I cross river, poor and broke,
Take bus to see employment folk.
Nice man treat me good in there,
Say I need go see Welfare.
Welfare say, 'You come no more,
We send cash right to your door.'
Welfare checks, they make you wealthy,
Medicaid it keep you healthy!
By and by, got plenty money,
Thanks to you, TAXPAYER dummy.
Write to friends in motherland,
Tell them 'come, fast as you can'
They come in buses and Ford trucks,
I buy big house with welfare bucks.
They come here, we live together,
More welfare checks, it just gets better!
Fourteen families, they moving in,
But neighbor's patience wearing thin.
Finally, white guy moves away,
I buy his house, and then I say,
'Find more aliens or house to rent.'
In my yard I put a tent.
Send for family they just trash,
But they, too, draw welfare cash!
Everything is very good,
Soon we own whole neighborhood..
We have hobby - it called breeding,
Welfare pay for baby feeding.
Kids need dentist? Wife need pills?
We get free! We got no bills!
TAXPAYER crazy! He pay all year,
To keep the welfare running here.
We think America darn good place!
Too darn good for white man race.
If they no like us, they can go,
Got lots of room in Mexico .
/
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
The Facts About MediScare - Both Sides Are Dancing...
Neither political party is very clear about the effects of Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan. The Republicans are not explaining it well, while the Democrats are just plain demogoging and lying about it. So let's try to clear up a few things with actual facts.
FACT 1: Medicare will become insolvent in 13 years if something is not done to correct it.
FACT 2: Medicare can and will bankrupt the U.S. if not fixed. Long before 2024, Medicare costs will exceed $1 trillion per year.
FACT 3: More and more doctors and clinics are refusing to take Medicare patients. Within a few years, your Medicare card will look nice in your wallet, but will not help you when you need medical care. What good is Medicare if you cannot find a doctor who will accept it?
Some facts about the Ryan Plan:
FACT 1: No elderly people will lose any benefits. Nothing changes for any person 55 or older.
FACT 2: People 54 and under will be subsidized to obtain insurance to help replace Medicare. You will not have to worry about not being able to find a doctor who will take Medicare patients, resulting in better access to care.
FACT 3: Yes, if 54 or under, your med care will be a bit more expensive to you, personally. But you will not lose medical coverage, and you will not be turned away because the doctors won't take Medicare
FACT 4: Excuse me for saying this, but the Democrats have spent two years trying to con us into thinking Obamacare will cover us. If that is true, you would be covered, anyway, regardless of Ryan's Plan, so why are they demogoging?
So, we know Medicare needs to be fixed. The question is - HOW?
The Democrats want to tax us more, to continue paying for a failing system. The Republicans want to reform the system, itself.
So here are a few more facts:
FACT 1: Higher taxes will stifle growth - at a time when it would extend the recession, or even cause a worse economic situation. If you take every penny the rich earn, it would not be enough to pay the bills.
FACT 2: Higher taxes are only a bandaid - medical costs keep escalating. This means that taxes would have to keep rising as well, year after year. It would not be a one-time increase. And the problem still exists - it has not been dealt with. It has only been put off until the next tax increase. Just kickin' the can down the road...
FACT 3: Under Ryan's Plan, NO cuts are made to Medicare. None. The Democrat's ObamaCare, on the other hand, cuts $500 billion from Medicare, according to their own words, and backed up by the CBO.
FACT: It is estimated that billions are wasted in Medicare fraud every year. That will end when Ryan's Plan results in medical care being transferred to insurance companies instead of Medicare.
So, the short take...
The Democrat solution is to do nothing about the problem, and to hike taxes to "cover up" the problem. Even Bill Clinton says that is a very bad idea. Those ever-increasing taxes will cost you far more out of pocket than any extra costs for medical care under Ryan's plan. So Ryan's Plan would save you money, insure you can still find a doctor, and put the financial heath of the nation back on solid ground. The Democrat plan would cause more doctors to bail out of Medicare while picking your pocket by another $1500-$6,000 per year in taxes, depending on your income.
Even worse - according to the IRS, 47% of all working Americans pay NO taxes. The rest of us will have to cover the whole bill, giving half the country a free ride. How does that help anything?
The Ryan Plan is not perfect, but it is certainly far better than the "no plan" of the Democrats. And the Ryan Plan can be perfected over time. Medicare cannot be, simply because no government entitlement can ever be made effective or efficient. Effectiveness and efficiency are products of capitalist competition. The government has no competition to force efficiency.
Democrats have put out a dishonest commercial that shows Republicans throwing Granny over a cliff by "eliminating" Medicare. First, Ryan's plan does not eliminate Medicare, nor does it affect Granny in any way. But I can tell you this - if something is not done to fix Medicare - if Democrats have their way and do nothing - then it will be Democrats who are really throwing Granny off the cliff, because the current system is not sustainable - and everyone knows it.
/
FACT 1: Medicare will become insolvent in 13 years if something is not done to correct it.
FACT 2: Medicare can and will bankrupt the U.S. if not fixed. Long before 2024, Medicare costs will exceed $1 trillion per year.
FACT 3: More and more doctors and clinics are refusing to take Medicare patients. Within a few years, your Medicare card will look nice in your wallet, but will not help you when you need medical care. What good is Medicare if you cannot find a doctor who will accept it?
Some facts about the Ryan Plan:
FACT 1: No elderly people will lose any benefits. Nothing changes for any person 55 or older.
FACT 2: People 54 and under will be subsidized to obtain insurance to help replace Medicare. You will not have to worry about not being able to find a doctor who will take Medicare patients, resulting in better access to care.
FACT 3: Yes, if 54 or under, your med care will be a bit more expensive to you, personally. But you will not lose medical coverage, and you will not be turned away because the doctors won't take Medicare
FACT 4: Excuse me for saying this, but the Democrats have spent two years trying to con us into thinking Obamacare will cover us. If that is true, you would be covered, anyway, regardless of Ryan's Plan, so why are they demogoging?
So, we know Medicare needs to be fixed. The question is - HOW?
The Democrats want to tax us more, to continue paying for a failing system. The Republicans want to reform the system, itself.
So here are a few more facts:
FACT 1: Higher taxes will stifle growth - at a time when it would extend the recession, or even cause a worse economic situation. If you take every penny the rich earn, it would not be enough to pay the bills.
FACT 2: Higher taxes are only a bandaid - medical costs keep escalating. This means that taxes would have to keep rising as well, year after year. It would not be a one-time increase. And the problem still exists - it has not been dealt with. It has only been put off until the next tax increase. Just kickin' the can down the road...
FACT 3: Under Ryan's Plan, NO cuts are made to Medicare. None. The Democrat's ObamaCare, on the other hand, cuts $500 billion from Medicare, according to their own words, and backed up by the CBO.
FACT: It is estimated that billions are wasted in Medicare fraud every year. That will end when Ryan's Plan results in medical care being transferred to insurance companies instead of Medicare.
So, the short take...
The Democrat solution is to do nothing about the problem, and to hike taxes to "cover up" the problem. Even Bill Clinton says that is a very bad idea. Those ever-increasing taxes will cost you far more out of pocket than any extra costs for medical care under Ryan's plan. So Ryan's Plan would save you money, insure you can still find a doctor, and put the financial heath of the nation back on solid ground. The Democrat plan would cause more doctors to bail out of Medicare while picking your pocket by another $1500-$6,000 per year in taxes, depending on your income.
Even worse - according to the IRS, 47% of all working Americans pay NO taxes. The rest of us will have to cover the whole bill, giving half the country a free ride. How does that help anything?
The Ryan Plan is not perfect, but it is certainly far better than the "no plan" of the Democrats. And the Ryan Plan can be perfected over time. Medicare cannot be, simply because no government entitlement can ever be made effective or efficient. Effectiveness and efficiency are products of capitalist competition. The government has no competition to force efficiency.
