. Cuts to pell grants, defense etc. would immediately be spent on things like high-speed rail.
The purpose of CUTTING spending is to SAVE money and reduce the deficit and debt. To cut spending and then spend it elsewhere makes no sense at all.
And lest we overlook it, Mr. Obama is also proposing tax increases in his budget - the same increases that were rejected by the Democrats in the last congress for being dangerous to a fragile economy, and are also opposed by the new republican congress.
* Freeze spending at the current highest spending rate in history.
* Raise taxes in a fragile economy
* Cut spending, but blow the savings on other spending
The economic policy of this administration is insane. Unless, of course their true objective is one-world, global governance. And Obama has already stated that to be the goal. So think about this - in order for there to be a global government, all countries must be at the same level. And that can only happen if America gets cut down quite a bit. In order for all nations to be equal, the wealth of rich countries must be distributed among the poor nations. Capitalism must become a casualty.
Redistribution of wealth only begins with individuals and families, but does not end until it applies to nations as well.
/
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Of Winning And Losing - Should We Really Be Providing FREEBIES To Anyone?
This is almost unbelieveable. As you know, I often watch the comments posted on sites like AOL and Yahoo. And I gotta say, a certain group of people are absolute hypocrites and born losers.
I'm talking about those who, because of their financial position, pay no taxes, and even more to the point, those who live off the sweat of others.
As an example, I have archived a lot of posts that complain mightily about our soaring deficit and how we should cut, cut, cut. But when a politician threatens to cut freebies like Pell grants, welfare, free heating fuel, food stamps, medicaid or anything else these very same posters cry foul, and complain the government is trying to hurt the poor.
Let's get a couple things straight:
1) If a person pays no taxes then they have no right to complain how tax money is used, nor demand that they get a share of it - they already get more than they earned and deserve. They get to use the roads, transportation, hospitals and schools that taxPAYERS paid for.
2) Joe Taxpayer does not owe you ANYTHING. Each of us has the God-given right to "pursue happiness", but we do not have any right to happiness - just the right to pursue it. And if we EARN it, then we have a right to it.
In God's nature, the first law is survival of the fittest. That means each of us is granted the right to FIGHT for, and EARN what we want, through competition. We do NOT have a right to take from those who did the fighting or the earning.
The latest fuss is a proposal to cut the number of Pell Grants for education. And here's a clue: if a person has what it takes to succeed in life, they will succeed, whether or not they get any grants. And if they do not have what it takes to succeed, they will not succeed whether or not they get any grants.
So Pell Grants are a waste of taxpayer money.
No matter how "civilized" we like to think we are, the laws of nature cannot be changed. It is still "survival of the fittest". The weak are not supposed to survive, because the species is only as strong as its weakest link.
Sounds cruel, I know. But that is reality. Think about this little tidbit for a moment - try to name even ONE thing that can survive without something else dying. Even a tree requires food that comes from the decomposition of other living things.
Survival of the fittest. Eat or be eaten. However you call it, it's the same thing - each of us is supposed to compete for and earn our own way in life. Those who do not are nothing more than an anchor on the rest of us.
The ONLY people a compassionate society should care for are those who are either physically or mentally incapable of caring for themselves. Everyone else should be on their own, to rise or fall by their own efforts.
We all want to be winners in the game of life. But think about this - how can anyone win if no one loses? It's like poker - you can only win if other players lose.
That is this thing called "life". We are born. We struggle to win. Or we lose. Most of us win some, and lose some. And then we die. What we should NOT be doing is helping losers to win, for by so doing you are just creating different losers. Remember, one cannot win unless another loses. Everything that lives must consume. Making a winner out of Joe only helps to make a loser out of George.
/
I'm talking about those who, because of their financial position, pay no taxes, and even more to the point, those who live off the sweat of others.
As an example, I have archived a lot of posts that complain mightily about our soaring deficit and how we should cut, cut, cut. But when a politician threatens to cut freebies like Pell grants, welfare, free heating fuel, food stamps, medicaid or anything else these very same posters cry foul, and complain the government is trying to hurt the poor.
Let's get a couple things straight:
1) If a person pays no taxes then they have no right to complain how tax money is used, nor demand that they get a share of it - they already get more than they earned and deserve. They get to use the roads, transportation, hospitals and schools that taxPAYERS paid for.
2) Joe Taxpayer does not owe you ANYTHING. Each of us has the God-given right to "pursue happiness", but we do not have any right to happiness - just the right to pursue it. And if we EARN it, then we have a right to it.
In God's nature, the first law is survival of the fittest. That means each of us is granted the right to FIGHT for, and EARN what we want, through competition. We do NOT have a right to take from those who did the fighting or the earning.
The latest fuss is a proposal to cut the number of Pell Grants for education. And here's a clue: if a person has what it takes to succeed in life, they will succeed, whether or not they get any grants. And if they do not have what it takes to succeed, they will not succeed whether or not they get any grants.
So Pell Grants are a waste of taxpayer money.
No matter how "civilized" we like to think we are, the laws of nature cannot be changed. It is still "survival of the fittest". The weak are not supposed to survive, because the species is only as strong as its weakest link.
Sounds cruel, I know. But that is reality. Think about this little tidbit for a moment - try to name even ONE thing that can survive without something else dying. Even a tree requires food that comes from the decomposition of other living things.
Survival of the fittest. Eat or be eaten. However you call it, it's the same thing - each of us is supposed to compete for and earn our own way in life. Those who do not are nothing more than an anchor on the rest of us.
The ONLY people a compassionate society should care for are those who are either physically or mentally incapable of caring for themselves. Everyone else should be on their own, to rise or fall by their own efforts.
We all want to be winners in the game of life. But think about this - how can anyone win if no one loses? It's like poker - you can only win if other players lose.
That is this thing called "life". We are born. We struggle to win. Or we lose. Most of us win some, and lose some. And then we die. What we should NOT be doing is helping losers to win, for by so doing you are just creating different losers. Remember, one cannot win unless another loses. Everything that lives must consume. Making a winner out of Joe only helps to make a loser out of George.
/
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Entertaining Theory - Earth, The Intergalactic Penal Colony?
I spend some of my spare time studying mysteries and developing possible theories that explain them. And the greatest mysteries are those involving how we got here - who are we, where did we come from, what part does religion and/or extraterrestrial activity play in our history? Is there any one theory that could connect ALL the dots into a tapestry that, regardless of its absurdity, actually makes sense?
As many of you know, one of my degrees is in theology - the study of religion. And I have studied some of the oldest texts and writings in the world, going back to the ancient Sumerians, known as the world's first known civilization. I have also studied UFOlogy. So it stands to reason that any theory that would pull all the dots together must be able to explain the beliefs in all things, bringing UFOlogy and religion together with science and historical data. This is one idea I have developed - hope you find it entertaining:
Earth is in one of the youngest parts of the universe. If life exists elsewhere, it is likely to be much older and far more advanced. That is a good place to begin. It is also commonly believed in all ancient texts that the Earth became populated in the beginning by "fallen angels" - beings either with Heavenly (Godly) or extraterrestrial ties, depending on which texts you believe. These creatures were powerful, intelligent and capable of many "Godly" powers.
Before going further, please note: whether these creatures were delivered by God or some other entity does not in any way preclude the existence of God. Even if all the "angels" and other depictions of the Deity are simply extraterrestrials that humans mistook for Gods, that does not mean there is not still a God that reigns over them as well as us. To put it in perspective, a hundred years ago some primitive civilizations, seeing the white man for the first time, mistook us for gods. That did not mean a true God did not still exist. It merely means they mistook us as gods because we could strike a match to make fire. That said, back to the theory.
The Earth was young. It was sparsely populated with less-than-intelligent humanoid creatures such as Neanderthal Man. This is something science is relatively sure of. Ancient texts from around the globe tell us that "the gods", or "fallen angels" came to Earth and took unto themselves wives from the indigenous species, creating a new race. This would explain why no "missing link" has been found in the evolutionary chain. So, who or what were these creatures?
How about this - Earth was an inter-galactic penal colony for the "fallen angels", much as Australia was a penal colony for England. The Australian aborigines thought these convicts brought to their land were gods. . At first, these extraterrestrial "bad boys" were provided with some support from their mother world, allowing them to build the great cities and pyramids that modern science cannot quite explain, like the ancient great cities built more than 14,000 years ago - when Man is generally considered to be little more than cavemen. But eventually the extraterrestrial support waned or was cut off, leaving Earth's inhabitants to fend for themselves with minimal interference. And those great cities fell into decay as the technologies disappeared into antiquity and the fallen ones were cut off from the mother civilization. Since then, Man has spent thousands of years trying to regain the civilization we once new - just as the convicts of Australia spent 200 years doing the same.
Jesus told us that we are just one sheep in the Father's fold, and that we are the "black sheep." Does this mean that there are many other civilizations in the universe, and that Earth is the "black sheep" because we began as a penal colony? If that is true, then we can see a few things more clearly. That there is a God, but He is not who we think - the ones we worship as god or gods are nothing more than other civilizations under His influence. That the Earth was populated with beings with powers great enough to build great cities, but lost the power to do so because their mother world that got them started left them to their own devices, leading to a disintegrating civilization. That "angels", or "jihn" actually existed, but were nothing more than beings with greater knowledge and powers. That we are the product of a mixing of races. It would explain why, like salmon returning to where they were born in order to spawn, Man keeps trying to reach the stars. It explains great, powerful civilizations that simply disappeared. It explains why there is no "missing link" between prehistoric man and modern man. It would explain UFO's throughout history, perhaps being the "wardens" who oversee the penal colony and sometimes interfere as necessary.
Think of any mystery of our origin, or UFO's, or religious events and ask yourself - does this not coincide with the theory that Earth may be nothing more than an intergalactic penal colony? Of course, perhaps it is simpler than that. Our own Bible says 144,000 will be "saved" when the end comes. What if those are saved by UFO's? They would then need to be transplanted elsewhere - a new planet. At first we would build big cities, but true to human nature, we would lose certain "arts" with each new generation (can you shoe a horse?), and over a few generations those great cities would fall into ruin as later generations are incapable of maintaining them. A few more generations and we would be quite primitive, and starting all over again from scratch. And a few thousand years later we would once again be looking for ways to travel the stars - to go "home"...
