In today's world it is not always easy to know who the good people are, and who to shun. But there is one simple rule of thumb that never fails...
A good person wakes up and wonders how many people they can assist today, and by how much. A bad person awakens and their first thought is "How many people can I make miserable today?"
Look around. Watch people. You will easily spot those who make it their life's work to bring misery to people. And it is just as easy to spot those who are kind and helpful.
When OWS protesters shout down legitimate speech by others. When someone spams you, or telemarkets you at dinner time. When the people at the Motor Vehicle Department give you the run-around. When a lawyer screws over an innocent person by using a technicality to subvert justice. Or the judge who ignores his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and decides instead he would rather push his personal agenda.
Unfotunately, it appears there are more people who work at making others miserable than there are those who make life more pleasant for others. In our society, evil is winning.
/
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Before You Give To A Charity...
As you open your pockets for the next natural disaster, please keep these facts in mind:
� The American Red Cross President and CEO Marsha J. Evans salary for the year was $651,957 plus expenses
� The United Way President Brian Gallagher receives a $375,000 base salary along with numerous expense benefits.
� UNICEF CEO Caryl M. Stern receives $1,200,000 per year (100k per month) plus all expenses including a ROLLS ROYCE . Less than 5 cents of your donated dollar goes to the cause.
WHY NOT PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE IT WILL DO SOME GOOD:
� The Salvation Army's Commissioner Todd Bassett receives a small salary of only $13,000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization. 96 percent of donated dollars go to the cause.
� The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
� The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
� The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
� The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
� The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
/
� The American Red Cross President and CEO Marsha J. Evans salary for the year was $651,957 plus expenses
� The United Way President Brian Gallagher receives a $375,000 base salary along with numerous expense benefits.
� UNICEF CEO Caryl M. Stern receives $1,200,000 per year (100k per month) plus all expenses including a ROLLS ROYCE . Less than 5 cents of your donated dollar goes to the cause.
WHY NOT PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE IT WILL DO SOME GOOD:
� The Salvation Army's Commissioner Todd Bassett receives a small salary of only $13,000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization. 96 percent of donated dollars go to the cause.
� The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
� The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
� The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
� The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
� The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
/
I Am Looking For A Very Special American (details here...)
I am currently searching for a very special American citizen. If you are this person, or know of such a person, please leave a comment, below.
The person I am searching for, first and foremost, must be a legal American citizen. In addition, they must NOT do any of the following, ever, at any time. If you do even one of these things, you are disqualified:
1) Cash a check at a bank
2) Use a check at a store
2) Buy alcoholics beverages
3) Buy cigarettes
4) Drive a motor vehicle
5) Fly on an airline
6) Collect any form of public assistance, i.e. food stamps, fuel assistance, WIC, Section 8 etc.
7) Get a passport
8) Purchase a firearm
9) Get a marriage license
Now, if you never have done any of the above and never will, please let me know, because you are the elusive "disenfranchised voter" Eric Holder and his moronic liberal friends keep saying are being discriminated against by VOTER ID laws. Personally, I have never known such a person. Even when I was living among the homeless people of Manchester, NH, I noticed even they had photo ID - it was necessary for collecting the food stamps they would sell in order to buy alcohol - which they ALSO needed photo ID for.
If you know of any legal citizen who would LIKE to vote but cannot because they are unable to procure a photo ID, let me know and I will pay for them getting such an ID.
/
The person I am searching for, first and foremost, must be a legal American citizen. In addition, they must NOT do any of the following, ever, at any time. If you do even one of these things, you are disqualified:
1) Cash a check at a bank
2) Use a check at a store
2) Buy alcoholics beverages
3) Buy cigarettes
4) Drive a motor vehicle
5) Fly on an airline
6) Collect any form of public assistance, i.e. food stamps, fuel assistance, WIC, Section 8 etc.
7) Get a passport
8) Purchase a firearm
9) Get a marriage license
Now, if you never have done any of the above and never will, please let me know, because you are the elusive "disenfranchised voter" Eric Holder and his moronic liberal friends keep saying are being discriminated against by VOTER ID laws. Personally, I have never known such a person. Even when I was living among the homeless people of Manchester, NH, I noticed even they had photo ID - it was necessary for collecting the food stamps they would sell in order to buy alcohol - which they ALSO needed photo ID for.