Democrats have put out a dishonest commercial that shows Republicans throwing Granny over a cliff by "eliminating" Medicare. First, Ryan's plan does not eliminate Medicare, nor does it affect Granny in any way. But I can tell you this - if something is not done to fix Medicare - if Democrats have their way and do nothing - then it will be Democrats who are really throwing Granny off the cliff, because the current system is not sustainable - and everyone knows it.
/
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Great news for those who suffer muscle aches/pains from aging (or other reasons)...
Every morning it is a painful chore to get out of bed - it seems my legs, back, arms and shoulders are so sore that I must roll out with hands and knees on the floor in order to get up. And the soreness stays with me for hours afterward.
But that was before...
I know, it's beginning to sound like a commercial, but I'm not touting any specific product brand here - just passin' along a secret I learned that seems to work.
A few days ago I recalled that, when I used to work out heavily at the gym, I would mix up and drink a glass of whey protein (I use chocolate flavor) to reduce the soreness from overworked muscles. So I thought I would try that and see if it worked now, for muscles that ache for a different reason - age.
So, a week ago I drank an 8 ounce glass of whey protein (I use Pro Performance from GNC) before going to bed. And when I awoke, I had not a single ache or pain - none. I felt really good for the first time in over a year.
Since then, I have downed a glass each night except Monday night (I forgot). And every morning - except Tuesday morning - I awoke refreshed and muscle-pain free.
Folks, if you suffer from aching muscles in the morning and find it difficult to get out of bed, I would urge you to try this. It's all natural, and, for me, it works. It REALLY works!
Just passin' it on...
/
But that was before...
I know, it's beginning to sound like a commercial, but I'm not touting any specific product brand here - just passin' along a secret I learned that seems to work.
A few days ago I recalled that, when I used to work out heavily at the gym, I would mix up and drink a glass of whey protein (I use chocolate flavor) to reduce the soreness from overworked muscles. So I thought I would try that and see if it worked now, for muscles that ache for a different reason - age.
So, a week ago I drank an 8 ounce glass of whey protein (I use Pro Performance from GNC) before going to bed. And when I awoke, I had not a single ache or pain - none. I felt really good for the first time in over a year.
Since then, I have downed a glass each night except Monday night (I forgot). And every morning - except Tuesday morning - I awoke refreshed and muscle-pain free.
Folks, if you suffer from aching muscles in the morning and find it difficult to get out of bed, I would urge you to try this. It's all natural, and, for me, it works. It REALLY works!
Just passin' it on...
/
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
There is no reason a college degree could not be free to all. Here's how...
One of the most expensive, yet least cost-effective things in America is a college education. It is also completely unnecessary except in extraordinary circumstances.
Certainly, professions that can mean life and death such as doctors and nurses do require hands-on educational experience. But nearly every other profession can easily be learned without paying $100,000 or more for the education.
Look at the purpose of college - to obtain the knowledge required to qualify to enter a certain field of endeavor, whether it be Animal Husbandry or Zoologist. But what no one is telling you is that all of that knowledge is readily available, and could be made freely available to all.
Take accounting, for example. The same colleges have been teaching the same accounting principles for hundreds of years. It has become redundant - charging the student of 2011 $30,000 a year to learn what has already been taught over and over to millions of others. It is a case of "re-inventing the wheel".
There is a better way. We should charge our Congress to make it a law that, except in life-and-death type careers, anyone who can pass an exam designed to determine a person's knowledge and ability in their chosen field would be issued a college diploma. This is no different from the College Level Examination Program (CLEP) which currently allows only a few certain credits, or a GED for a high school diploma - if a person has the knowledge and training to do the job, they should be issued a diploma, regardless of how or where they got that education. Abraham Lincoln never went to school - he was self-taught, and still became a lawyer, and later, the President of the United States.
Of course, we should still offer formal education for those who simply want the prestige, and for advanced graduate work. For example, you could get a Bachelor's Degree from self-education, but a Master's would require attendance at a college or university.
The qualification tests can be administered at the local colleges and universities. Of course, there would be a nominal fee, but it should not be more than $500.
This accomplishes several things, all of them good:
1) Every person willing to put in the time and effort would be able to get a college degree, even if they don't have a dime
2) Young marrieds would not have to sacrifice an education in order to support their families
3) The billions saved would be used to buy homes, cars, furniture - or to pursue a Master's. In any case, it spurs economic growth and productivity
With the internet, it would be incredibly easy for the government to put up a website for each field, with all the education necessary. In those instances where "lab work" is required to prove proficiency, the self-taught student may pay a small fee at the local college to perform that lab work and receive a certificate of proficiency.
The short of it --- in order to qualify to enter a certain field of endeavor, each person should only be required to prove they can handle it. It should not matter where, when or how they got the education - only that they got it, and are qualified.
/
Certainly, professions that can mean life and death such as doctors and nurses do require hands-on educational experience. But nearly every other profession can easily be learned without paying $100,000 or more for the education.
Look at the purpose of college - to obtain the knowledge required to qualify to enter a certain field of endeavor, whether it be Animal Husbandry or Zoologist. But what no one is telling you is that all of that knowledge is readily available, and could be made freely available to all.
Take accounting, for example. The same colleges have been teaching the same accounting principles for hundreds of years. It has become redundant - charging the student of 2011 $30,000 a year to learn what has already been taught over and over to millions of others. It is a case of "re-inventing the wheel".
There is a better way. We should charge our Congress to make it a law that, except in life-and-death type careers, anyone who can pass an exam designed to determine a person's knowledge and ability in their chosen field would be issued a college diploma. This is no different from the College Level Examination Program (CLEP) which currently allows only a few certain credits, or a GED for a high school diploma - if a person has the knowledge and training to do the job, they should be issued a diploma, regardless of how or where they got that education. Abraham Lincoln never went to school - he was self-taught, and still became a lawyer, and later, the President of the United States.
Of course, we should still offer formal education for those who simply want the prestige, and for advanced graduate work. For example, you could get a Bachelor's Degree from self-education, but a Master's would require attendance at a college or university.
The qualification tests can be administered at the local colleges and universities. Of course, there would be a nominal fee, but it should not be more than $500.
This accomplishes several things, all of them good:
1) Every person willing to put in the time and effort would be able to get a college degree, even if they don't have a dime
2) Young marrieds would not have to sacrifice an education in order to support their families
3) The billions saved would be used to buy homes, cars, furniture - or to pursue a Master's. In any case, it spurs economic growth and productivity
With the internet, it would be incredibly easy for the government to put up a website for each field, with all the education necessary. In those instances where "lab work" is required to prove proficiency, the self-taught student may pay a small fee at the local college to perform that lab work and receive a certificate of proficiency.
The short of it --- in order to qualify to enter a certain field of endeavor, each person should only be required to prove they can handle it. It should not matter where, when or how they got the education - only that they got it, and are qualified.
/
Monday, May 23, 2011
Times Are Tough -- But HOW Tough? Check it out...
The Recession hits everybody.....
I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.
Wives are having sex with their husbands because they can't afford batteries.
CEO's are now playing miniature golf.
Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.
A stripper was killed when her audience showered her with rolls of pennies while she danced.
I saw a Mormon polygamist with only one wife
If the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," you call them and ask if they meant you or them.
McDonald's is selling the 1/4 ouncer.
Angelina Jolie adopted a child from America .
Parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children's names.
My cousin had an exorcism but couldn't afford to pay for it, and they re-possessed her!
A picture is now only worth 200 words.
When Bill and Hillary travel together, they now have to share a room.
The Treasure Island casino in Las Vegas is now managed by Somali pirates.
Congress says they are looking into this Bernard Madoff scandal. Oh Great! The guy who made $50 Billion disappear is being investigated by the people who made $1.5 Trillion disappear!
And, finally...
I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Hotline. I got a call center in Pakistan , and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck.
/
I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.
Wives are having sex with their husbands because they can't afford batteries.
CEO's are now playing miniature golf.
Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.
A stripper was killed when her audience showered her with rolls of pennies while she danced.