So, is it possible that our ancestors were the "fallen angels" who were transplants from the last world we came from? After all, some ancient texts do claim that this is the "third world".
Yeh, I know - such theories are really "out there". But are they really any less likely than what many others believe? Do they not connect the dots?
Friday, February 11, 2011
Want to know the greatest secret of success? Check this out...
The following is an excerpt from an excellent, free eBook (written by myself, of course) that offers the 10 Principles of Success. The eBook is entitled "Wealth From Thin Air", and is published by IntelliBiz, the same folks who publish my "Simple Man's Guide to Real Estate". When you read this, I think you will see the wisdom that this unique little eBook can impart, and you will want to read the entire eBook. And you should - after all, it is not only a great resource, but it is also absolutely free - you don't even have to register, give your email address or anything. I am providing a link to the eBook at the end of this article. Enjoy!
Secret #3
The secret you are about to learn may well be the most important one of all. The concept is so simple and logical that most people overlook it. Don't make that mistake - if there is but one thing that is absolutely essential for sustained success, this is it!
It is important to realize one, simple fact - everything that exists is, to one degree or another, either an asset or a liability. Now, it is true that many things have traits of both, such as a weapon. On the one hand, if faced with threat of violence, a weapon in your possession would be an asset. But in the wrong hands (i.e. that mugger in front of you), it could be a liability. Debts, while often called liabilities, can also be an asset. For example, you may owe on a mortgage (liability). But that debt proves to other creditors that you are creditworthy and responsible (asset), allowing you to obtain more credit when needed.
People are no different - each of us is both an asset and a liability to those around us. Some, such as Saint Theresa, are more of an asset than others who may be liabilities (bin Laden comes to mind). But most of us are a rather ordinary mix of both.
The key to remember here is that the more of an asset you are, the greater your success will be. Conversely, the more of a liability you pose, the greater your chances of failing.
You may know that guy in town who is always grumpy, never has a kind word for anyone, keeps his yard looking like a junkyard and is generally an all-around pain in the butt. And you may notice he is a real nobody - a loser. No one will lift a finger for him in his time of need. No one wants to be around him. And no one will value him enough to give him a good stock tip. How could he ever hope to get ahead when no one will even come near him?
On the other hand, we all know someone who is quick to help when needed, someone who is always pleasant and smiling. He/she just makes you feel good whenever they are around. You enjoy their company. And if this person is ever in trouble, everyone will be there to help. Is it just a question of friendship? While that may be a part of it, it surely is not all of it. What is important is why and how such a person instills such friendly spirits in people.
First, however, we need to look at the benefits of being an asset. Consider two used-car dealers, Bob and Carl. Bob is a bit of a shyster, out for the quick sale. He uses pressure tactics. Once a sale is made, you never hear from him again, unless you make the mistake of going back someday. His cars are not properly maintained and always have problems, which he won't fix. Yep - Bob makes a lot of money at first. But sooner or later, folks catch on and go elsewhere, and Bob loses all he has worked for. Bob is more of a liability than an asset.
Carl, on the other hand is friendly and courteous. He talks about you and your family. He learns things about his customers, like birthdays and anniversaries. There is no pressure - he sincerely wants you to be happy with your choice. After the sale, Carl contacts you and asks how it's going, and lets you know that if you have problems, bring it in and he'll take care of you. You may get a card on your birthday or anniversary, letting you know that Carl really is interested in you, and cares. After a while, all of those unhappy people who left Bob are buying their cars from Carl, and Carl's wealth grows. And Carl is not afraid to use some of that wealth to help others in need, either.
Suddenly, and without warning, both Bob's house and Carl's house, which are side-by-side, burn to the ground. How many people do you suppose will rally around Bob and help him rebuild? How many around Carl? Understand an important principle at work here. People like successful people (assets). They want to be around them, perhaps hoping it will "rub off". More importantly, people need successful people. Successful people "protect" those around them, because they know it is those around them who have helped them to build wealth. By the same token, those around him understand that as long as they protect him, and keep him wealthy, he will be there to protect them from harm. On the other hand, most of us want nothing to do with people who pose a liability.
How much of an asset you are, and how many people you are an asset to, will determine the extent of your success. Bill Gates is tremendously successful because he is an asset to much of the world - it is through him that we all have computers that are relatively simple to use; computers that make our lives so much easier. Because Bill provides such a service, we keep throwing money at him.
On the other hand, the local business owner at the computer store will only achieve a small portion of the success that Bill Gates enjoys. This is because his "asset allocation" is being limited to a local area.
Depending on the level of success you wish to achieve, understand that 1) you must be more of an asset than a liability, and 2) you must be an asset to as many people as it takes to reach your desired level of success. If you want to beat Bill Gates, you will need to be an asset to the world. Otherwise, you may just want to be an asset to a few thousand people in your own community.
Secret #3 Summary: Be an asset to those around you - always. The greater the success you desire, the more of an asset you must be, to as many people as possible. Remember - you enjoy your own assets. And so do other folks. If you are one of their assets, you fall under their protection, and they will cater to you and protect you, just as they would any of their other assets.
Read the entire "Wealth From Thin Air" eBook, absolutely free.
Secret #3
The secret you are about to learn may well be the most important one of all. The concept is so simple and logical that most people overlook it. Don't make that mistake - if there is but one thing that is absolutely essential for sustained success, this is it!
It is important to realize one, simple fact - everything that exists is, to one degree or another, either an asset or a liability. Now, it is true that many things have traits of both, such as a weapon. On the one hand, if faced with threat of violence, a weapon in your possession would be an asset. But in the wrong hands (i.e. that mugger in front of you), it could be a liability. Debts, while often called liabilities, can also be an asset. For example, you may owe on a mortgage (liability). But that debt proves to other creditors that you are creditworthy and responsible (asset), allowing you to obtain more credit when needed.
People are no different - each of us is both an asset and a liability to those around us. Some, such as Saint Theresa, are more of an asset than others who may be liabilities (bin Laden comes to mind). But most of us are a rather ordinary mix of both.
The key to remember here is that the more of an asset you are, the greater your success will be. Conversely, the more of a liability you pose, the greater your chances of failing.
You may know that guy in town who is always grumpy, never has a kind word for anyone, keeps his yard looking like a junkyard and is generally an all-around pain in the butt. And you may notice he is a real nobody - a loser. No one will lift a finger for him in his time of need. No one wants to be around him. And no one will value him enough to give him a good stock tip. How could he ever hope to get ahead when no one will even come near him?
On the other hand, we all know someone who is quick to help when needed, someone who is always pleasant and smiling. He/she just makes you feel good whenever they are around. You enjoy their company. And if this person is ever in trouble, everyone will be there to help. Is it just a question of friendship? While that may be a part of it, it surely is not all of it. What is important is why and how such a person instills such friendly spirits in people.
First, however, we need to look at the benefits of being an asset. Consider two used-car dealers, Bob and Carl. Bob is a bit of a shyster, out for the quick sale. He uses pressure tactics. Once a sale is made, you never hear from him again, unless you make the mistake of going back someday. His cars are not properly maintained and always have problems, which he won't fix. Yep - Bob makes a lot of money at first. But sooner or later, folks catch on and go elsewhere, and Bob loses all he has worked for. Bob is more of a liability than an asset.
Carl, on the other hand is friendly and courteous. He talks about you and your family. He learns things about his customers, like birthdays and anniversaries. There is no pressure - he sincerely wants you to be happy with your choice. After the sale, Carl contacts you and asks how it's going, and lets you know that if you have problems, bring it in and he'll take care of you. You may get a card on your birthday or anniversary, letting you know that Carl really is interested in you, and cares. After a while, all of those unhappy people who left Bob are buying their cars from Carl, and Carl's wealth grows. And Carl is not afraid to use some of that wealth to help others in need, either.
Suddenly, and without warning, both Bob's house and Carl's house, which are side-by-side, burn to the ground. How many people do you suppose will rally around Bob and help him rebuild? How many around Carl? Understand an important principle at work here. People like successful people (assets). They want to be around them, perhaps hoping it will "rub off". More importantly, people need successful people. Successful people "protect" those around them, because they know it is those around them who have helped them to build wealth. By the same token, those around him understand that as long as they protect him, and keep him wealthy, he will be there to protect them from harm. On the other hand, most of us want nothing to do with people who pose a liability.
How much of an asset you are, and how many people you are an asset to, will determine the extent of your success. Bill Gates is tremendously successful because he is an asset to much of the world - it is through him that we all have computers that are relatively simple to use; computers that make our lives so much easier. Because Bill provides such a service, we keep throwing money at him.
On the other hand, the local business owner at the computer store will only achieve a small portion of the success that Bill Gates enjoys. This is because his "asset allocation" is being limited to a local area.
Depending on the level of success you wish to achieve, understand that 1) you must be more of an asset than a liability, and 2) you must be an asset to as many people as it takes to reach your desired level of success. If you want to beat Bill Gates, you will need to be an asset to the world. Otherwise, you may just want to be an asset to a few thousand people in your own community.
Secret #3 Summary: Be an asset to those around you - always. The greater the success you desire, the more of an asset you must be, to as many people as possible. Remember - you enjoy your own assets. And so do other folks. If you are one of their assets, you fall under their protection, and they will cater to you and protect you, just as they would any of their other assets.
Read the entire "Wealth From Thin Air" eBook, absolutely free.
/
Now, about those people who live off the sweat of someone else's brow...
I own a business, so liberals think I should pay more taxes.