If you know of any legal citizen who would LIKE to vote but cannot because they are unable to procure a photo ID, let me know and I will pay for them getting such an ID.
/
Friday, December 23, 2011
A Note To Husbands Everywhere
Statistics show that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. What the stats do not show is how many others are not as happy as they should or could be. So, to put in my two-cents worth, based on over 40 years experience, I offer the following tips for husbands.
If you haven't noticed, women see, hear and understand things differently from men. Until you understand that simple concept, you will never be the kind of husband your wife deserves.
If you think that all you have to do is say, "I love you" once in awhile, and give her a kiss, thinking she will then know that you love her, you are sadly mistaken. A woman needs confirmation. It is not enough to say it - you must also show it. Every day.
When it snows, do you clean off her car? On cold mornings, do you go out and warm the car for her? And if she works and helps provide for the family, do you do your honest share of the housework?
When was the last time you brought home flowers for no reason other than to show your appreciation? And have you EVER sent her a love letter through the mail since the day you said "I Do"? Or even a romantic card once in awhile?
And when was the last time you hugged her and said, "I'm taking you out to dinner because I appreciate all that you do that makes my life worth living"? It's not enough, guys, to just take her out to dinner. You need to TELL her that it is for HER, and that you appreciate her. It's all about confirmation.
Marriages get in trouble when the parties stop showing the love, appreciation and romance that was an integral part of falling in love in the first place. More marriages end because someone feels they are being taken for granted than for any infidelity. It is difficult to be unfaithful to someone you love, respect and appreciate. And showing those to her will also strengthen them in yourself.
Now, stop reading this, pull away from the computer, go find your other (and probably better) half and give them a meaningful kiss, and tell them you love them, and then find some one to show it's not just talk.
Merry Christmas, All
/
If you haven't noticed, women see, hear and understand things differently from men. Until you understand that simple concept, you will never be the kind of husband your wife deserves.
If you think that all you have to do is say, "I love you" once in awhile, and give her a kiss, thinking she will then know that you love her, you are sadly mistaken. A woman needs confirmation. It is not enough to say it - you must also show it. Every day.
When it snows, do you clean off her car? On cold mornings, do you go out and warm the car for her? And if she works and helps provide for the family, do you do your honest share of the housework?
When was the last time you brought home flowers for no reason other than to show your appreciation? And have you EVER sent her a love letter through the mail since the day you said "I Do"? Or even a romantic card once in awhile?
And when was the last time you hugged her and said, "I'm taking you out to dinner because I appreciate all that you do that makes my life worth living"? It's not enough, guys, to just take her out to dinner. You need to TELL her that it is for HER, and that you appreciate her. It's all about confirmation.
Marriages get in trouble when the parties stop showing the love, appreciation and romance that was an integral part of falling in love in the first place. More marriages end because someone feels they are being taken for granted than for any infidelity. It is difficult to be unfaithful to someone you love, respect and appreciate. And showing those to her will also strengthen them in yourself.
Now, stop reading this, pull away from the computer, go find your other (and probably better) half and give them a meaningful kiss, and tell them you love them, and then find some one to show it's not just talk.
Merry Christmas, All
/
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Sensenbrenner Takes Heat For Michele Obama Comment
Congressman Sensenbrenner is taking heat from the far-left whackos for telling the truth. In a PRIVATE phone call that some busy-body was eavesdropping on, Sensenbrenner said, "She lectures us on eating right while she has a large posterior herself."
As everyone knows, the statement is 100% true - she does lecture the rest of us while she, herself, does seem to have an oversized rear.
But the left finds the truth to be offensive. Go figure! At least Sensenbrenner did not make the comment publicly in an attempt to smear the First Lady. But the lefty who was eavesdropping DID make it public. So, which one is the louse?
As an after-thought I am reminded of Chef Paula Deen's comments about the First Lady's eating habits during breaks in the show - according to Deen, Mrs Obama pigged out, and even mentioned that the favorite food at the White House was Hot Wings.