I saw a Mormon polygamist with only one wife
If the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," you call them and ask if they meant you or them.
McDonald's is selling the 1/4 ouncer.
Angelina Jolie adopted a child from America .
Parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children's names.
My cousin had an exorcism but couldn't afford to pay for it, and they re-possessed her!
A picture is now only worth 200 words.
When Bill and Hillary travel together, they now have to share a room.
The Treasure Island casino in Las Vegas is now managed by Somali pirates.
Congress says they are looking into this Bernard Madoff scandal. Oh Great! The guy who made $50 Billion disappear is being investigated by the people who made $1.5 Trillion disappear!
And, finally...
I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Hotline. I got a call center in Pakistan , and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck.
/
Supreme Court Orders Release of 42,000 Convicted Felons...
The Supreme Court has ordered California to release 42,000 convicted felons to insure the remainder get better health care and treatment that is currently insufficient due to overcrowding. Justice Kennedy sided with the four liberal justices to make this crazy determination.
I don't care what the reason is - the courts are created to dispense justice for the public, not injustice by subjecting them to felons running free among them.
More to the point is the lop-sided, mentally unbalanced thinking of liberals. Case in point: California prisons are overcrowded and prisoners do not get adequate medical care. Liberals say the solution is to set felons free to wreak havoc on the public.
But any sane and reasonable person would instead order that a) California build more prisons, and b) make more and better medical care available. This solves the problem without imperiling the public. Yes, prisons and medical care are expensive - but not as expensive as the costs that would be incurred by setting 42,000 felons free. Guess what? They will break the law again. Get arrested again. Go to prison again. And what will have been accomplished, other than the damage they wreak while free and the cost of having to arrest and try them again?
Another consideration - it is estimated that there are nearly 40,000 illegal immigrants in California prisons - why did not the court simply order them deported, as they should have been in the first place?
And then let us consider that California has more regulations against freedom than any other state. Many of the laws that the liberal legislature has passed over the years create a prison population that is not only unnecessary, but immoral. For example, it is against the law in some communities to let your grass grow more than 2 inches, or to let your cat run free. Certainly, not a felony - but when the police show up to cite you and fine you, a more agressive person who believes it is an encroachment on human liberties just might put up a fight, resulting in assault charges - all because some liberals expect every lawn to be unnaturally manicured.
The point is, anyone but the four liberal morons (with Kennedy's help) of SCOTUS and other far-left lunatics would understand there are better and saner solutions to the problem than to set wolves free among innocent lambs, just because the wolves are hungry.
/
I don't care what the reason is - the courts are created to dispense justice for the public, not injustice by subjecting them to felons running free among them.
More to the point is the lop-sided, mentally unbalanced thinking of liberals. Case in point: California prisons are overcrowded and prisoners do not get adequate medical care. Liberals say the solution is to set felons free to wreak havoc on the public.
But any sane and reasonable person would instead order that a) California build more prisons, and b) make more and better medical care available. This solves the problem without imperiling the public. Yes, prisons and medical care are expensive - but not as expensive as the costs that would be incurred by setting 42,000 felons free. Guess what? They will break the law again. Get arrested again. Go to prison again. And what will have been accomplished, other than the damage they wreak while free and the cost of having to arrest and try them again?
Another consideration - it is estimated that there are nearly 40,000 illegal immigrants in California prisons - why did not the court simply order them deported, as they should have been in the first place?
And then let us consider that California has more regulations against freedom than any other state. Many of the laws that the liberal legislature has passed over the years create a prison population that is not only unnecessary, but immoral. For example, it is against the law in some communities to let your grass grow more than 2 inches, or to let your cat run free. Certainly, not a felony - but when the police show up to cite you and fine you, a more agressive person who believes it is an encroachment on human liberties just might put up a fight, resulting in assault charges - all because some liberals expect every lawn to be unnaturally manicured.
The point is, anyone but the four liberal morons (with Kennedy's help) of SCOTUS and other far-left lunatics would understand there are better and saner solutions to the problem than to set wolves free among innocent lambs, just because the wolves are hungry.
/
HuffPost is always good for a few laughs - like their anti-semitic views...
Since it has rained here for 15 days, I needed a laugh so I visited HuffPost/AOL "News". Never one to disappoint, there was a story on Obama's speech about Israel, and his speech to AIPAC. Needless to say, the far-left loons that follow HuffPost are a little shy on facts as well as intellect. Here are a few samples of their posts.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATORSpencersMom
"To whom much is given, much will be required."
Bibi, we're waiting for a "thank you" not a list of further demands.
[MY RESPONSE] Um, Bibi should thank Obana for what, exactly? For betraying Israel? For telling them to give back land won in a war they did not start? Would that not be a precedent for America to give back all the land we won from Mexico, or the Native American tribes? Or maybe require the Arabs to give back all the land THEY stole - like the West Bank and Jerusalem. Ooops! The Jews beat you to it, and already took that back. And that is why the Palestinians are whining.
Designerherbals
Ok so someone please explain it to me cause I didn't find it anywhere in this article and I genuinely am unsure of the answer, what *exactly* does Israel want? Were the 1967 borders not big enough for them or something? I'm assuming they just want more land then they had in 1967?
[MY RESPONSE] If someone has to educate you, then perhaps you should not be posting. Israel wants the Palestinians to stop murdering Israeli's, and to renounce their edict to eradicate Israel. There can never be peace as long as the Palestinians insist on the destruction of Israel as a precursor to peace. And Israel did not "take" land. The West Bank was won in an unprovoked war that the arabs waged against Israel in their quest to eradicate Israel. The Palestinians want their own state - in a form and manner that would ensure the demise of Israel.
avbaby
Dee50 has it correct...I think all the anti Obama rhetoric is solely based on closet or blatant racism...Guess we really haven't come such a long way after all...Bibi can't keep sticking it to the Arabs by building and then trying to negotiate peace
[MY RESPONSE] The first person to inject race into a conversation is the racist. The very fact that Obama got only 12% of the vote from blacks indicates that a majority of whites voted for him, so drop the race crap. And it is not Netanyahu that is sticking it to anyone - the arabs have been bombing and murdering Israeli's from Day One, without provocation - even during times of truce.
dissanayake
Presidents have wasted US funds, time and energy diverted towards "Peace for Israel" for generations. Enough Already! Only to find,that Israel attacked Lebanon and the Gaza strip every other summer, with no real provocation. Our healthcare is at risk, out education is faltering, our graduate kid's dont have jobs, we give 5 bilion to Israel, but the GOP wouldnt consider Obama's Universal Healthcare plan, which would have cost 900 Million to 1 Billion to cover 300 million of us for 9 years.
[MY RESPONSE] Nice re-write of history. Unfortunately, it is Gaza and Lebanon who incite the violence in EVERY instance. Perhaps you should actually study the historical records and stop spewing the BS that others on the far left (like Huffington Post) are feeding you. As for "one billion in 10 years for Obamacare", you are missing several zeros. The CBO says is will cost over $1.3 TRILLION in 10 years - and that is a very low guesstimate. The actual cost is expected to be over $4 trillion.
Via Dolorosa
No other Middle East nation has trampled more UN resolutions, committed more acts of aggression and occupied more land from other countries than Israel. Should makes you wonder who the rogue state is.
[MY RESPONSE] Really? Exactly WHICH resolutions did they trample? I remember Saddam trampling a lot. And Iran. And Syria. And Lebanon. And now Libya. And the Israeli's only "aggression" comes after they are attacked - check the actual records. And the only land they "occupy" is land they won legitimately, which, by the way, was originally theirs thousands of years ago. It was the arabs that stole it from them and drove them out. Strange how liberals think it's just fine that arabs drove out the Jews, but not so fine when the Jews drive out the arabs. It appears most, if not all liberals are anti-semite.
So, that is the mind-set of the far left - Jews are the terrorists because they fight back when attacked. Jews "occupy" land that was theirs to begin with. Jews should destroy Israel by giving the West Bank back to the arabs, leaving all Israel defenseless. And give Jerusalem to the muslims, even though all the Jewish & Christian sacred places are there.