If you work for someone, you likely pay 17% on income over $15000, plus 7.65% FICA. You keep $15,000 plus 75.35% of your all income above that. If you pay a state tax, that may be reduced accordingly, but you still get to keep most of your earnings - at least 70% of your income. And, if you earn less than $47,000/year, you likely get the income tax portion back. So, you get to keep between 70-85% of the income you earn.
Being self-employed, I pay 15.3% FICA and 33% income tax on every dollar I earn (AMT). That appears to leave only 51.7% for me. NOPE! I also pay 8% state business tax, leaving me just 43.7%. Then I have to pay unemployment tax, leaving just 40.2%. And my state charges 5% sales tax on everything I buy, so when I spend that 40.2%, I only get to keep 35.2%. (As a Christian, I give 10% to charity, actually leaving me about 25% of my income).
Assuming you also give 10%, you get to keep at least 60% of your income. I only get to keep 25% of mine. And liberals think that is fair.
I work hard. I build the business. I take all the risks. I invest my money in it. I don't work 40 hours a week - I put in 100 or more. I hire the people and pay the benefits. I move the economy. I have the worries and stresses that come with keeping a business alive and families supported. But I only get to keep less than half as much as you. And you think that is fair.
Why is that fair? Why should I have to give even more to you? If you want more, do what I do. Take the risks. Work harder. Build a business. THAT would be fair. But I do not owe you anything. There is no right to punish someone for working harder, for taking the risks, and building a business so he can hire you and support your family. That's called biting the hand that feeds you. And if you bite me too hard or too often, I'll just take my business to Mexico, India or China. Just like others have already done.
No, I do not owe you more taxes simply because I make more money than you do. We are all supposed to be equal, so when you pay as much tax on every dollar YOU earn as I pay on every dollar I earn, then that would be fair.
Liberals love to quote Thomas Jefferson with his "wall of separation of church and state" comment. Well, here's another quote by Jefferson, though suddenly the liberals lose interest in Jefferson when reading this:
"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare [give] to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it."
In other words, each of us should be abl;e to keep that which our sweat has earned, and no one who has not earned it should be entitled to take it.
/
If you work for someone, you likely pay 17% on income over $15000, plus 7.65% FICA. You keep $15,000 plus 75.35% of your all income above that. If you pay a state tax, that may be reduced accordingly, but you still get to keep most of your earnings - at least 70% of your income. And, if you earn less than $47,000/year, you likely get the income tax portion back. So, you get to keep between 70-85% of the income you earn.
Being self-employed, I pay 15.3% FICA and 33% income tax on every dollar I earn (AMT). That appears to leave only 51.7% for me. NOPE! I also pay 8% state business tax, leaving me just 43.7%. Then I have to pay unemployment tax, leaving just 40.2%. And my state charges 5% sales tax on everything I buy, so when I spend that 40.2%, I only get to keep 35.2%. (As a Christian, I give 10% to charity, actually leaving me about 25% of my income).
Assuming you also give 10%, you get to keep at least 60% of your income. I only get to keep 25% of mine. And liberals think that is fair.
I work hard. I build the business. I take all the risks. I invest my money in it. I don't work 40 hours a week - I put in 100 or more. I hire the people and pay the benefits. I move the economy. I have the worries and stresses that come with keeping a business alive and families supported. But I only get to keep less than half as much as you. And you think that is fair.
Why is that fair? Why should I have to give even more to you? If you want more, do what I do. Take the risks. Work harder. Build a business. THAT would be fair. But I do not owe you anything. There is no right to punish someone for working harder, for taking the risks, and building a business so he can hire you and support your family. That's called biting the hand that feeds you. And if you bite me too hard or too often, I'll just take my business to Mexico, India or China. Just like others have already done.
No, I do not owe you more taxes simply because I make more money than you do. We are all supposed to be equal, so when you pay as much tax on every dollar YOU earn as I pay on every dollar I earn, then that would be fair.
Liberals love to quote Thomas Jefferson with his "wall of separation of church and state" comment. Well, here's another quote by Jefferson, though suddenly the liberals lose interest in Jefferson when reading this:
"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare [give] to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it."
In other words, each of us should be abl;e to keep that which our sweat has earned, and no one who has not earned it should be entitled to take it.
/
One of the true secrets of success in all things great and small...
Once upon a time there was a bunch of tiny frogs who arranged a climbing competition.The goal was to reach the top of avery high tower.
A big crowd had gathered around the tower to see the race and cheer on the contestants.
The race began. Honestly, no one in the crowd really believed that the tiny frogs would reach the top of the tower. You heard statements such as:
"Oh, WAY too difficult!!"
"They will NEVER make it to the top."
"Not a chance that they will succeed.The tower is too high!"
The tiny frogs began collapsing one by one except for those, who in a fresh tempo and gaining their second wind, were climbing higher and higher.
The crowd continued to yell, "It istoo difficult!!! No one will make it!"
More tiny frogs got tired and gave up. But ONE continued higher and higher and higher. This one wouldn't give up!
At the end everyone else had given up climbing the tower except for the one tiny frog who, after a big effort, was the only one who reached the top!
THEN all of the other tiny frogs naturally wanted to know how this one frog managed to do it? A contestant asked the tiny frog how he had found the strength to succeed and reach the goal?
It turned out that the winner was DEAF!!!!
The wisdom of this story is: Never listen to other people's tendencies to be negative or pessimistic because they take your most wonderful dreams and wishes away from you -- the ones you have in yourheart!
Always think of the power words have. (There's life and death inthe power of the tongue - Proverbs18:21.) Because everything you hear and read will affect your actions! Therefore, ALWAYS be POSITIVE! And above all --- Be DEAF when people tell YOU that you cannot fulfill your dreams!
Always think: If I cannot do it alone, I can certainly do it with God's help.
/
A big crowd had gathered around the tower to see the race and cheer on the contestants.
The race began. Honestly, no one in the crowd really believed that the tiny frogs would reach the top of the tower. You heard statements such as:
"Oh, WAY too difficult!!"
"They will NEVER make it to the top."
"Not a chance that they will succeed.The tower is too high!"
The tiny frogs began collapsing one by one except for those, who in a fresh tempo and gaining their second wind, were climbing higher and higher.
The crowd continued to yell, "It istoo difficult!!! No one will make it!"
More tiny frogs got tired and gave up. But ONE continued higher and higher and higher. This one wouldn't give up!
At the end everyone else had given up climbing the tower except for the one tiny frog who, after a big effort, was the only one who reached the top!
THEN all of the other tiny frogs naturally wanted to know how this one frog managed to do it? A contestant asked the tiny frog how he had found the strength to succeed and reach the goal?
It turned out that the winner was DEAF!!!!
The wisdom of this story is: Never listen to other people's tendencies to be negative or pessimistic because they take your most wonderful dreams and wishes away from you -- the ones you have in yourheart!
Always think of the power words have. (There's life and death inthe power of the tongue - Proverbs18:21.) Because everything you hear and read will affect your actions! Therefore, ALWAYS be POSITIVE! And above all --- Be DEAF when people tell YOU that you cannot fulfill your dreams!
Always think: If I cannot do it alone, I can certainly do it with God's help.
/
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Is Michelle Obama's "Diet Agenda" Worthy Of Consideration? Maybe Not...
Michelle Obama's "signature agenda" is to make America healthier by forcing Americans onto what she deems is a healthier diet. While eating healthier sounds like a good idea, I have some serious questions about her agenda.
First, it is not in the perview of the government - or anyone - to determine what we can or cannot eat. We have free choice in America. If a person has the right to choose an abortion, then we certainly have the right to choose fries with our meal.
Second, there is no true concensus of exactly what is or is not healthy. In the 50's the government said eggs were a great part of our diet. In the 70's those same feds told us eggs were unhealthy and dangerous. And now in 2011 there are some who tell us they are bad while other experts tell us they are essential. If the experts don't know what is good or bad, I sincerely doubt Michelle's expertise in the matter.
Third, not everyone has the same nutritional needs. There are various body types, and different metabolisms. A one-size-fits-all diet is a very, very bad idea.
But now to the reason I even bring all this up. Some will think this to be insulting and crass but it is not intended to be so. It is a simple and honest observation. As I watched Michelle Obama take to the podium yesterday, I noticed she has a huge posterior and very heavy thighs. Michelle, herself, appears to be far from slender - obese even. So I had to ask myself, one of two things must be true - either her ideas on nutrition are not sound, or she is not following her own advice. If the former is true, then why should we be forced to follow a diet that obviously does not work? And if the latter is true, why should we follow a diet that she, herself does not follow?
For over 50 years I ate every "unhealthy" food available. Three or four eggs a day, real butter by the stick. All the fried foods I could find, and sugary treats at every turn. I would drink 25-30 cups of coffee a day, and at least an 8-pack of Pepsi. And for 50 years my weight never went over 145 pounds and my cholesterol level is low. I have never been in the hospital for anything more serious than a check-up. I also smoked 2 packs a day for 40 years.
So here is my note to Michelle - while I appreciate your concern, my life belongs to me, and I will make choices for myself. Some will be good, some will not. But they are my choices to make. If you have indisputable proof that your dietary suggestions are sound, feel free to provide that proof - and then get the Hell out of the way and let us make our own choices.
/
First, it is not in the perview of the government - or anyone - to determine what we can or cannot eat. We have free choice in America. If a person has the right to choose an abortion, then we certainly have the right to choose fries with our meal.
Second, there is no true concensus of exactly what is or is not healthy. In the 50's the government said eggs were a great part of our diet. In the 70's those same feds told us eggs were unhealthy and dangerous. And now in 2011 there are some who tell us they are bad while other experts tell us they are essential. If the experts don't know what is good or bad, I sincerely doubt Michelle's expertise in the matter.
Third, not everyone has the same nutritional needs. There are various body types, and different metabolisms. A one-size-fits-all diet is a very, very bad idea.