Not exactly what she prescribes for us peons.
/
As everyone knows, the statement is 100% true - she does lecture the rest of us while she, herself, does seem to have an oversized rear.
But the left finds the truth to be offensive. Go figure! At least Sensenbrenner did not make the comment publicly in an attempt to smear the First Lady. But the lefty who was eavesdropping DID make it public. So, which one is the louse?
As an after-thought I am reminded of Chef Paula Deen's comments about the First Lady's eating habits during breaks in the show - according to Deen, Mrs Obama pigged out, and even mentioned that the favorite food at the White House was Hot Wings.
Not exactly what she prescribes for us peons.
/
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
What Tebow Knows That His Critics Do Not...
When I was a child, and just before my mother passed away, she was adamant that I learn the Beatitudes from the Bible. She made me memorize them, and tested me often. And now, when I see Tebow on bended knee and hear his ignorant critics I am reminded of the last of the Beatitudes:
‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. ‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:10-12
'Nuff said.
/
‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. ‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:10-12
'Nuff said.
/
Monday, December 19, 2011
How To Elect People Who nWill Turn This Country Around
There are so many choices, and so little information to go on in this election. We all know that politiciand will promise anything. So, how do we know who to vote for if we want to turn America's ship around, and heading in the right direction?
First and foremost, listen to the pundits on TV and in Washington - listen closely to see who they oppose. Find out who they hate. That will show you who they fear.
Second - VOTE for those people, because if the establishment politicians and pundits are routing FOR someone, rest assured that someone will be just like them, and nothing will change.
Want change? Vote for the people other politicians and media pundits can't stand. People like Newt Gingrich, or Tea Party candidates.
After all, if the Devil says he hates someone, isn't that a strong indication that the person is good?
/
First and foremost, listen to the pundits on TV and in Washington - listen closely to see who they oppose. Find out who they hate. That will show you who they fear.
Second - VOTE for those people, because if the establishment politicians and pundits are routing FOR someone, rest assured that someone will be just like them, and nothing will change.
Want change? Vote for the people other politicians and media pundits can't stand. People like Newt Gingrich, or Tea Party candidates.
After all, if the Devil says he hates someone, isn't that a strong indication that the person is good?
/
Friday, December 16, 2011
A Novel Approach To Cutting Medical Costs...
Most people fully realize that "ObamaCare" will not reduce medical costs - in fact, will actually increase them. But there are ways to cut the costs, whether or not ObamaCare remains.
Of course, there are the well known points, such as tort reform, which reduces costs to doctors and hospitals, so the consumer saves. And being able to shop for insurance from other states increases competition, thereby reducing costs. But there is still something else we should look at.
Considering that medicine is a necessity and not a luxury, and eventually needed by all, to some extent, it should be a "public service", not unlike a minister or Rabbi. So I make the following proposal...
We, the People, via our government should offer medical college for free to all who aspire to become physicians, provided they a) can show the ability i.e. good grades etc., and b) formally agree to use their medical education for the good of the people for a minimum of 20 years. In addition, upon becoming a physician, We, the People would provide them with free housing, food, transportation and a cash stipend, which provides for their full needs. They would also be guaranteed a nice pension. Everything they require, paid for by the taxpayer.
In exchange, doctors would treat everyone for free, just as a minister does.
This is not unlike how we fund our military - they get free training, housing, food, medical care and a stipend.
Certainly, being a doctor would no longer insure a fat income, but it would provide a very good living without any of the associated hassles or costs of paying a half million in student loans, or thousands in medical malpractice insurance.
In fact, we would be more likely to get better doctors, and more of them. Under the current system, the cost of the education prevents most people from even attempting to become a doctor. Think of it - with the education provided for free, anyone with the capacity to be a doctor could become a doctor. No more shortage of M.D.'s.
Think about it - with something as necessary as medicine, doesn't it make sense for the community (We, the People) to make the provision to provide adequate help for ourselves?