I dare say most liberals do not even realize that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem was the beginning of Christianity. And it was where Abraham was to sacrifice his son. And the original Jewish Temple on the Mount is where Jesus preached. Then after 600 AD, the Muslims invaded, took control and destroyed the Jewish Temple, and built a Muslim Mosque on its ruins. And that, my friends, is now the Temple Mount - stolen from the Jews, destroyed by the invading arabs.
But far left loons don't care about that - they only want to see the rest of Israel destroyed. They will not be happy until the entire Middle East is a Muslim caliphate.
By the way - if anyone needs proof that Obama is wrong when he says Israel should go back to the 1967 borders - the EU agrees with him. That cinches it.
/
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATORSpencersMom
"To whom much is given, much will be required."
Bibi, we're waiting for a "thank you" not a list of further demands.
[MY RESPONSE] Um, Bibi should thank Obana for what, exactly? For betraying Israel? For telling them to give back land won in a war they did not start? Would that not be a precedent for America to give back all the land we won from Mexico, or the Native American tribes? Or maybe require the Arabs to give back all the land THEY stole - like the West Bank and Jerusalem. Ooops! The Jews beat you to it, and already took that back. And that is why the Palestinians are whining.
Designerherbals
Ok so someone please explain it to me cause I didn't find it anywhere in this article and I genuinely am unsure of the answer, what *exactly* does Israel want? Were the 1967 borders not big enough for them or something? I'm assuming they just want more land then they had in 1967?
[MY RESPONSE] If someone has to educate you, then perhaps you should not be posting. Israel wants the Palestinians to stop murdering Israeli's, and to renounce their edict to eradicate Israel. There can never be peace as long as the Palestinians insist on the destruction of Israel as a precursor to peace. And Israel did not "take" land. The West Bank was won in an unprovoked war that the arabs waged against Israel in their quest to eradicate Israel. The Palestinians want their own state - in a form and manner that would ensure the demise of Israel.
avbaby
Dee50 has it correct...I think all the anti Obama rhetoric is solely based on closet or blatant racism...Guess we really haven't come such a long way after all...Bibi can't keep sticking it to the Arabs by building and then trying to negotiate peace
[MY RESPONSE] The first person to inject race into a conversation is the racist. The very fact that Obama got only 12% of the vote from blacks indicates that a majority of whites voted for him, so drop the race crap. And it is not Netanyahu that is sticking it to anyone - the arabs have been bombing and murdering Israeli's from Day One, without provocation - even during times of truce.
dissanayake
Presidents have wasted US funds, time and energy diverted towards "Peace for Israel" for generations. Enough Already! Only to find,that Israel attacked Lebanon and the Gaza strip every other summer, with no real provocation. Our healthcare is at risk, out education is faltering, our graduate kid's dont have jobs, we give 5 bilion to Israel, but the GOP wouldnt consider Obama's Universal Healthcare plan, which would have cost 900 Million to 1 Billion to cover 300 million of us for 9 years.
[MY RESPONSE] Nice re-write of history. Unfortunately, it is Gaza and Lebanon who incite the violence in EVERY instance. Perhaps you should actually study the historical records and stop spewing the BS that others on the far left (like Huffington Post) are feeding you. As for "one billion in 10 years for Obamacare", you are missing several zeros. The CBO says is will cost over $1.3 TRILLION in 10 years - and that is a very low guesstimate. The actual cost is expected to be over $4 trillion.
Via Dolorosa
No other Middle East nation has trampled more UN resolutions, committed more acts of aggression and occupied more land from other countries than Israel. Should makes you wonder who the rogue state is.
[MY RESPONSE] Really? Exactly WHICH resolutions did they trample? I remember Saddam trampling a lot. And Iran. And Syria. And Lebanon. And now Libya. And the Israeli's only "aggression" comes after they are attacked - check the actual records. And the only land they "occupy" is land they won legitimately, which, by the way, was originally theirs thousands of years ago. It was the arabs that stole it from them and drove them out. Strange how liberals think it's just fine that arabs drove out the Jews, but not so fine when the Jews drive out the arabs. It appears most, if not all liberals are anti-semite.
So, that is the mind-set of the far left - Jews are the terrorists because they fight back when attacked. Jews "occupy" land that was theirs to begin with. Jews should destroy Israel by giving the West Bank back to the arabs, leaving all Israel defenseless. And give Jerusalem to the muslims, even though all the Jewish & Christian sacred places are there.
I dare say most liberals do not even realize that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem was the beginning of Christianity. And it was where Abraham was to sacrifice his son. And the original Jewish Temple on the Mount is where Jesus preached. Then after 600 AD, the Muslims invaded, took control and destroyed the Jewish Temple, and built a Muslim Mosque on its ruins. And that, my friends, is now the Temple Mount - stolen from the Jews, destroyed by the invading arabs.
But far left loons don't care about that - they only want to see the rest of Israel destroyed. They will not be happy until the entire Middle East is a Muslim caliphate.
By the way - if anyone needs proof that Obama is wrong when he says Israel should go back to the 1967 borders - the EU agrees with him. That cinches it.
/
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The Secret Service - relying on Fox News for real news...
The U.S. Secret Service Twitter account posted a tweet that read: “Had to monitor Fox for a story. Can’t. Deal. With. The. Blathering [of other news outlets].” Having raised eyebrows - and undoubtedly the ire of both the lamestream media and the White House - the agency took down the post and published an apology - an apology not for what the tweet said, but for posting it "without authorization".
Seems like even the venerable Secret Service relies on Fox News when they want the real story.
/
Seems like even the venerable Secret Service relies on Fox News when they want the real story.
/
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
U.S. N O A A says solar storms pose a growing threat to criticial infrastructure
Those of you who have followed this blog for awhile will likely recall that I have made this prediction for more than 4 years - and was often derided about it. So, for the doubters, it is now more "official", as the following news story shows:
GENEVA -- A senior official at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says solar storms pose a growing threat to criticial infrastructure such as satellite communications, navigation systems and electrical transmission equipment.
NOAA Assistant Secretary Kathryn Sullivan says the intensity of solar storms is expected to peak in 2013 and countries should prepare for "potentially devastating effects."
Solar storms release particles that can temporarily disable or permanently destroy fragile computer circuits.
Sullivan, a former NASA astronaut who in 1984 became the first woman to walk in space, told a U.N. weather conference in Geneva on Tuesday that "it is not a question of if, but really a matter of when a major solar event could hit our planet."
We should be jumping all over our Congress to IMMEDIATELY provide for alternatives in the event we lose our satellites or grid. Otherwise, our entire nation could be "down" for 3-10 years (that's how long it would take to create and replace the transformers - which, by the way, are not manufactured in America).
And each of you should be taking steps to be better prepared, just in case.
I'm just sayin'...
UPDATE: The CDC just put out a warning that all Americans should take steps for preparedness against any possible disaster. (The scariest part is that their warning actually mentions the possibility of ZOMBIES on the rampage - no lie!) Doesn't it make you wonder what the government knows that they are not telling? Is it simply a coincidence that 2012 is just around the corner? Probably - but I, for one, am not gambling the lives of my loved ones. I am assuming that, at some point, something drastic will occur. Historically, it always does, sooner or later. Whether you are a victim or a survivor will depend on your level of preparedness.
/
GENEVA -- A senior official at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says solar storms pose a growing threat to criticial infrastructure such as satellite communications, navigation systems and electrical transmission equipment.
NOAA Assistant Secretary Kathryn Sullivan says the intensity of solar storms is expected to peak in 2013 and countries should prepare for "potentially devastating effects."
Solar storms release particles that can temporarily disable or permanently destroy fragile computer circuits.
Sullivan, a former NASA astronaut who in 1984 became the first woman to walk in space, told a U.N. weather conference in Geneva on Tuesday that "it is not a question of if, but really a matter of when a major solar event could hit our planet."