But now to the reason I even bring all this up. Some will think this to be insulting and crass but it is not intended to be so. It is a simple and honest observation. As I watched Michelle Obama take to the podium yesterday, I noticed she has a huge posterior and very heavy thighs. Michelle, herself, appears to be far from slender - obese even. So I had to ask myself, one of two things must be true - either her ideas on nutrition are not sound, or she is not following her own advice. If the former is true, then why should we be forced to follow a diet that obviously does not work? And if the latter is true, why should we follow a diet that she, herself does not follow?
For over 50 years I ate every "unhealthy" food available. Three or four eggs a day, real butter by the stick. All the fried foods I could find, and sugary treats at every turn. I would drink 25-30 cups of coffee a day, and at least an 8-pack of Pepsi. And for 50 years my weight never went over 145 pounds and my cholesterol level is low. I have never been in the hospital for anything more serious than a check-up. I also smoked 2 packs a day for 40 years.
So here is my note to Michelle - while I appreciate your concern, my life belongs to me, and I will make choices for myself. Some will be good, some will not. But they are my choices to make. If you have indisputable proof that your dietary suggestions are sound, feel free to provide that proof - and then get the Hell out of the way and let us make our own choices.
/
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
CREATING & PROTECTING WEALTH WITH LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ...
The limited partnership (LP) or the family limited partnership (FLP) is the foundation for most domestic asset protection plans. The (F)LP is a valuable and most likely necessary part of building your financial security because:
1. an (F)LP allows you to control your assets without the liability of owning them;
2. judgements cannot reach to the debtor's limited partnership interest;
3. a properly structured (F)LP can possibly protect transfers made even after a claim arises and also protect against IRS claims;
4. an (F)LP is tax-neutral;
5. an (F)LP provides maximum operating flexibility; and
6. an (F)LP gives you the opportunity to better plan your estate and reduce estate taxes.
Because of its versatility and protective functions, most comprehensive asset protection plans include at least one limited partnership in one form or another.
STRUCTURING A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Partners in a limited partnership can distribute their ownership interest as they choose, which is an important feature for asset protection purposes. For example, you can contribute personal assets to the partnership and obtain in exchange receive only a small interest in the partnership. The remaining partnership interest can be owned by other family members. However, if the other family member is not your spouse, this can constitute a taxable gift. For example, if you contribute $50,000 to the limited partnership and your partner contributes nothing but receives an equal share, then your partner has in effect received a $25,000 gift. Have your accountant check the structure of your limited partnership to avoid tax problems and also to determine that the LP is your best choice from a tax standpoint.
LP’s for families are known as Family Limited Partnerships, or FLP. Usually formed by a husband and wife, they would contribute various income-producing or business assets in exchange for their respective partnership interests. While this is normal, it may not be the best strategy for an FLP. By its nature, an FLP is used to protect a family’s assets. Business interests, as well as automobiles and other “dangerous” assets should be left out of the FLP, to prevent contamination. For example, if the family car is transferred into the FLP, and is later involved in an accident, any judgement resulting from that accident can be attached to all the assets in the partnership. For this reason, an FLP should only hold “safe” assets - those assets that are unlikely to be involved in creating a lawsuit, or creditor. There are other ways to protect those assets that are left out of the FLP.
In the usual FLP, Mom and dad, for example, may each receive a one or two percent interest as the general partners (general partners can be held liable; limited partners cannot). As co-general partners they would equally control the partnership the same way they controlled the assets prior to the FLP. Mom and dad may then receive, as limited partners, the remaining in the limited partnership. This allows mom and dad exclusive and equal ownership as well as control of the partnership, just as they had enjoyed with their assets when they were titled in their name. The one difference is that their assets are now fully protected. Judgements and creditors can only reach the one or two percent allocated to the general partners, and in cases where the FLP agreement prohibits it, said creditors may not assume that ownership interest nor any control over the assets of the FLP. Remember - an FLP should only include safe assets, such as cash, rare coins, art, collectibles, personal belongings - any assets that are not likely to cause any judgement that could taint the remaining assets.
Dangerous assets can be separated from all other assets by using a Limited Liability Company (LLC). If you own rental properties (dangerous asset due to lawsuits, fires, flood etc.), each unit should be transferred into it own, separate LLC. If a judgement is found against that property, only that property is vulnerable - all others have been insulated. Note that all LLC’s can be owned by your FLP without contaminiating the FLP, provided the FLP merely owns the LLC, and not the LLC’s asset(s).
Hubby and wife may later change their limited partnership interests. Perhaps the wife will obtain the greater interest. Or hubby and wife may gradually gift their limited partnership interests to their children or to a living trust, children's trust, dynasty trust or other type of trust or entity, which may also own a portion of the limited partnership. The FLP can work very well for family estate planning, The FLP structure is never permanent. Partners in an FLP can always sell or gift partnership interests, subject only to those restrictions in the partnership agreement, and thereby reduce estate taxes.
THE ROLE OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES
A limited liability company, like the LP and FLP is tax neutral. Transfers can be made in and out of it without tax repercussions. And, like the (F)LP, the partners control the assets with limited liability.
An LLC is most useful for insulating dangerous assets from safe assets. A rental property, for example, can increase the possibility of judgements. Injuries to tenants, for example, can result in judgements that far exceed your insurance. If the rental is transferred into an LLC, any judgement brought about from ownership of that rental is limited to that rental and cannot affect any other assets you may own. Therefore, each dangerous asset - rentals, business interests etc. - should each be placed into a separate LLC. All LLC’s can be owned by your (F)LP without placing the (F)LP assets in jeopardy.
Example: you own your own home, $100,000 in safe personal assets such as cash, stocks, bonds, rare coins, jewelry and collectibles, as well as other valuable personal assets. You also own your own construction business. In addition, you have managed to accumulate two rental properties. In this case, you may first want to form an FLP and transfer all safe assets into it. This should not include vehicle or your personal residence. Next, form three different LLC’s - one each for the two rental properties and one for your construction business. Set up your FLP to own all the LLC’s. (Your vehicles will not be in any of these entities - keep them separate, as they are the most likely candidates to result in a judgement). Your home can be placed into a trust, as recommended by your accountant, and based on your personal needs and goals. Your assets are now nearly 100% protected against judgements and creditors.
If you are involved in a motor vehicle accident, for example, and the other party sues you, there is nothing for them to go after. All your assets are no longer yours - they belong to either an LLC or an FLP. Therefore, the person suing has no choice but to accept a settlement from your insurance company. If a tenant gets injured and sues, they cannot attach any assets except the property in which they were a tenant, because they can only sue the LLC that owns it. Since that property is likely mortgaged to the hilt, and has debts, it is unlikely they would go after it - their legal costs would exceed the amount they would receive. If your business gets sued, you and your other assets are insulated, and only your business is at risk, With no other assets owned by the business - and many debts - your business would simply file for bankruptcy, and once the judgement and debts are discharged, you start another business LLC under a new name, free of debts. The bankruptcy does not affect your personal credit, or that of other LLC’s or FLP’s owned by you. It only reflects on that now defunct business.
If you choose to pursue wealth, do so wisely, and with good planning. Because once you begin accumulating wealth, there will be no shortage of unscrupulous people who will try to take it from you.
.
1. an (F)LP allows you to control your assets without the liability of owning them;
2. judgements cannot reach to the debtor's limited partnership interest;
3. a properly structured (F)LP can possibly protect transfers made even after a claim arises and also protect against IRS claims;
4. an (F)LP is tax-neutral;
5. an (F)LP provides maximum operating flexibility; and
6. an (F)LP gives you the opportunity to better plan your estate and reduce estate taxes.
Because of its versatility and protective functions, most comprehensive asset protection plans include at least one limited partnership in one form or another.
STRUCTURING A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Partners in a limited partnership can distribute their ownership interest as they choose, which is an important feature for asset protection purposes. For example, you can contribute personal assets to the partnership and obtain in exchange receive only a small interest in the partnership. The remaining partnership interest can be owned by other family members. However, if the other family member is not your spouse, this can constitute a taxable gift. For example, if you contribute $50,000 to the limited partnership and your partner contributes nothing but receives an equal share, then your partner has in effect received a $25,000 gift. Have your accountant check the structure of your limited partnership to avoid tax problems and also to determine that the LP is your best choice from a tax standpoint.
LP’s for families are known as Family Limited Partnerships, or FLP. Usually formed by a husband and wife, they would contribute various income-producing or business assets in exchange for their respective partnership interests. While this is normal, it may not be the best strategy for an FLP. By its nature, an FLP is used to protect a family’s assets. Business interests, as well as automobiles and other “dangerous” assets should be left out of the FLP, to prevent contamination. For example, if the family car is transferred into the FLP, and is later involved in an accident, any judgement resulting from that accident can be attached to all the assets in the partnership. For this reason, an FLP should only hold “safe” assets - those assets that are unlikely to be involved in creating a lawsuit, or creditor. There are other ways to protect those assets that are left out of the FLP.
In the usual FLP, Mom and dad, for example, may each receive a one or two percent interest as the general partners (general partners can be held liable; limited partners cannot). As co-general partners they would equally control the partnership the same way they controlled the assets prior to the FLP. Mom and dad may then receive, as limited partners, the remaining in the limited partnership. This allows mom and dad exclusive and equal ownership as well as control of the partnership, just as they had enjoyed with their assets when they were titled in their name. The one difference is that their assets are now fully protected. Judgements and creditors can only reach the one or two percent allocated to the general partners, and in cases where the FLP agreement prohibits it, said creditors may not assume that ownership interest nor any control over the assets of the FLP. Remember - an FLP should only include safe assets, such as cash, rare coins, art, collectibles, personal belongings - any assets that are not likely to cause any judgement that could taint the remaining assets.
Dangerous assets can be separated from all other assets by using a Limited Liability Company (LLC). If you own rental properties (dangerous asset due to lawsuits, fires, flood etc.), each unit should be transferred into it own, separate LLC. If a judgement is found against that property, only that property is vulnerable - all others have been insulated. Note that all LLC’s can be owned by your FLP without contaminiating the FLP, provided the FLP merely owns the LLC, and not the LLC’s asset(s).