/
Of course, there are the well known points, such as tort reform, which reduces costs to doctors and hospitals, so the consumer saves. And being able to shop for insurance from other states increases competition, thereby reducing costs. But there is still something else we should look at.
Considering that medicine is a necessity and not a luxury, and eventually needed by all, to some extent, it should be a "public service", not unlike a minister or Rabbi. So I make the following proposal...
We, the People, via our government should offer medical college for free to all who aspire to become physicians, provided they a) can show the ability i.e. good grades etc., and b) formally agree to use their medical education for the good of the people for a minimum of 20 years. In addition, upon becoming a physician, We, the People would provide them with free housing, food, transportation and a cash stipend, which provides for their full needs. They would also be guaranteed a nice pension. Everything they require, paid for by the taxpayer.
In exchange, doctors would treat everyone for free, just as a minister does.
This is not unlike how we fund our military - they get free training, housing, food, medical care and a stipend.
Certainly, being a doctor would no longer insure a fat income, but it would provide a very good living without any of the associated hassles or costs of paying a half million in student loans, or thousands in medical malpractice insurance.
In fact, we would be more likely to get better doctors, and more of them. Under the current system, the cost of the education prevents most people from even attempting to become a doctor. Think of it - with the education provided for free, anyone with the capacity to be a doctor could become a doctor. No more shortage of M.D.'s.
Think about it - with something as necessary as medicine, doesn't it make sense for the community (We, the People) to make the provision to provide adequate help for ourselves?
/
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The Real Threat Behind China's New Carrier...
Satellite photos have shown a huge aircraft carrier launched by China. It's their first. And a carrier has only one purpose - war!
That said, you should understand that we Americans paid for it, and are paying for all of China's growing military machine. We pay for the very military might that may someday be used against us, because we cannot resist saving a buck by buying Chinese goods instead of Made In The USA stuff.
Every time you buy something made in China (or anythying sold by WalMart), you help China build their military might.
And China is NOT our ally.
'Nuff said.
/
That said, you should understand that we Americans paid for it, and are paying for all of China's growing military machine. We pay for the very military might that may someday be used against us, because we cannot resist saving a buck by buying Chinese goods instead of Made In The USA stuff.
Every time you buy something made in China (or anythying sold by WalMart), you help China build their military might.
And China is NOT our ally.
'Nuff said.
/
Gingrich Has Sometimes Worked With Liberals - Why? Find Out Here...
Everyone says how smart Newt Gingrich is, yet they condemn him and call him dumb, or "zany" (Romney's term) because he has been known to break bread and negotiate with liberals, and give in to some liberal causes. These people (mostly pundits and politicians, because we, the People know better) seem to think this means Newt is liberal.
No - it simply means he is smart enough to get a job done.
Newt understands the first principle of negotiating - always be willing to ngive up nickles for dimes.
As a real estate investor, I teach people to always put "nickles" in their purchase offer - things they are willing to give up in order to get something better. For example, if I want a seller to pay half my closing costs (usually worth about $4000) I will offer about $10,000 less than I am willing to pay. If the seller balks at paying half the closing costs, I then offer to "increase" my purchase offer by $5000 if he pays the $4000 in costs. If he still balks, I offer up to the $10,000.
Note that I was planning to pay that amount, anyway, so when the seller agress, I come out way ahead.
I use the same technique to get free stuff, from shoe polish to lawn tractors.
That is the art of negotiating, and Newt is VERY good at it. And that is why he would make an excellent president - he can get in and negotiate with a divided Congress and get what we, the People need, because he can negotiate better than any of those clowns.
Sure, he will "give in" to minor agenda items of the libs. But do not doubt that for every nickle Newt gives up, he will get us at least a dime.
If you want a president that can get the job done, then elect someone who knows how to negotiate. Obama knows nothing about negotiating - he simply tries to use force and threats. And while that may work in the Chicago mob, that will not work in Washington for very long.
/
No - it simply means he is smart enough to get a job done.
Newt understands the first principle of negotiating - always be willing to ngive up nickles for dimes.