We should be jumping all over our Congress to IMMEDIATELY provide for alternatives in the event we lose our satellites or grid. Otherwise, our entire nation could be "down" for 3-10 years (that's how long it would take to create and replace the transformers - which, by the way, are not manufactured in America).
And each of you should be taking steps to be better prepared, just in case.
I'm just sayin'...
UPDATE: The CDC just put out a warning that all Americans should take steps for preparedness against any possible disaster. (The scariest part is that their warning actually mentions the possibility of ZOMBIES on the rampage - no lie!) Doesn't it make you wonder what the government knows that they are not telling? Is it simply a coincidence that 2012 is just around the corner? Probably - but I, for one, am not gambling the lives of my loved ones. I am assuming that, at some point, something drastic will occur. Historically, it always does, sooner or later. Whether you are a victim or a survivor will depend on your level of preparedness.
/
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Are The Democrats Trying To Have It Both Ways?
OK, so Paul Ryan (R) put forth a budget proposal that includes privatizing Medicare, at least to some degree for people currently under 55. The Democrats are now touting how Republicans in Congress have alienated their base, that their base thinks it's a really bad idea.
Fast foward to the other day when Newt Gingrich said Ryan's plan was "radical". Gingrich is being villified by Republicans for that. And the same Democrats jumped on that to show that Republicans are FOR Ryan and his plan.
The Democrats like stacking the deck with too many aces. Like global warming (if it's hot it's because of Global Warming, and if it's cold it's because of Global Warming), the liberals want us to believe that core Republicans are against Ryan's plan, except when they are for Ryan's plan.
On the one hand, they are trying to minimize Ryan, and on the other hand, Gingrich.
I realize this is politics, but I think the folks are getting real sick of politics as usual, and will jump on the wagon of any candidate who will simply tell them the truth.
/
Fast foward to the other day when Newt Gingrich said Ryan's plan was "radical". Gingrich is being villified by Republicans for that. And the same Democrats jumped on that to show that Republicans are FOR Ryan and his plan.
The Democrats like stacking the deck with too many aces. Like global warming (if it's hot it's because of Global Warming, and if it's cold it's because of Global Warming), the liberals want us to believe that core Republicans are against Ryan's plan, except when they are for Ryan's plan.
On the one hand, they are trying to minimize Ryan, and on the other hand, Gingrich.
I realize this is politics, but I think the folks are getting real sick of politics as usual, and will jump on the wagon of any candidate who will simply tell them the truth.
/
Hawking says there is no Heaven - but there is a huge flaw in his reasoning...
To show how the greatest minds are often the most myopic, here is a recent news story out of London:
"Famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking finds no room for heaven in his vision of the cosmos.
In an interview published Monday in The Guardian newspaper, the 69-year-old says the human brain is a like a computer that will stop working when its components fail.
He says: "There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Just because HIS vision of the cosmos has no room for Heaven does not mean anything at all - that is nothing more than an opinion by someone who does not know for sure - because no one can "know" for certain. Now, if Hawking had died, and had been dead a few days, then came back to tell what it was like, maybe THEN his opinion on the matter would have some value.
But more to the point is the syndrome Hawking suffers from, as do many "genius" types --- the inability to see outside his narrow area of expertise (myopia). Hawking says there is "no room for Heaven" in the cosmos. But who ever claimed that Heaven was in the cosmos at all? That would be to say that God, Himself, resides within the boundaries of the cosmos. But since the cosmos were created by God (according to most religions), then it would seem that He - and His Heaven - are outside the cosmos.
As for the human brain being like a computer, that may well be true. But then, even religious people understand the brain dies. We are not talking about the brain, or any other organ. We are talking about the soul. If Hawking intends to equate the brain with the soul, then he has absolutely no concept of the spirit that lives within each of us.
Throughout history, geniuses have been wrong more than they have been right (i.e. the Earth is flat, or that the Sun revolved around Earth) - particularly when taken out of their intellectual realm. Einstein, for example, could not figure out his own taxes. And Hawking cannot figure out religion.
So, maybe he should just leave it to those who do understand, like Einstein's accountant understood taxes.
And among the noted physicists, Hawking is low on the totem pole compared to Albert Einstein, and Einstein believed there was "room for Heaven" in the cosmos. His exact words on the subject are as follows:
"I believe in [a] God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists."
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
Just for the record, Mr. Hawking, Man does not yet know the scope of the cosmos - we can only see a small part of it. That is like standing on a point of land in the middle of the ocean and saying, "The entire world must be ocean because that is all I can see." Also for the record, when my computer crashes, the internet is still there, as is everything I ever transmitted over it. You cannot SEE the internet, or TOUCH it - but it is there. And so is everything I ever inputted...
/
"Famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking finds no room for heaven in his vision of the cosmos.
In an interview published Monday in The Guardian newspaper, the 69-year-old says the human brain is a like a computer that will stop working when its components fail.
He says: "There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Just because HIS vision of the cosmos has no room for Heaven does not mean anything at all - that is nothing more than an opinion by someone who does not know for sure - because no one can "know" for certain. Now, if Hawking had died, and had been dead a few days, then came back to tell what it was like, maybe THEN his opinion on the matter would have some value.
But more to the point is the syndrome Hawking suffers from, as do many "genius" types --- the inability to see outside his narrow area of expertise (myopia). Hawking says there is "no room for Heaven" in the cosmos. But who ever claimed that Heaven was in the cosmos at all? That would be to say that God, Himself, resides within the boundaries of the cosmos. But since the cosmos were created by God (according to most religions), then it would seem that He - and His Heaven - are outside the cosmos.
As for the human brain being like a computer, that may well be true. But then, even religious people understand the brain dies. We are not talking about the brain, or any other organ. We are talking about the soul. If Hawking intends to equate the brain with the soul, then he has absolutely no concept of the spirit that lives within each of us.
Throughout history, geniuses have been wrong more than they have been right (i.e. the Earth is flat, or that the Sun revolved around Earth) - particularly when taken out of their intellectual realm. Einstein, for example, could not figure out his own taxes. And Hawking cannot figure out religion.
So, maybe he should just leave it to those who do understand, like Einstein's accountant understood taxes.
And among the noted physicists, Hawking is low on the totem pole compared to Albert Einstein, and Einstein believed there was "room for Heaven" in the cosmos. His exact words on the subject are as follows:
"I believe in [a] God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists."
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
Just for the record, Mr. Hawking, Man does not yet know the scope of the cosmos - we can only see a small part of it. That is like standing on a point of land in the middle of the ocean and saying, "The entire world must be ocean because that is all I can see." Also for the record, when my computer crashes, the internet is still there, as is everything I ever transmitted over it. You cannot SEE the internet, or TOUCH it - but it is there. And so is everything I ever inputted...
/
Monday, May 16, 2011
How To Tell The Difference Between A Right & A Privilege - And Why It Is Important
There is a lot of misinformation lately about "rights", and most of it is coming from the left, for the reason given later in this post. For the sake of clarity, this post will point out the very real differences between rights and privileges.
There are several tests used to determine if a benefit is a "right" or a "privilege". These tests include whether or not they can be granted or taken away by another, whether or not everyone has them, and whether or not one is required to pay for it, or may CHOOSE to pay for it.
A right is something you have that cannot be taken away by passing a law or regulation. You are born with it, i.e. "God given", if you will. That which is granted by God or by virtue of being born cannot be legally taken away by Man. If you look closely at the enumerated rights in the Constution or Declaration of Independence, you will see that they are, indeed, rights of life - Man can neither grant them, nor take them away.
Examples of privileges:
But those issues are not rights, and can never be made as rights. That is because a right MUST be something everyone is born with, and society or government may not place restrictions of payment or regulation on them.
I realize that an activist SCOTUS incorrectly found abortion to be a "right". But that does not make it a right. It simply makes the court wrong. Abortion cannot be a right because a) no one is born with it, b) some people can never have it, c) it must be paid for, and d) it requires a licensed practitioner.