Hubby and wife may later change their limited partnership interests. Perhaps the wife will obtain the greater interest. Or hubby and wife may gradually gift their limited partnership interests to their children or to a living trust, children's trust, dynasty trust or other type of trust or entity, which may also own a portion of the limited partnership. The FLP can work very well for family estate planning, The FLP structure is never permanent. Partners in an FLP can always sell or gift partnership interests, subject only to those restrictions in the partnership agreement, and thereby reduce estate taxes.
THE ROLE OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES
A limited liability company, like the LP and FLP is tax neutral. Transfers can be made in and out of it without tax repercussions. And, like the (F)LP, the partners control the assets with limited liability.
An LLC is most useful for insulating dangerous assets from safe assets. A rental property, for example, can increase the possibility of judgements. Injuries to tenants, for example, can result in judgements that far exceed your insurance. If the rental is transferred into an LLC, any judgement brought about from ownership of that rental is limited to that rental and cannot affect any other assets you may own. Therefore, each dangerous asset - rentals, business interests etc. - should each be placed into a separate LLC. All LLC’s can be owned by your (F)LP without placing the (F)LP assets in jeopardy.
Example: you own your own home, $100,000 in safe personal assets such as cash, stocks, bonds, rare coins, jewelry and collectibles, as well as other valuable personal assets. You also own your own construction business. In addition, you have managed to accumulate two rental properties. In this case, you may first want to form an FLP and transfer all safe assets into it. This should not include vehicle or your personal residence. Next, form three different LLC’s - one each for the two rental properties and one for your construction business. Set up your FLP to own all the LLC’s. (Your vehicles will not be in any of these entities - keep them separate, as they are the most likely candidates to result in a judgement). Your home can be placed into a trust, as recommended by your accountant, and based on your personal needs and goals. Your assets are now nearly 100% protected against judgements and creditors.
If you are involved in a motor vehicle accident, for example, and the other party sues you, there is nothing for them to go after. All your assets are no longer yours - they belong to either an LLC or an FLP. Therefore, the person suing has no choice but to accept a settlement from your insurance company. If a tenant gets injured and sues, they cannot attach any assets except the property in which they were a tenant, because they can only sue the LLC that owns it. Since that property is likely mortgaged to the hilt, and has debts, it is unlikely they would go after it - their legal costs would exceed the amount they would receive. If your business gets sued, you and your other assets are insulated, and only your business is at risk, With no other assets owned by the business - and many debts - your business would simply file for bankruptcy, and once the judgement and debts are discharged, you start another business LLC under a new name, free of debts. The bankruptcy does not affect your personal credit, or that of other LLC’s or FLP’s owned by you. It only reflects on that now defunct business.
If you choose to pursue wealth, do so wisely, and with good planning. Because once you begin accumulating wealth, there will be no shortage of unscrupulous people who will try to take it from you.
.
It Looks Like Palin Was Right On This One...
Some time back Sarah Palin, the person the liberals refer to as stupid and crazy, stated that states would get in over their heads by accepting the unemployment extension help from the government. She said the states would simply add to their debt - debt they would not be able to repay.
It was announced today that Obama plans to ask Congress for yet another bailout - to the states who cannot repay what they owe for all those extensions. You know, the extensions the Republicans opposed unless Congress had a way to pay for them.
Rising unemployment has placed such a burden on states that 30 of them owe the federal government $42 billion in money borrowed to meet their unemployment insurance obligations. Three states already have had to raise taxes to begin paying back the money they owe. More than 20 other states likely would have to raise taxes to cover their unemployment insurance debts. Under federal law, such tax increases are automatic once the money owed reaches a certain level.
Apparently, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid plan of bailing people out has only resulted in more bailouts. And that is precisely what Palin had warned.
Perhaps she is not quite as "stupid" as some on the left seem to want us to believe.
/
It was announced today that Obama plans to ask Congress for yet another bailout - to the states who cannot repay what they owe for all those extensions. You know, the extensions the Republicans opposed unless Congress had a way to pay for them.
Rising unemployment has placed such a burden on states that 30 of them owe the federal government $42 billion in money borrowed to meet their unemployment insurance obligations. Three states already have had to raise taxes to begin paying back the money they owe. More than 20 other states likely would have to raise taxes to cover their unemployment insurance debts. Under federal law, such tax increases are automatic once the money owed reaches a certain level.
Apparently, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid plan of bailing people out has only resulted in more bailouts. And that is precisely what Palin had warned.
Perhaps she is not quite as "stupid" as some on the left seem to want us to believe.
/
Monday, February 7, 2011
Trying to understand all the hate, anger and intolerance from the left...
OK, so some of you have asked for more evidence that the left and right carry on quite differently when "discussing" politics online.
It has been said that if you hold a discussion between conservatives and liberals, the conservatives tend to remain civil while the liberals resort to foul language, insults and personal attacks. I set out to find out the truth.The following posts were taken directly from AOL reader's comments. I only copied the foul ones, but it is important to note I copied ALL the foul posts. In EVERY case of hateful vehemence, the poster was a liberal. What is even worse, these are not the worst posts - out of a sense of common decency (common to conservatives, anyway) I left out the truly disgusting posts - and again, without exception, they were posted by liberals.
Notice that the loons on the left also tend to scream, by using all capitals. And in many cases, their own screen names say it all.
Here are just a few examples from ONE hour on the posting boards. To each I post my own observation...
EL21141 - GOD BLESS PRESIDENT OBAMA....and God Damn Former President Bush and all of his right wing nuts!
[MY REPLY] Yep - if you don't agree with liberals, you should be damned by God. Yep! That's tolerance for ya. That's intellect. That's civility. NOT!
RePigins - NeoConism is a documented mental illness reconized by the AMA. There is treatmet for such but involves muh and time intensive Psycho Therapy with some Anti Psycotic use in conjunction with talk on certain patients whom have tragicly been stick from long term exposure to the Cults and Radicalization of the dangerious over exposure to Rusn, Hannit, Coulter, O'Reiley, Paggs, Savage and the Brain Washing FAUX Disinfotainment Indoctrination Network. Current some brilliant Scientist has had some positive results with a Vacine for those who have not yet been total immersed in the Dangerious NeoConism Culture of Hate and Itolerance with Deluded Ideology; yet this will not address the ones whom have been so tragicly immersed in a longterm lifestyle of this plague up on society. Yet concerning it is a realtively knew disorder we are cautiously optomistic that with in 4 to 8 years it can be virtually wiped out except for some small enclaves that has such a engrained sub culture in this devastt...
[MY REPLY] Sorry - I had to cut this person short because he obviously has nothing worthwhile to say. But the least he could do is learn how to spell the people's names. Forgive me for saying so, but this guy, and those like him, need professional help for THEIR obvious mental disorder.
Usapatriot401 - BUSH.......HE'S SUCH A DOUCHBAG!
[MY REPLY] Usapatriot doesn't sound much like a patriot OR an American
VALLEYPIANO - good riddens! see ya georgiE don't let the white house door smack ya in your ass aka your head) on the way out!!!!!!!! thanx for alll the lies and the 1000;s of innocent american kids lives you've taken because of them. hoipe you and "daddy Bush" enjoy your oil!
[MY REPLY] As is typical of the majority of liberal posts, this person appears too uneducated to even spell simple words or construct sentences. And to think - these people VOTE!
Rwkwilliam - GW(going wrong and getting worse) Bush the brain dead idiot with the IQ of a dead tree stump
[MY REPLY] Great personal attacks and insults. Real intelligent. Bush graduated Ivy League college - this poster obviously did not graduate the 8th grade. Other posts by him were unintelligible, so I did not bother copying them.
DrDeath5000 - LOOK LIKE THE DIXIE CHICKS WERE RIGHT ABOUT GEORGE BUSH HE IS A PIECE OF S H * T
[MY REPLY] Oooh! What a scary screen name! If his Mom knew he talked like that, Dr Death would be dead. This an example of the intelligent, thoughtful remarks by a tolerant liberal who thinks Republicans are the party of hate and dissent. Sounds like HE is the hater.
Usapatriot401 - WHAT SOME WHINEY AZZ REPUBLICLOWN IS COMPLAINING BECAUSE SCOTUS REFUSED TO HEAR THE BULLSH*T CASE OF BERG v OBAMA?.....BWAHHH....... IS THAT WHY BUSH NEEDED SCOTUS TO GET ELECTED.....HAHAHAHA
[MY REPLY] The village idiot is back. Notice how he goes out of his way to try and be insulting, even to the point of making up his own nonsensical words (which is a sign of mental disorder). He is also uniformed, and appears to get his "facts" from Saturday Night Live and the Daily Kos, rather than actual news sources. EXAMPLE: The NYT collected and counted the Florida ballots and, to their dismay had to report that Bush won by over 3000 votes. Can it get any more pathetic than this guy? Unfortunately, yes.
WILMD - thats funny Edgarnew . GWB can barly string 3 words together for a sentence. I guess maybe that's why right wing nitwits like him so much. sure cant be because of anything he did. Worst President Ever.
[MY REPLY] Wrongly accuses Bush of not being able to "string three words together", this guy is even more uneducated than he claims Bush to be. He cannot use punctuation, capitalization or good sentence structure. Again, Bush graduated college, while this guy never made it out of grade school, apparently.
Usapatriot401 - REPUBLICANS SERVING IN THE MILITARY......BWAHHHHHHHHH THAT'S THE BEST JOKE I'VE HEARD TODAY.........BWAHHHHHHHHH...
[MY REPLY] Talk about childish drivel - and the Hell of it is, HE thinks he's SMART! More important, the data points out that more than 80% of all military personnel actually are Republicans. Democrats tend to be "peaceniks" and anti-military.
Know the TRUTH teach it to your kids - GO BACK TO MOLESTING CHILDERN STUPID
[ME] He cannot spell "children", but calls others stupid. Also denegrates them with smear tactics - another liberal trick to throw people off of the fact that they cannot actually discuss anything on its merits, or via the use of facts. Instead of saying, "I think you are wrong, and here are my reasons and facts to support them", this guy just spews this garbage and thinks it is a smart retort.