As a real estate investor, I teach people to always put "nickles" in their purchase offer - things they are willing to give up in order to get something better. For example, if I want a seller to pay half my closing costs (usually worth about $4000) I will offer about $10,000 less than I am willing to pay. If the seller balks at paying half the closing costs, I then offer to "increase" my purchase offer by $5000 if he pays the $4000 in costs. If he still balks, I offer up to the $10,000.
Note that I was planning to pay that amount, anyway, so when the seller agress, I come out way ahead.
I use the same technique to get free stuff, from shoe polish to lawn tractors.
That is the art of negotiating, and Newt is VERY good at it. And that is why he would make an excellent president - he can get in and negotiate with a divided Congress and get what we, the People need, because he can negotiate better than any of those clowns.
Sure, he will "give in" to minor agenda items of the libs. But do not doubt that for every nickle Newt gives up, he will get us at least a dime.
If you want a president that can get the job done, then elect someone who knows how to negotiate. Obama knows nothing about negotiating - he simply tries to use force and threats. And while that may work in the Chicago mob, that will not work in Washington for very long.
/
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Holder and Democrats Oppose Voter ID (natch)...
Eric Holder is preparing to sue more states (he is already suing more than any other 15 past AG's). They claim that poor minority people would be disenfranchised because they can't get a photo ID, so he is getting ready to hit the states that have passed Voter ID laws.
Here's a question for that corrupt moron and his minions - WHY can't they get a photo ID? They are easy to get.
More to the point, they all HAVE photo ID's - almost every one of those "poor minority people" collect public assistance, and/or smoke, and/or drink, and/or drive. And a photo ID is required for any of those things.
The odds of finding ANY minority person who does not collect any welfare, OR smoke, OR drink, OR drive is probably just south of zero.
Let's not kid ourselves - everyone with an I.Q. that is at least 2 digits knows exactly why Democrats do not want Voter ID laws - can you spell ACORN? Accounts of voter fraud have increased exponentially over the last three elections, and every case involved Democrats. If no photo ID is required, ANYONE could vote - even that guy who just snuck across the border last night. And that is what the Democrats want, because those are exactly the kind of people who would vote for the party of entitlements.
/
Here's a question for that corrupt moron and his minions - WHY can't they get a photo ID? They are easy to get.
More to the point, they all HAVE photo ID's - almost every one of those "poor minority people" collect public assistance, and/or smoke, and/or drink, and/or drive. And a photo ID is required for any of those things.
The odds of finding ANY minority person who does not collect any welfare, OR smoke, OR drink, OR drive is probably just south of zero.
Let's not kid ourselves - everyone with an I.Q. that is at least 2 digits knows exactly why Democrats do not want Voter ID laws - can you spell ACORN? Accounts of voter fraud have increased exponentially over the last three elections, and every case involved Democrats. If no photo ID is required, ANYONE could vote - even that guy who just snuck across the border last night. And that is what the Democrats want, because those are exactly the kind of people who would vote for the party of entitlements.
/
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
A Fan Of Ann Coulter's Books - But This Time She Is WAY Off...
Anne Coulter, often referred to as a far-right bomb-thrower, writes some of the funniest, yet pointed political books on the market. I gotta read every one. But lately she has been deluded.
Earlier this year, she raved about Chris Christie and sorely wanted him as the Republican candidate for President. She loves his candor and tough style - so do I. But she seemed to overlook that Christie is not all that conservative - and Coulter is very much so. She was blinded by his nerve and verve.
When Christie declined, Coulter is now strongly supporting Mitt Romney - yet another phony conservative. She says he's perfect because he is easily electable, as he was elected governor in the bluest state. But what she fails to understand is just how and why he was able to win in a blue state - he simply is not very conservative. He's democrat lite. HINT: A conservative cannot win as dogcatcher in Massachusetts.
Coulter is a strong conservative, but it appears she is easily fooled by charisma. Either that, or like establishment GOP in Washington (and the pundits) she has fallen victim to the belief that in order to win, republicans need to be "moderate".
And that is bull. McCain was moderate, and he lost badly. Reagan was not moderate and he won in a 49 state landslide. No, we do not need to run another Democrat-Lite, moderate RiNO. We need to run a true conservative - and no one who was ever governor of a very blue state (like Christie and Romney) can ever lay claim to being conservative.