It is time we started recognizing the differences between rights and privileges. Unless we do, we will find society deteriorating steadily as unearmed privileges suddenly become incontestible rights.
If you doubt that, look to Greece, France or the UK, where people are rioting because the government can no longer afford to give them a free ride on privileges that they wrongly believe to be rights - free college, free food, free housing, free medical...
Wake up, America! That sort of thing is coming to a town near you if we don't wise up.
The short take --- if EVERYONE is not born with it, if anyone has to pay for it, negotiate for it or qualify for it, it simply cannot be a right - not ever.
/
There are several tests used to determine if a benefit is a "right" or a "privilege". These tests include whether or not they can be granted or taken away by another, whether or not everyone has them, and whether or not one is required to pay for it, or may CHOOSE to pay for it.
A right is something you have that cannot be taken away by passing a law or regulation. You are born with it, i.e. "God given", if you will. That which is granted by God or by virtue of being born cannot be legally taken away by Man. If you look closely at the enumerated rights in the Constution or Declaration of Independence, you will see that they are, indeed, rights of life - Man can neither grant them, nor take them away.
A privilege, on the other hand, is not something you are born with. It is granted by Man, and can be taken away by Man. An example would be the privilege of driving. Driving cannot be a "right", because not everyone is capable nor qualified to drive, i.e. a blind person, or a child. And payment is required, as well as eye exams and driver's tests for knowledge and ability
A right cannot be procured by payment or by fulfilling some sort of qualification. For example, if a license is required, it is not a right, but a privilege. If you are required to perform certain acts, it is a privilege, not a right. Anything for which payment or qualifications are required cannot be a right, because not everyone has them - only those who can pay or perform would have them.
Examples of rights:
- Right to life
- Right of free speech
- Right to freely assemble
- Right to be free of illegal search & seizure
- Right to property
Examples of privileges:
- Driving (requires license and can be revoked)
- Marriage (requires license)
- Collective bargaining (must be negotiated - no one is born with the benefit - and it can be revoked)
- Abortion (not everyone has the benefit of "choice" - men do not. Also, payment is required, and the person performing it must be licensed)
But those issues are not rights, and can never be made as rights. That is because a right MUST be something everyone is born with, and society or government may not place restrictions of payment or regulation on them.
I realize that an activist SCOTUS incorrectly found abortion to be a "right". But that does not make it a right. It simply makes the court wrong. Abortion cannot be a right because a) no one is born with it, b) some people can never have it, c) it must be paid for, and d) it requires a licensed practitioner.
It is time we started recognizing the differences between rights and privileges. Unless we do, we will find society deteriorating steadily as unearmed privileges suddenly become incontestible rights.
If you doubt that, look to Greece, France or the UK, where people are rioting because the government can no longer afford to give them a free ride on privileges that they wrongly believe to be rights - free college, free food, free housing, free medical...
Wake up, America! That sort of thing is coming to a town near you if we don't wise up.
The short take --- if EVERYONE is not born with it, if anyone has to pay for it, negotiate for it or qualify for it, it simply cannot be a right - not ever.
/
Thursday, May 12, 2011
The Hidden Truth Behind High Gas Prices...
So many folks are blaming oil companies, OPEC and speculators for the high price of oil. And to some extent they are partly responsible, each in their own way.
But today the Democrats in Congress are attempting to penalize the oil companies, not because they are responsible for high prices, but simply because they are making huge profits.
But consider this little fact that the Democrats in Congress are conveniently refusing to mention:
FACT: The oil companies make approximately 7 cents profit on every gallon of gasoline sold. But the government, in state and local taxes, makes between 40 and 60 cents on every gallon.
Seems to me that if the oil companies are "gouging" us at 7 cents per gallon, then the government is gouging us 6-8 times more, because taxes are added into the "cost of doing business", and are actually paid by the consumer, not the business.
As long as oil companies earn less per gallon than the government, we should be demanding that the government, not the oil companies, give up some of THEIR profits from gouging. If those taxes were not so exhorbitant, oil companies could reduce the price per gallon without sacrificing their profit margin. For example, if 7 cents per gallon is "gouging", then the government taxes should not exceed that. If those taxes were held at the same level as oil company profits, the price of gas at the pump would drop between 33 and 53 cents per gallon.
Other ways the government raises the cost of fuel:
1) Government forces refineries to make dozens of different blends, each to accommodate any local environmental regulations. This raises production costs substantially
2) Government (the FED, actually) prints more money, reducing the value of the dollar, resulting in more dollars being required to buy the oil from OPEC.
3) The government has virtually stopped new oil production in the US by refusing to issue new permits, and by closing off major production areas.
Does anyone actually believe it is NOT the government that is the problem? The government reminds me of the petulant child that gets into trouble, then tries to blame it on the dog, or the neighbor's kid - anyone but himself.
/
But today the Democrats in Congress are attempting to penalize the oil companies, not because they are responsible for high prices, but simply because they are making huge profits.
But consider this little fact that the Democrats in Congress are conveniently refusing to mention:
FACT: The oil companies make approximately 7 cents profit on every gallon of gasoline sold. But the government, in state and local taxes, makes between 40 and 60 cents on every gallon.
Seems to me that if the oil companies are "gouging" us at 7 cents per gallon, then the government is gouging us 6-8 times more, because taxes are added into the "cost of doing business", and are actually paid by the consumer, not the business.
As long as oil companies earn less per gallon than the government, we should be demanding that the government, not the oil companies, give up some of THEIR profits from gouging. If those taxes were not so exhorbitant, oil companies could reduce the price per gallon without sacrificing their profit margin. For example, if 7 cents per gallon is "gouging", then the government taxes should not exceed that. If those taxes were held at the same level as oil company profits, the price of gas at the pump would drop between 33 and 53 cents per gallon.
Other ways the government raises the cost of fuel:
1) Government forces refineries to make dozens of different blends, each to accommodate any local environmental regulations. This raises production costs substantially
2) Government (the FED, actually) prints more money, reducing the value of the dollar, resulting in more dollars being required to buy the oil from OPEC.
3) The government has virtually stopped new oil production in the US by refusing to issue new permits, and by closing off major production areas.
Does anyone actually believe it is NOT the government that is the problem? The government reminds me of the petulant child that gets into trouble, then tries to blame it on the dog, or the neighbor's kid - anyone but himself.
/
Monday, May 9, 2011
Liberal Mein Kampf - How To Create Division and Hate With Rumors
As if the Huffington Post/AOL "news stories" were not already absurd and unworthy of any serious consideration as news, now comes their expected claim of "deathers". Now that "birthers" have done minor damage to Republicans and the "birther" movement has been dismantled, the liberals are now creating a group of conservatives called "deathers" - people who question the death of bin Laden.
I say liberals like HuffPost are creating it because in the real world that most of us live in, there is no such "deather" movement. And of the very few people who have doubts about bin Laden's death, they do not appear to be tied to any one party.
From HuffPost/AOL, "Like their refusing-to-believe brethren, a small minority is quietly beginning to insist that there is some doubt about whether Osama bin Laden is really dead. And like their skeptically minded cousins, the movement is beginning innocently, merely asserting that a few questions remain unanswered." [My Comment - in other words, there are no "deathers" - only a few people with unanswered questions. But hey, that doesn't stop HuffPost from spinning it.]
"In a Sunday interview with the television station WMUR, New Hampshire state Rep. Lynne Blankenbeker (R) joined the deathers' ranks.
"I was obviously very excited by the possibility that Osama bin Laden is no longer around. That's great," she said. "You know, my first thought went to the victims from 9/11 and their families."
Oh, my! She was only excited by the possibility...So, according to the far-left wackos at HuffPost, the only requirement for being called a "deather" is to be "excited by the possibility" that bin Laden is dead. If you do not declare unequivically that you KNOW he is CERTAINLY dead, and you are only excited at the possibility, then that makes you a "deather" so the liberal left can make hay from it as they did from the "birthers".