Know the TRUTH teach it to your kids - WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK??? YOU ARE A TROOL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY.PUT YOU HAND DOWN NO ONE CARES WHAT YOUR OPINION IS
[MY REPLY] If a person cannot spell simple words like "troll", they should at least be smart enough to use spellcheck. This is yet another liberal who feels that anyone who disagrees with him has no right to freedom of speech. According to FactCheck, conservatives are the only ones whose speaking engagements get canceled due to threats on their lives, or they get assaulted onstage. The far left simply believes only THEY have a right to free speech. Recently, both Palin and Bush had their engagements canceled due to threats. Can you name even one liberal who got canceled due to threats? Nope - not a one.
BushIsACancerNY - Who cares. You make a crappy citizen anyway. Gun, Head, Pull Trigger. Get it?
[MY REPLY] Check out the childish screenname of this clown. That says it all. Another typical liberal who believes that anyone who disagrees with them should be dead. I guess that is the "tolerance" they keep claiming. It must have been a liberal who came up with the phrase, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."
Amykool - I BELIEVE SO MUCH IN KARMA, THAT THE PIECES OF SHIT TALKING ABOUT OUR FUTURE PRESIDENT, WE ALREADY HAVE IGNORANT F$%*S THAT PROBABLY VOTED IN BUSH.
[MY REPLY] Amy may be a lot of things, but "kool" is not one of them. Another "tolerant, educated" liberal who can only spew hate.
Tr444514 - HDeRozaleni wrote: It is an act of honor not disrespect to fly your flag at half staff when there is a death of importance. My family has always flown ours at half staff at such times.-- ---------------------------------(Tr444514's response)-------YOUR f*ckin' family is a BUNCH OF IDIOTS - just like YOU are inbred.
[MY REPLY] Here we have both ends of a conversation - the first part is a conservative expressing a valid point in a civil manner. The second part is a typical liberal's response - not exactly civil or valid. Again with the insults, smears and personal attacks, for no reason. The conservative said nothing out-of-bounds.
Walkabjdog - Well it appears that the repulsicans and their sympathizers have work themselves up to a pre election stuper. You idiots just can't face defeat. You idiots just can't accept Obama's change. Well you all just stay in that mental state and witness this steam roller moving right over you and never looking back.
[MY REPLY] Anyone who disagrees with liberals is automatically an "idiot". But by reading this person's post, it is easy to see who the real idiot is.
HONEST IS POLICY - Badw900 you ar 100% OUTHOUSE FECAL MATTER, HOW STUPID COULD YOUR MOTHER HAVE BEEN!
[MY REPLY] Just can't seem to understand how liberals can be so full of hate and anger - even after wining the WH. It seems they are not happy unless they are using foul language and insulting people. This is a serious mental disorder of sorts. But liberals seem to think this is just more tolerance and pleasant, intelligent discussion.
sixfootdoll - Having read your posts, it's sad your parents indoctrinated such prejudice and hatred at the very beginning of maturation. Children are born innocent, without bias or intolerance, they are the products of their environment, live what the learn. Your parents have passed onto you a denigrating legacy from generations gone by without any positive change. Genetics is the facilitator, not often you find products of incestuous relations gathered for an idiot convention. Child Protective Services should have removed you from the custody of the negative, abusive influences your moronic, mentally diseased parents subjected you during childhood.
[MY REPLY] How arrogant, to assume she knows why a person believes what they do. She must have a crystal ball! As for me, I know enough to realize that many folks grow up to do the opposite of what their parents taught them. But I guess this liberal believes she is somehow mentally superior, and that anyone who has the audacity to disagree with her is some sort of throwback. She accuses others of hate - but her own post drips with hatred and anger. Again, it truly scares me that such people can actually vote...
Beadcat49 - DON'T FORGET FELLOW AMERICANS THAT THE MOTTO OF THE RIGHT-WING IS HATE AND FEAR, HATE AND FEAR, HATE AND FEAR.... WE HAVE NOTHING TO SELL BUT FEAR ITSELF. RUN AND HIDE. THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END.
[MY REPLY] Almost too funny - he is claiming conservatives are the ones spewing hatred and fear, yet it is his own post that shows hate and fear. In fact, all the hate and fear seems to be embodied in these posts by liberals. This fellow is pathetic, and apparently needs professional help.
Beadcat49 - It's almost comical reading the foaming-at-the-mouth rants from the loser repub-lie-cons who just don't even know what to do with themselves except drool on their keyboards as they screech hysterically about the end of the world as we know it now that a democrat is the president.
[MY REPLY] Where do such mindless little people come from? Why do they find it necessary to be so hateful and pathetic? More important, why go public with this crap and prove to the world that they are ignorant? Has he not read the post of other liberals - or even his own? Talk about "foaming at the mouth" and "screeching hysterically".
Beadcat49 - Well... good night all you right-wing loonies. It's been fun reading your pathetic rants. You're just sore losers. Get over it. Your guy lost. Move on. Quit whining. Grow a set and grow up... if that's even possible for the ignorati that makes up the neo-conned base.
[MY REPLY] Obviously uneducated, uninformed, nasty, foul and hateful. Why? Why can't a liberal discuss an issue civilly, and recognize the right to disagree? Why do they insist on believing only their opinions matter?
Sixfootdoll74 - And to all the hurting and disappointed pricks out there, I say either conform and welcome your new President or drop dead tomorrow. Preferably the latter. The world simply does NOT need you!!
[MY REPLY] This gal has a short circuit in her brain. What the world does not need is small-minded hateful people like her. If you have the audacity to disagree with the great, all-knowing "sixfootdoll", you should die. That's what I call intelligent, thoughful discussion, proving how tolerant the "tolerant left" really is.
Elenaowl13 - can u say loser, hater ignorant that what u are go and watch somemore fox.lol lol lol. u will have to wait another 8 yearsjust like we had to endure the detruction of this country in the last 8 horrible years. have a hateful night pukies.dont forget the antacids before bed
[MY REPLY] Normally I would say I have never read anything so ignorant and moronic, but unfortunately that is not true - these and other liberals posted much, much worse, with language I'll not repeat here. Obviously this lady never made it to grade school. She spews hatred and intolerance, but calls conservatives the party of hate and intolerance. Are these people so blind that they cannot see their own hatred? Are they so ignorant they cannot discuss an issue?
MChill36 - HAHAHAHAHAHA..............I LAUGH AT ANY BUSH LOVER BECAUSE THEY BREATH SMELLS LIKE DICK AND HAIRY BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[MY REPLY] Let us not be blind - these people on the left are filthy, foul, and absolutely, positively uninformed, uneducated and ignorant. No, that is not a personal attack - as you can see from these actual posts, it is a fact. This fellow, for example, is slinging filthy personal insults against millions of Americans he has never even met. How ignorant and hateful is that?
As i said, folks, I have copied thousands of these posts. A full 90% of the foul, angrey and hateful ones were posted by liberals. I don't ask you to believe it just because I say so - go to AOL or the Huffington Post anytime, and read any of the comment boards. You'll see it for yourself.
I would like to see these people learn how to be civil and human. But that ain't gonna happen.
/
It has been said that if you hold a discussion between conservatives and liberals, the conservatives tend to remain civil while the liberals resort to foul language, insults and personal attacks. I set out to find out the truth.The following posts were taken directly from AOL reader's comments. I only copied the foul ones, but it is important to note I copied ALL the foul posts. In EVERY case of hateful vehemence, the poster was a liberal. What is even worse, these are not the worst posts - out of a sense of common decency (common to conservatives, anyway) I left out the truly disgusting posts - and again, without exception, they were posted by liberals.
Notice that the loons on the left also tend to scream, by using all capitals. And in many cases, their own screen names say it all.
Here are just a few examples from ONE hour on the posting boards. To each I post my own observation...
EL21141 - GOD BLESS PRESIDENT OBAMA....and God Damn Former President Bush and all of his right wing nuts!
[MY REPLY] Yep - if you don't agree with liberals, you should be damned by God. Yep! That's tolerance for ya. That's intellect. That's civility. NOT!
RePigins - NeoConism is a documented mental illness reconized by the AMA. There is treatmet for such but involves muh and time intensive Psycho Therapy with some Anti Psycotic use in conjunction with talk on certain patients whom have tragicly been stick from long term exposure to the Cults and Radicalization of the dangerious over exposure to Rusn, Hannit, Coulter, O'Reiley, Paggs, Savage and the Brain Washing FAUX Disinfotainment Indoctrination Network. Current some brilliant Scientist has had some positive results with a Vacine for those who have not yet been total immersed in the Dangerious NeoConism Culture of Hate and Itolerance with Deluded Ideology; yet this will not address the ones whom have been so tragicly immersed in a longterm lifestyle of this plague up on society. Yet concerning it is a realtively knew disorder we are cautiously optomistic that with in 4 to 8 years it can be virtually wiped out except for some small enclaves that has such a engrained sub culture in this devastt...
[MY REPLY] Sorry - I had to cut this person short because he obviously has nothing worthwhile to say. But the least he could do is learn how to spell the people's names. Forgive me for saying so, but this guy, and those like him, need professional help for THEIR obvious mental disorder.
Usapatriot401 - BUSH.......HE'S SUCH A DOUCHBAG!
[MY REPLY] Usapatriot doesn't sound much like a patriot OR an American
VALLEYPIANO - good riddens! see ya georgiE don't let the white house door smack ya in your ass aka your head) on the way out!!!!!!!! thanx for alll the lies and the 1000;s of innocent american kids lives you've taken because of them. hoipe you and "daddy Bush" enjoy your oil!
[MY REPLY] As is typical of the majority of liberal posts, this person appears too uneducated to even spell simple words or construct sentences. And to think - these people VOTE!