Ann, I love ya, but you have been duped.
/
Earlier this year, she raved about Chris Christie and sorely wanted him as the Republican candidate for President. She loves his candor and tough style - so do I. But she seemed to overlook that Christie is not all that conservative - and Coulter is very much so. She was blinded by his nerve and verve.
When Christie declined, Coulter is now strongly supporting Mitt Romney - yet another phony conservative. She says he's perfect because he is easily electable, as he was elected governor in the bluest state. But what she fails to understand is just how and why he was able to win in a blue state - he simply is not very conservative. He's democrat lite. HINT: A conservative cannot win as dogcatcher in Massachusetts.
Coulter is a strong conservative, but it appears she is easily fooled by charisma. Either that, or like establishment GOP in Washington (and the pundits) she has fallen victim to the belief that in order to win, republicans need to be "moderate".
And that is bull. McCain was moderate, and he lost badly. Reagan was not moderate and he won in a 49 state landslide. No, we do not need to run another Democrat-Lite, moderate RiNO. We need to run a true conservative - and no one who was ever governor of a very blue state (like Christie and Romney) can ever lay claim to being conservative.
Ann, I love ya, but you have been duped.
/
AOL/HuffPost Gets Funnier - And More Dishonest - By The Day...
OK, so the Republican house passed the payroll tax bill tonight. (SIDE NOTE: The Republican House has passed 23 bills that the Democrat Senate won't even bring to a vote, even though the Democrat Senate has passed almost NO bills at all they haven't even passed a budget in the three years the Dems have held the Senate).
So here's the headline at AOL/HuffPost:
"House Passes Payroll Tax Bill Packed With Poison Pills "
So, what do they consider "poison pills?" You ge the judge...
1) The plan would pay for the one-year, 2 percent payroll tax cut by means-testing Medicare so that recipients making $85,000 and above have to pay higher premiums. Considering the Democrats keep whining that people doing well should pay more, they somehow think this is a poison pill.
2) Another $62 billion would come from freezing federal pay for a year and making federal retirees pay more for health care. Even though the iconic president of the AFL-CIO and FDR - two liberal icons - said public employees should not be allowed to "collectively bargain" because their compensation comes from taxpayers, the Democrats think it is a poison pill for public employees who already get more pay and benefits than everyone else should be required to pony up a bit more. Fed employees typically earn 30% more than their private counterparts. So why shouldn't their wages be frozen? And why shouldn't they contribute almost as much to their health care as you and I?
3) It circumvents an environmental review of the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline. Actually, the pipeline has been heavily reviewed by several agencies for three years, and there is nothing more to "review". The only reason Democrats want more "review" is so they can postpone a decision until AFTER the election. Strictly political. As a side note - the pipeline is estimated to immediately create 20,000 jobs. Last I heard, that was SUPPOSED to be a priority - and it is what the vast majority of Americans want. Still, Democrats call it a poison pill. Especially - and this is important - since the bill does NOT ask Obama to OK the pipeline. It only says that he must make a choice, yes or no. What's wrong with asking the president to make a decidsion? Isn't that waht leadership is all about? Apparently AOL/HuffPost and other liberals don't believe in leadership - just vote "present", as Obama did 90% of the time in as a Senator, so he could not be held responsible for anything.
4) Reduce emergency unemployment benefits from 73 weeks to 33 weeks. Frankly, most Americans (except the lazy) do not believe in LONG extensions for unemployment, because things can change. It is best to increase benefits about 6 months at a time, so Congress can review the need.
5) Allow states to force the jobless to prove they're not on drugs in order to get unemployment benefits. How is this a poison pill, exactly? Do Democrats really believe that taxpayers want their taxes to be used by drug addicts to get high? This is a perfectly legitimate requirement for taking taxpayer money. After all, a corporation can require drug testing before an employee can take THEIR money - and so do most government agencies.