The "media" (and I use the term very loosely in regard to HuffPost and AOL) cannot get any more dishonest than this - to purposely create an issue where there is none, and spread the seed of rumor throughout their ranks, who will swallow it as absolute fact.
This is precisely the premise of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" - to use rumor and innuendo to create mistrust and hate so two factions will go to war. Then simply move in and pick up the marbles.
Frankly, if I was associated with HuffPost or AOL, I would be so ashamed that I would have to join a monastery to cleanse myself.
/
I say liberals like HuffPost are creating it because in the real world that most of us live in, there is no such "deather" movement. And of the very few people who have doubts about bin Laden's death, they do not appear to be tied to any one party.
From HuffPost/AOL, "Like their refusing-to-believe brethren, a small minority is quietly beginning to insist that there is some doubt about whether Osama bin Laden is really dead. And like their skeptically minded cousins, the movement is beginning innocently, merely asserting that a few questions remain unanswered." [My Comment - in other words, there are no "deathers" - only a few people with unanswered questions. But hey, that doesn't stop HuffPost from spinning it.]
"In a Sunday interview with the television station WMUR, New Hampshire state Rep. Lynne Blankenbeker (R) joined the deathers' ranks.
"I was obviously very excited by the possibility that Osama bin Laden is no longer around. That's great," she said. "You know, my first thought went to the victims from 9/11 and their families."
Oh, my! She was only excited by the possibility...So, according to the far-left wackos at HuffPost, the only requirement for being called a "deather" is to be "excited by the possibility" that bin Laden is dead. If you do not declare unequivically that you KNOW he is CERTAINLY dead, and you are only excited at the possibility, then that makes you a "deather" so the liberal left can make hay from it as they did from the "birthers".
The "media" (and I use the term very loosely in regard to HuffPost and AOL) cannot get any more dishonest than this - to purposely create an issue where there is none, and spread the seed of rumor throughout their ranks, who will swallow it as absolute fact.
This is precisely the premise of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" - to use rumor and innuendo to create mistrust and hate so two factions will go to war. Then simply move in and pick up the marbles.
Frankly, if I was associated with HuffPost or AOL, I would be so ashamed that I would have to join a monastery to cleanse myself.
/
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Getting bin Laden Will Not Help Mr Obama To Get Re-elected - here's why...
President Obama's poll numbers went up a whopping 9% after the death of bin Laden. And Democrats are elated, as they see this as a lasting boost that will help him get re-elected. But that is not even close to being realistic.
In the real world, prior to the death of Usama the voters of America were deserting the president because of the deficit, the debt, the high food prices, high gas prices, his refusal to drill domestically and the still-too-high unemployment rate. Just about the only thing that was not driving his numbers down was Usama bin Laden.
Right now, America is grateful to Mr Obama for bringing about the demise of the most hated person in America.
But 6 weeks from now, those same people will still be faced with the deficit, debt, high food prices, high gas prices, high unemployment - and they will again show their displeasure.
Killing bin Laden has done NOTHING to reduce the true causes of his declining poll numbers. So those declining numbers will soon return, as soon as the short-term high of Usama's death fades and the long-term reality returns.
No, I can state with relative certainty that the death of Usama bin Laden, while long sought by Americans coast-to-coast, will not help Mr. Obama win re-election. It simply was not one of the issues facing American households who are in a "how do I survive today" mode.
Thank you, Mr. President, for getting bin Laden. While I appreciate it, I do not find the long-term personal ramifications for my family to be that important.
/
In the real world, prior to the death of Usama the voters of America were deserting the president because of the deficit, the debt, the high food prices, high gas prices, his refusal to drill domestically and the still-too-high unemployment rate. Just about the only thing that was not driving his numbers down was Usama bin Laden.
Right now, America is grateful to Mr Obama for bringing about the demise of the most hated person in America.
But 6 weeks from now, those same people will still be faced with the deficit, debt, high food prices, high gas prices, high unemployment - and they will again show their displeasure.
Killing bin Laden has done NOTHING to reduce the true causes of his declining poll numbers. So those declining numbers will soon return, as soon as the short-term high of Usama's death fades and the long-term reality returns.
No, I can state with relative certainty that the death of Usama bin Laden, while long sought by Americans coast-to-coast, will not help Mr. Obama win re-election. It simply was not one of the issues facing American households who are in a "how do I survive today" mode.
Thank you, Mr. President, for getting bin Laden. While I appreciate it, I do not find the long-term personal ramifications for my family to be that important.
/
Monday, May 2, 2011
I Hope bin Laden Is Dead --- But There Are Questions...
The news came out yesterday that Usama bin Laden had been killed, and the U.S. had possession of the body. Great news, at first blush. Except for all the questions...
Questions such as:
No one kills someone like bin Laden without taking miles of videos and scads of pictures. Yet, there seem to be none at all. In fact, Associated Press posted a photo of bin Laden's "dead body" on their website Sunday evening, then pulled that photo from their website Monday morning because it appears to have been a fake.
Bin Laden is buried at sea, almost immediately. I understand fully why they would do that, but certainly not before collecting photographic or other proof of his dead body.
I do not generally subscribe to "conspiracy theories", but I gotta tell ya, so far, this stinks. They took and published pictures of Saddam's sons when they were killed. And they kept the bodies for days.
As I see it, one of three things can be at work here:
1) Bin Laden is dead and the U.S. military and CIA are so stupid and incompetent that they forgot to take pics and video, or
2) Bin Laden is dead, but the White House purposely wants to start a new "conspiracy theory" to replace the "birther" issue, so the administration can make doubters look paranoid and dumb. Then, just before election, they would produce proof positive, which would successfully harm the doubting Thomases at a critical time
3) This is a scam, to get Obama's sinking numbers up and help get him re-elected. Chicago thug politics.
I am currently withholding judgement. But I would like some proof - other than the government's word - that bin Laden is really dead.
/
Questions such as:
No one kills someone like bin Laden without taking miles of videos and scads of pictures. Yet, there seem to be none at all. In fact, Associated Press posted a photo of bin Laden's "dead body" on their website Sunday evening, then pulled that photo from their website Monday morning because it appears to have been a fake.
Bin Laden is buried at sea, almost immediately. I understand fully why they would do that, but certainly not before collecting photographic or other proof of his dead body.
I do not generally subscribe to "conspiracy theories", but I gotta tell ya, so far, this stinks. They took and published pictures of Saddam's sons when they were killed. And they kept the bodies for days.
As I see it, one of three things can be at work here:
1) Bin Laden is dead and the U.S. military and CIA are so stupid and incompetent that they forgot to take pics and video, or
2) Bin Laden is dead, but the White House purposely wants to start a new "conspiracy theory" to replace the "birther" issue, so the administration can make doubters look paranoid and dumb. Then, just before election, they would produce proof positive, which would successfully harm the doubting Thomases at a critical time
3) This is a scam, to get Obama's sinking numbers up and help get him re-elected. Chicago thug politics.
I am currently withholding judgement. But I would like some proof - other than the government's word - that bin Laden is really dead.
/
Sunday, May 1, 2011
It's Official - AOL is now Huffington Post Online...
It is so very sad to see any media become so one-sidedly biased, even more so when that bias favors socialism and "George Soros thinking".
That is what has happened to AOL. I visited the site just now, and EVERY story on the "page 1" news was a Huffington Post article - every one! Nothing from AP, AOL News or any other source. And that seems to be the rule rather than the exception lately.
I had said it was sad, but that is the wrong word. I think "sick" would be a more accurate term.
If you believe in socialism, and are a devout follower of George Soros, Daily Kis and MediaMatters, you will feel right at home on AOL, where you can spin and distort the facts to your heart's content, and commiserate among others who think the same way.
As for me, I have no use for that sort of thinking.
/
That is what has happened to AOL. I visited the site just now, and EVERY story on the "page 1" news was a Huffington Post article - every one! Nothing from AP, AOL News or any other source. And that seems to be the rule rather than the exception lately.