Rwkwilliam - GW(going wrong and getting worse) Bush the brain dead idiot with the IQ of a dead tree stump
[MY REPLY] Great personal attacks and insults. Real intelligent. Bush graduated Ivy League college - this poster obviously did not graduate the 8th grade. Other posts by him were unintelligible, so I did not bother copying them.
DrDeath5000 - LOOK LIKE THE DIXIE CHICKS WERE RIGHT ABOUT GEORGE BUSH HE IS A PIECE OF S H * T
[MY REPLY] Oooh! What a scary screen name! If his Mom knew he talked like that, Dr Death would be dead. This an example of the intelligent, thoughtful remarks by a tolerant liberal who thinks Republicans are the party of hate and dissent. Sounds like HE is the hater.
Usapatriot401 - WHAT SOME WHINEY AZZ REPUBLICLOWN IS COMPLAINING BECAUSE SCOTUS REFUSED TO HEAR THE BULLSH*T CASE OF BERG v OBAMA?.....BWAHHH....... IS THAT WHY BUSH NEEDED SCOTUS TO GET ELECTED.....HAHAHAHA
[MY REPLY] The village idiot is back. Notice how he goes out of his way to try and be insulting, even to the point of making up his own nonsensical words (which is a sign of mental disorder). He is also uniformed, and appears to get his "facts" from Saturday Night Live and the Daily Kos, rather than actual news sources. EXAMPLE: The NYT collected and counted the Florida ballots and, to their dismay had to report that Bush won by over 3000 votes. Can it get any more pathetic than this guy? Unfortunately, yes.
WILMD - thats funny Edgarnew . GWB can barly string 3 words together for a sentence. I guess maybe that's why right wing nitwits like him so much. sure cant be because of anything he did. Worst President Ever.
[MY REPLY] Wrongly accuses Bush of not being able to "string three words together", this guy is even more uneducated than he claims Bush to be. He cannot use punctuation, capitalization or good sentence structure. Again, Bush graduated college, while this guy never made it out of grade school, apparently.
Usapatriot401 - REPUBLICANS SERVING IN THE MILITARY......BWAHHHHHHHHH THAT'S THE BEST JOKE I'VE HEARD TODAY.........BWAHHHHHHHHH...
[MY REPLY] Talk about childish drivel - and the Hell of it is, HE thinks he's SMART! More important, the data points out that more than 80% of all military personnel actually are Republicans. Democrats tend to be "peaceniks" and anti-military.
Know the TRUTH teach it to your kids - GO BACK TO MOLESTING CHILDERN STUPID
[ME] He cannot spell "children", but calls others stupid. Also denegrates them with smear tactics - another liberal trick to throw people off of the fact that they cannot actually discuss anything on its merits, or via the use of facts. Instead of saying, "I think you are wrong, and here are my reasons and facts to support them", this guy just spews this garbage and thinks it is a smart retort.
Know the TRUTH teach it to your kids - WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK??? YOU ARE A TROOL WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY.PUT YOU HAND DOWN NO ONE CARES WHAT YOUR OPINION IS
[MY REPLY] If a person cannot spell simple words like "troll", they should at least be smart enough to use spellcheck. This is yet another liberal who feels that anyone who disagrees with him has no right to freedom of speech. According to FactCheck, conservatives are the only ones whose speaking engagements get canceled due to threats on their lives, or they get assaulted onstage. The far left simply believes only THEY have a right to free speech. Recently, both Palin and Bush had their engagements canceled due to threats. Can you name even one liberal who got canceled due to threats? Nope - not a one.
BushIsACancerNY - Who cares. You make a crappy citizen anyway. Gun, Head, Pull Trigger. Get it?
[MY REPLY] Check out the childish screenname of this clown. That says it all. Another typical liberal who believes that anyone who disagrees with them should be dead. I guess that is the "tolerance" they keep claiming. It must have been a liberal who came up with the phrase, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."
Amykool - I BELIEVE SO MUCH IN KARMA, THAT THE PIECES OF SHIT TALKING ABOUT OUR FUTURE PRESIDENT, WE ALREADY HAVE IGNORANT F$%*S THAT PROBABLY VOTED IN BUSH.
[MY REPLY] Amy may be a lot of things, but "kool" is not one of them. Another "tolerant, educated" liberal who can only spew hate.
Tr444514 - HDeRozaleni wrote: It is an act of honor not disrespect to fly your flag at half staff when there is a death of importance. My family has always flown ours at half staff at such times.-- ---------------------------------(Tr444514's response)-------YOUR f*ckin' family is a BUNCH OF IDIOTS - just like YOU are inbred.
[MY REPLY] Here we have both ends of a conversation - the first part is a conservative expressing a valid point in a civil manner. The second part is a typical liberal's response - not exactly civil or valid. Again with the insults, smears and personal attacks, for no reason. The conservative said nothing out-of-bounds.
Walkabjdog - Well it appears that the repulsicans and their sympathizers have work themselves up to a pre election stuper. You idiots just can't face defeat. You idiots just can't accept Obama's change. Well you all just stay in that mental state and witness this steam roller moving right over you and never looking back.
[MY REPLY] Anyone who disagrees with liberals is automatically an "idiot". But by reading this person's post, it is easy to see who the real idiot is.
HONEST IS POLICY - Badw900 you ar 100% OUTHOUSE FECAL MATTER, HOW STUPID COULD YOUR MOTHER HAVE BEEN!
[MY REPLY] Just can't seem to understand how liberals can be so full of hate and anger - even after wining the WH. It seems they are not happy unless they are using foul language and insulting people. This is a serious mental disorder of sorts. But liberals seem to think this is just more tolerance and pleasant, intelligent discussion.
sixfootdoll - Having read your posts, it's sad your parents indoctrinated such prejudice and hatred at the very beginning of maturation. Children are born innocent, without bias or intolerance, they are the products of their environment, live what the learn. Your parents have passed onto you a denigrating legacy from generations gone by without any positive change. Genetics is the facilitator, not often you find products of incestuous relations gathered for an idiot convention. Child Protective Services should have removed you from the custody of the negative, abusive influences your moronic, mentally diseased parents subjected you during childhood.
[MY REPLY] How arrogant, to assume she knows why a person believes what they do. She must have a crystal ball! As for me, I know enough to realize that many folks grow up to do the opposite of what their parents taught them. But I guess this liberal believes she is somehow mentally superior, and that anyone who has the audacity to disagree with her is some sort of throwback. She accuses others of hate - but her own post drips with hatred and anger. Again, it truly scares me that such people can actually vote...
Beadcat49 - DON'T FORGET FELLOW AMERICANS THAT THE MOTTO OF THE RIGHT-WING IS HATE AND FEAR, HATE AND FEAR, HATE AND FEAR.... WE HAVE NOTHING TO SELL BUT FEAR ITSELF. RUN AND HIDE. THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END.
[MY REPLY] Almost too funny - he is claiming conservatives are the ones spewing hatred and fear, yet it is his own post that shows hate and fear. In fact, all the hate and fear seems to be embodied in these posts by liberals. This fellow is pathetic, and apparently needs professional help.
Beadcat49 - It's almost comical reading the foaming-at-the-mouth rants from the loser repub-lie-cons who just don't even know what to do with themselves except drool on their keyboards as they screech hysterically about the end of the world as we know it now that a democrat is the president.
[MY REPLY] Where do such mindless little people come from? Why do they find it necessary to be so hateful and pathetic? More important, why go public with this crap and prove to the world that they are ignorant? Has he not read the post of other liberals - or even his own? Talk about "foaming at the mouth" and "screeching hysterically".
Beadcat49 - Well... good night all you right-wing loonies. It's been fun reading your pathetic rants. You're just sore losers. Get over it. Your guy lost. Move on. Quit whining. Grow a set and grow up... if that's even possible for the ignorati that makes up the neo-conned base.
[MY REPLY] Obviously uneducated, uninformed, nasty, foul and hateful. Why? Why can't a liberal discuss an issue civilly, and recognize the right to disagree? Why do they insist on believing only their opinions matter?
Sixfootdoll74 - And to all the hurting and disappointed pricks out there, I say either conform and welcome your new President or drop dead tomorrow. Preferably the latter. The world simply does NOT need you!!
[MY REPLY] This gal has a short circuit in her brain. What the world does not need is small-minded hateful people like her. If you have the audacity to disagree with the great, all-knowing "sixfootdoll", you should die. That's what I call intelligent, thoughful discussion, proving how tolerant the "tolerant left" really is.
Elenaowl13 - can u say loser, hater ignorant that what u are go and watch somemore fox.lol lol lol. u will have to wait another 8 yearsjust like we had to endure the detruction of this country in the last 8 horrible years. have a hateful night pukies.dont forget the antacids before bed
[MY REPLY] Normally I would say I have never read anything so ignorant and moronic, but unfortunately that is not true - these and other liberals posted much, much worse, with language I'll not repeat here. Obviously this lady never made it to grade school. She spews hatred and intolerance, but calls conservatives the party of hate and intolerance. Are these people so blind that they cannot see their own hatred? Are they so ignorant they cannot discuss an issue?
MChill36 - HAHAHAHAHAHA..............I LAUGH AT ANY BUSH LOVER BECAUSE THEY BREATH SMELLS LIKE DICK AND HAIRY BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[MY REPLY] Let us not be blind - these people on the left are filthy, foul, and absolutely, positively uninformed, uneducated and ignorant. No, that is not a personal attack - as you can see from these actual posts, it is a fact. This fellow, for example, is slinging filthy personal insults against millions of Americans he has never even met. How ignorant and hateful is that?
As i said, folks, I have copied thousands of these posts. A full 90% of the foul, angrey and hateful ones were posted by liberals. I don't ask you to believe it just because I say so - go to AOL or the Huffington Post anytime, and read any of the comment boards. You'll see it for yourself.
I would like to see these people learn how to be civil and human. But that ain't gonna happen.
/
Left-Leaning AOL Moves To The Far, Far Left.