So, AOL/HuffPost and far left lunatics think the above (5) parts of the bill are "poison pills" because the far-left lunatics do not care about the financial health of America or its citizens. The do not care that 20,000 will not get good middle-class jobs with Keystone, as long as Obama can postpone a decision until 2013, so as not to anger any of his base voters. You see, his base consists of LABOR, which is FOR the pipeline, and ENVIRONMENTALISTS who are OPPOSED to the pipeline. For him to make any decision before the election will alienate some of his base. Purely political. Meanwhile, no jobs for Americans, and no increase in the availability of domestic oil.
This only goes to prove why we have to toss the far-left liberals out of Washington. Sure, let's keep the honest Democrats, like Mansion of WV. But the liberals like Reid who have hijacked JFK's Democrat party should be kicked to the curb. Until we do that, Congress will be deadlocked and America will continue to careen out of control without a driver.
/
So here's the headline at AOL/HuffPost:
"House Passes Payroll Tax Bill Packed With Poison Pills "
So, what do they consider "poison pills?" You ge the judge...
1) The plan would pay for the one-year, 2 percent payroll tax cut by means-testing Medicare so that recipients making $85,000 and above have to pay higher premiums. Considering the Democrats keep whining that people doing well should pay more, they somehow think this is a poison pill.
2) Another $62 billion would come from freezing federal pay for a year and making federal retirees pay more for health care. Even though the iconic president of the AFL-CIO and FDR - two liberal icons - said public employees should not be allowed to "collectively bargain" because their compensation comes from taxpayers, the Democrats think it is a poison pill for public employees who already get more pay and benefits than everyone else should be required to pony up a bit more. Fed employees typically earn 30% more than their private counterparts. So why shouldn't their wages be frozen? And why shouldn't they contribute almost as much to their health care as you and I?
3) It circumvents an environmental review of the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline. Actually, the pipeline has been heavily reviewed by several agencies for three years, and there is nothing more to "review". The only reason Democrats want more "review" is so they can postpone a decision until AFTER the election. Strictly political. As a side note - the pipeline is estimated to immediately create 20,000 jobs. Last I heard, that was SUPPOSED to be a priority - and it is what the vast majority of Americans want. Still, Democrats call it a poison pill. Especially - and this is important - since the bill does NOT ask Obama to OK the pipeline. It only says that he must make a choice, yes or no. What's wrong with asking the president to make a decidsion? Isn't that waht leadership is all about? Apparently AOL/HuffPost and other liberals don't believe in leadership - just vote "present", as Obama did 90% of the time in as a Senator, so he could not be held responsible for anything.
4) Reduce emergency unemployment benefits from 73 weeks to 33 weeks. Frankly, most Americans (except the lazy) do not believe in LONG extensions for unemployment, because things can change. It is best to increase benefits about 6 months at a time, so Congress can review the need.
5) Allow states to force the jobless to prove they're not on drugs in order to get unemployment benefits. How is this a poison pill, exactly? Do Democrats really believe that taxpayers want their taxes to be used by drug addicts to get high? This is a perfectly legitimate requirement for taking taxpayer money. After all, a corporation can require drug testing before an employee can take THEIR money - and so do most government agencies.
So, AOL/HuffPost and far left lunatics think the above (5) parts of the bill are "poison pills" because the far-left lunatics do not care about the financial health of America or its citizens. The do not care that 20,000 will not get good middle-class jobs with Keystone, as long as Obama can postpone a decision until 2013, so as not to anger any of his base voters. You see, his base consists of LABOR, which is FOR the pipeline, and ENVIRONMENTALISTS who are OPPOSED to the pipeline. For him to make any decision before the election will alienate some of his base. Purely political. Meanwhile, no jobs for Americans, and no increase in the availability of domestic oil.
This only goes to prove why we have to toss the far-left liberals out of Washington. Sure, let's keep the honest Democrats, like Mansion of WV. But the liberals like Reid who have hijacked JFK's Democrat party should be kicked to the curb. Until we do that, Congress will be deadlocked and America will continue to careen out of control without a driver.
/
Yes, The Founding Fathers Warned Of The Threat From Shariah Law...