I had said it was sad, but that is the wrong word. I think "sick" would be a more accurate term.
If you believe in socialism, and are a devout follower of George Soros, Daily Kis and MediaMatters, you will feel right at home on AOL, where you can spin and distort the facts to your heart's content, and commiserate among others who think the same way.
As for me, I have no use for that sort of thinking.
/
Too Much Homework --- Or Not Enough? Consider this...
There is a debate going on concerning the amount of homework teachers are giving our kids. With U.S. education falling behind in the world, some believe our kids should be getting more homework. But is that the answer?
Before getting into a possible solution, consider the following...
For more than 60% of the population, families live in rural areas. In such areas, everyone in the family is required to help out with chores if the familiy is to survive. Farms are a good example. When growing up in such an area, I, along with my siblings were all required to perform chores. In most cases, those chores would take up at least 1-2 hours of each weekday, and as much as4 hours or more on each weekend day. And this was the case from the age of 5.
Also, in rural areas and in other areas where schools have been consolidated, the average student can spend upwards of two hours each day on a schoolbus.
And of course, the school day is roughly 7 hours long.
That said, many, if not most of all students are automatically putting in a 10-11 hour workday - more than most adults are putting in. But there is more...
Beginning around age 14 (I was 9), many students find it necessary to work a part-time job, to earn money for college their parents cannot afford, or to help support the family. In most cases, a part-time student job is at least 4 hours per day. (I know many school-age waitresses who put in much more).
And if a student participates in intramural sports? Add hours for practice and games.
So now a student can be putting in a minimum 14-15 hour workday.
And if you give that student an hour to eat breakfast and dinner, and jump in the shower, the student puts in 16 hours a day, leaving 8 hours for sleep.
This not only leaves no time for homework, but also no time for just being a kid, enjoying their childhood.
Lucky for you if your child does not need to do chores, does not spend hours on a bus and does not need a part-time job. Good for you. But most are not that fortunate.
So, what IS the solution? For fear of risking ridicule fror such a simple answer, it really is simple - increase the quality of the education, not the quantity.
The best teacher I ever had, Bob Gauthier, started the school year each year by saying, "I'm not here to teach you what to think. I am here to teach you HOW to think. If you know how to think, you can figure out what to think all by yourselves." And that is the core, the essence of education - giving our kids the tools to be able to figure things out for themselves. As adults, that is the only road to success. Teach them HOW to think, not WHAT to think.
We can start by getting rid of all the "feel good" subjects that are wasting school time -- courses that include the various sexual relationships; studies that teach students how to hate America (yes, there are such courses of study); and topics like "How Art Changes Our Culture" all waste education time. Such studies are 1) unnecessary, 2) do nothing to actually educate our children - it brainwashes them, and 3) they are studies that should be relegated as "extra-curricular" in nature. Our schools are not supposed to be mirror images of liberal arts colleges. More important, our schools should be teaching our kids HOW to think, not WHAT to think.
Teach our students what they need to know - mathematics, U.S. & World History, Geography, Civics, Spelling, Reading and Writing. Concentrate on the basics, as most children with solid basics can then fill in the blanks on their own - as children have done for the last 250 years of American history. With the basics soundly in place, students are equipped to figure out everything else on their own - and they should. If we keep heaping on classes that "figure things out for them", our children will not only be uneducated and unable to think for themselves, but will be brainwashed in the process.
By concentrating on the necessities of education - teaching our kids to think, and providing the basic knowledge that allows it, teachers will not have to give out as much homework. And in most cases, the homework that is given can often be competed at school, in study hall. I never once brought homework home, or carried a book home from school - not once. Yet I got a very good education, graduated with honors, went on to get three degrees and succeeded reasonably well (I "retired" from having to earn a living at age 38).
Is it any wonder our scholastic abilities are falling when schools heap unnecessary "social" courses on our kids, rather than concentrate on teaching them HOW to think instead of WHAT to think?
As parents, you NEED to get involved. You need to get together with other parents and let your school boards knowyou do not want schools toteach your kids what to think, but rather how to think for themselves. Force them to eliminate studies that teach "social" issues, as all of them do nothing more than brainwash kids into thinking there is only one way to view them.
Getr involved. They are YOUR kids and grandchildren. If you don't take a stand on their behalf, what makes you think anyone else will?
/
Before getting into a possible solution, consider the following...
For more than 60% of the population, families live in rural areas. In such areas, everyone in the family is required to help out with chores if the familiy is to survive. Farms are a good example. When growing up in such an area, I, along with my siblings were all required to perform chores. In most cases, those chores would take up at least 1-2 hours of each weekday, and as much as4 hours or more on each weekend day. And this was the case from the age of 5.
Also, in rural areas and in other areas where schools have been consolidated, the average student can spend upwards of two hours each day on a schoolbus.
And of course, the school day is roughly 7 hours long.
That said, many, if not most of all students are automatically putting in a 10-11 hour workday - more than most adults are putting in. But there is more...
Beginning around age 14 (I was 9), many students find it necessary to work a part-time job, to earn money for college their parents cannot afford, or to help support the family. In most cases, a part-time student job is at least 4 hours per day. (I know many school-age waitresses who put in much more).
And if a student participates in intramural sports? Add hours for practice and games.
So now a student can be putting in a minimum 14-15 hour workday.
And if you give that student an hour to eat breakfast and dinner, and jump in the shower, the student puts in 16 hours a day, leaving 8 hours for sleep.
This not only leaves no time for homework, but also no time for just being a kid, enjoying their childhood.
Lucky for you if your child does not need to do chores, does not spend hours on a bus and does not need a part-time job. Good for you. But most are not that fortunate.
So, what IS the solution? For fear of risking ridicule fror such a simple answer, it really is simple - increase the quality of the education, not the quantity.
The best teacher I ever had, Bob Gauthier, started the school year each year by saying, "I'm not here to teach you what to think. I am here to teach you HOW to think. If you know how to think, you can figure out what to think all by yourselves." And that is the core, the essence of education - giving our kids the tools to be able to figure things out for themselves. As adults, that is the only road to success. Teach them HOW to think, not WHAT to think.
We can start by getting rid of all the "feel good" subjects that are wasting school time -- courses that include the various sexual relationships; studies that teach students how to hate America (yes, there are such courses of study); and topics like "How Art Changes Our Culture" all waste education time. Such studies are 1) unnecessary, 2) do nothing to actually educate our children - it brainwashes them, and 3) they are studies that should be relegated as "extra-curricular" in nature. Our schools are not supposed to be mirror images of liberal arts colleges. More important, our schools should be teaching our kids HOW to think, not WHAT to think.
Teach our students what they need to know - mathematics, U.S. & World History, Geography, Civics, Spelling, Reading and Writing. Concentrate on the basics, as most children with solid basics can then fill in the blanks on their own - as children have done for the last 250 years of American history. With the basics soundly in place, students are equipped to figure out everything else on their own - and they should. If we keep heaping on classes that "figure things out for them", our children will not only be uneducated and unable to think for themselves, but will be brainwashed in the process.
By concentrating on the necessities of education - teaching our kids to think, and providing the basic knowledge that allows it, teachers will not have to give out as much homework. And in most cases, the homework that is given can often be competed at school, in study hall. I never once brought homework home, or carried a book home from school - not once. Yet I got a very good education, graduated with honors, went on to get three degrees and succeeded reasonably well (I "retired" from having to earn a living at age 38).
Is it any wonder our scholastic abilities are falling when schools heap unnecessary "social" courses on our kids, rather than concentrate on teaching them HOW to think instead of WHAT to think?
As parents, you NEED to get involved. You need to get together with other parents and let your school boards knowyou do not want schools toteach your kids what to think, but rather how to think for themselves. Force them to eliminate studies that teach "social" issues, as all of them do nothing more than brainwash kids into thinking there is only one way to view them.
Getr involved. They are YOUR kids and grandchildren. If you don't take a stand on their behalf, what makes you think anyone else will?
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)