America OnLine has just become America's Organized Liberals. Once part of the liberal Time Warner family, AOL just purchased the radical far-left progressive "Huffington Post" and in the deal, Arianna Huffington was put in charge of all AOL content.
To offer some perspective, the Huffington Post is supported by George Soros, the world's wealthiest progressive socialist.
AOL apparently believes this acquisition will bolster their failing status, but I suspect it may backfire. Less than one in five Americans consider themselves liberal, and only 8% consider themselves far-left progressive liberals. That's a very small audience if non-liberals decide to make an exodus from AOL.
As for myself, I live by words of wisdom that come from my father. He always said a person, in order to be able to think himself a person of principle, must adhere to his principles. Do not support in any way anyone who acts in opposition to your principles.
For that reason I disassociate myself from any business that promotes or supports liberal causes. To do otherwise would be to help them with their agenda - an agenda I do not agree with. I simply do not want to support those who want to destroy that in which I believe. It simply would not make sense. Would a sane person pay someone else to beat him up?
So, when I learned Ben & Jerry's (ice cream) supported radical progressive causes, I stop buying their products. Same with Geico, Progressive, Time and anything else that would use my money to fund their causes. And now I find myself ending my relationship with AOL. It is long overdue.
It is true that this blog is hosted by the liberal GOOGLE. But I do not pay Google anything - this service is free. And if I can use their service for free, and have it help a more conservative cause, then that is fair play. I see it as adding a little balance to Google.
I know I have a lot of liberal readers, and they are welcome. I do not dislike liberals - I simply dislike their policies and agenda. You can disagree without being disagreeable. I view it the same way I view sin: do not hate the sinner - love the sinner but hate the sin. I have several gay friends whose friendship I cherish. But I disagree with their lifestyle and would not support it. I do not ask then to support my lifestyle, either - our friendship is based on mutual respect, not mutual beliefs.
Over the last few years I have posted a number of the "comments" posted to AOL by its readers. In most cases, the comments from the right would attack the policies or beliefs of the left. In contrast, the comments from the left attacked the PEOPLE on the right, not just their beliefs. There was so much bile and vicious hate in the posts by those on the left. There is a big difference between attacking a person's agenda and attacking the person personally. If a person must use slurs, insults and personal smears, then they have already lost the argument. The minute I see someone write something that includes words like "repukelican", or resort to phrases like "bunch of inbreds" , I immediately discount everything they have to say because they have nothing to say. And that is 90% of what you find on sites like Huffington Post, Media Matters and Daily Kos, which often call for the deaths of conservatives, and even post hateful attacks against prominent conservatives who have just died. Tony Snow comes to mind. You will never, ever see that sort of repulsive behavior on places like Fox News.
As for me, I do not condone repulsive behavior. And I will not knowingly support anyone who does. And that is why my association with AOL is over.
You all must make your own call on this. You can choose to be a person of principle and either support or abandon AOL and other businesses based on their connection with your own beliefs, or you can just sit back and "sin by silence" and pay someone to beat you up.
For the record, here are examples of comments from AOL:
Tr444514 DeRozalen wrotei: It is an act of honor not disrespect to fly your flag at half staff when there is a death of importance. My family has always flown ours at half staff at such times.-- ---------------------------------(Tr444514's response)-------YOUR f*ckin' family is a BUNCH OF IDIOTS - just like YOU are inbred.
[MY REPLY] Here we have both ends of a conversation - the first part is a conservative expressing a valid point in a civil manner. The second part is a typical liberal's response - not exactly civil or valid. Again with the insults, smears and personal attacks, for no reason. The conservative said nothing out-of-bounds.
MChill36 HAHAHAHAHAHA..............I LAUGH AT ANY BUSH LOVER BECAUSE THEY BREATH SMELLS LIKE DICK AND HAIRY BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[MY REPLY] Let us not be blind - these people on the left are filthy, foul, and absolutely, positively uninformed, uneducated and ignorant. No, that is not a personal attack - as you can see from these actual posts, it is a fact. This fellow, for example, is slinging filthy personal insults against millions of Americans he has never even met. How ignorant and hateful is that?
Look, folks, I have compiled thousands of these vile, hateful, ignorant posts. I really do not mind having a good debate between the right and the left, but how can there be such a meaningful discussion if those on the left resort to name-calling, foul language, insults, smears and personal attacks? Are there no liberals out there who know the meaning and importance of respect? Tolerance? Civility? Honesty? Integrity? Are there none with any intellect? Even an ability to spell would at least show education.
If you think that this is not a true representation, all you need to do is spend an evening on AOL reading the reader's comments to the news stories. You will see exactly what I have seen, as I have been following these for months. The above are not made up, nor are they the exceptions to the rule. If you read them, keep an unbiased open mind, and judge the posts not by their "position" on issues but on the post, itself, you will draw the same conclusion - liberals tend to be uneducated, uninformed, angry, hateful, foul-mouthed and full of vitriol. They resort to personal smears and attacks, insults, and they tend to think only their opinions are worth anything. They believe that those who disagree should either shut up, or die, or both. They tend to make up their own facts to fit their beliefs, and often get their "news" from non-credible sources such as SNL, Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos. Or AOL...
/
To offer some perspective, the Huffington Post is supported by George Soros, the world's wealthiest progressive socialist.
AOL apparently believes this acquisition will bolster their failing status, but I suspect it may backfire. Less than one in five Americans consider themselves liberal, and only 8% consider themselves far-left progressive liberals. That's a very small audience if non-liberals decide to make an exodus from AOL.
As for myself, I live by words of wisdom that come from my father. He always said a person, in order to be able to think himself a person of principle, must adhere to his principles. Do not support in any way anyone who acts in opposition to your principles.
For that reason I disassociate myself from any business that promotes or supports liberal causes. To do otherwise would be to help them with their agenda - an agenda I do not agree with. I simply do not want to support those who want to destroy that in which I believe. It simply would not make sense. Would a sane person pay someone else to beat him up?
So, when I learned Ben & Jerry's (ice cream) supported radical progressive causes, I stop buying their products. Same with Geico, Progressive, Time and anything else that would use my money to fund their causes. And now I find myself ending my relationship with AOL. It is long overdue.
It is true that this blog is hosted by the liberal GOOGLE. But I do not pay Google anything - this service is free. And if I can use their service for free, and have it help a more conservative cause, then that is fair play. I see it as adding a little balance to Google.
I know I have a lot of liberal readers, and they are welcome. I do not dislike liberals - I simply dislike their policies and agenda. You can disagree without being disagreeable. I view it the same way I view sin: do not hate the sinner - love the sinner but hate the sin. I have several gay friends whose friendship I cherish. But I disagree with their lifestyle and would not support it. I do not ask then to support my lifestyle, either - our friendship is based on mutual respect, not mutual beliefs.
Over the last few years I have posted a number of the "comments" posted to AOL by its readers. In most cases, the comments from the right would attack the policies or beliefs of the left. In contrast, the comments from the left attacked the PEOPLE on the right, not just their beliefs. There was so much bile and vicious hate in the posts by those on the left. There is a big difference between attacking a person's agenda and attacking the person personally. If a person must use slurs, insults and personal smears, then they have already lost the argument. The minute I see someone write something that includes words like "repukelican", or resort to phrases like "bunch of inbreds" , I immediately discount everything they have to say because they have nothing to say. And that is 90% of what you find on sites like Huffington Post, Media Matters and Daily Kos, which often call for the deaths of conservatives, and even post hateful attacks against prominent conservatives who have just died. Tony Snow comes to mind. You will never, ever see that sort of repulsive behavior on places like Fox News.
As for me, I do not condone repulsive behavior. And I will not knowingly support anyone who does. And that is why my association with AOL is over.
You all must make your own call on this. You can choose to be a person of principle and either support or abandon AOL and other businesses based on their connection with your own beliefs, or you can just sit back and "sin by silence" and pay someone to beat you up.
For the record, here are examples of comments from AOL:
Tr444514 DeRozalen wrotei: It is an act of honor not disrespect to fly your flag at half staff when there is a death of importance. My family has always flown ours at half staff at such times.-- ---------------------------------(Tr444514's response)-------YOUR f*ckin' family is a BUNCH OF IDIOTS - just like YOU are inbred.
[MY REPLY] Here we have both ends of a conversation - the first part is a conservative expressing a valid point in a civil manner. The second part is a typical liberal's response - not exactly civil or valid. Again with the insults, smears and personal attacks, for no reason. The conservative said nothing out-of-bounds.
MChill36 HAHAHAHAHAHA..............I LAUGH AT ANY BUSH LOVER BECAUSE THEY BREATH SMELLS LIKE DICK AND HAIRY BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[MY REPLY] Let us not be blind - these people on the left are filthy, foul, and absolutely, positively uninformed, uneducated and ignorant. No, that is not a personal attack - as you can see from these actual posts, it is a fact. This fellow, for example, is slinging filthy personal insults against millions of Americans he has never even met. How ignorant and hateful is that?
Look, folks, I have compiled thousands of these vile, hateful, ignorant posts. I really do not mind having a good debate between the right and the left, but how can there be such a meaningful discussion if those on the left resort to name-calling, foul language, insults, smears and personal attacks? Are there no liberals out there who know the meaning and importance of respect? Tolerance? Civility? Honesty? Integrity? Are there none with any intellect? Even an ability to spell would at least show education.
If you think that this is not a true representation, all you need to do is spend an evening on AOL reading the reader's comments to the news stories. You will see exactly what I have seen, as I have been following these for months. The above are not made up, nor are they the exceptions to the rule. If you read them, keep an unbiased open mind, and judge the posts not by their "position" on issues but on the post, itself, you will draw the same conclusion - liberals tend to be uneducated, uninformed, angry, hateful, foul-mouthed and full of vitriol. They resort to personal smears and attacks, insults, and they tend to think only their opinions are worth anything. They believe that those who disagree should either shut up, or die, or both. They tend to make up their own facts to fit their beliefs, and often get their "news" from non-credible sources such as SNL, Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos. Or AOL...
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)