Most people believe that any threat from Shariah Law is either a recent thing, or the threat is minor. What they are not aware of is that Shariah Law caused serious concern to our Founding Fathers.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England met with the Islamic potentates of Tripoli regarding demands being made by "Barbary pirates". Afterward, they presented a report to Congress which read in part:
"We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury. The Islamic ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their (Muslim) authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise."
Yep - that sure enough sounds like a religion of peace, as liberals like to tell it. If you are not Muslim, you must either be converted, enslaved or killed. No exceptions. That's their Law. Shariah Law. No, not just the "extremists" - that is what Shariah says, and all muslims are supposed to ascribe to.
In a 136 page of essays by our 6th president, John Quincy Adams, he writes, "[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as part of his religion, against all the rest of Mankind...The precept of the Quran is perpetual war against all who deny that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God (Allah). No state paper from a Christian hand could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse."
In other words, no Christian could ever proclaim a hatred of any group of people, but Islamists make it the very foundation of their beliefs. In fact, here it is, direct from the Qur'an (Q 9:5):
"Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war. But if they repent [convert], and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them; for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (but only to those who convert).
And Q 9:29 states, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle {Muhammed], nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the people of the Book (the Bible, meaning Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya (tax on non-Muslims) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
So, to the liberal, uneducated elitists who say Shariah and the Constitution are somehow compatible, Sharia is actually in perfect, diametrical opposition to our Constitution.
/
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England met with the Islamic potentates of Tripoli regarding demands being made by "Barbary pirates". Afterward, they presented a report to Congress which read in part:
"We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury. The Islamic ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their (Muslim) authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise."
Yep - that sure enough sounds like a religion of peace, as liberals like to tell it. If you are not Muslim, you must either be converted, enslaved or killed. No exceptions. That's their Law. Shariah Law. No, not just the "extremists" - that is what Shariah says, and all muslims are supposed to ascribe to.
In a 136 page of essays by our 6th president, John Quincy Adams, he writes, "[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as part of his religion, against all the rest of Mankind...The precept of the Quran is perpetual war against all who deny that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God (Allah). No state paper from a Christian hand could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse."
In other words, no Christian could ever proclaim a hatred of any group of people, but Islamists make it the very foundation of their beliefs. In fact, here it is, direct from the Qur'an (Q 9:5):
"Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war. But if they repent [convert], and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them; for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (but only to those who convert).
And Q 9:29 states, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle {Muhammed], nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the people of the Book (the Bible, meaning Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya (tax on non-Muslims) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
So, to the liberal, uneducated elitists who say Shariah and the Constitution are somehow compatible, Sharia is actually in perfect, diametrical opposition to our Constitution.
/
Liberal AOL/HuffPost Smearing Christianity - Again...
Today's top headline on AOL: "Home Invasion Leads Police To Christian Paramilitary 'Savior Unit' "
However, nowhere in the story does it say the people involved are Christians. It only says that they are "trained in religion."
The "Savior Unit" does train in religion, but not Christianity. Christianity follows the teachings of Christ - the New Testament. The Savior Unit concentrates on the Old Testament, which is pre-Christ, and therefore not especially Christian.
But the greater point is that a person or group can CALL themselves whatever they wish - that does not make it so. I can call myself the Imperial Potus Of The Patriarchal Planet Of Xenos - but that does not make it so.
Christianity is not a "label" that can be applied to a person simply by going to church or reading Scriptures. Christianity is a lifestyle - the actual following (or sincere attempt at following) the word of Christ. Anyone who does not follow Christ and His teachings is not a Christian. Period!
If Charles Manson had been a Catholic churchgoer, he still would not be a Christian because he did not act or live like a Christian. And if a church preaches hate and bigotry as the Reverend Wright church has always done, that does not make Wright - or his followers - Christians.
So, even if the "Savior Unit" were to call themselves Christian, that does not make them Christian. Ergo, AOL?HuffPost is again being deceitful and dishonest in their reporting in an attempt to minimalize Christianity in America so the far-left loons can push their crazy agenda on the rest of us.
/
However, nowhere in the story does it say the people involved are Christians. It only says that they are "trained in religion."
The "Savior Unit" does train in religion, but not Christianity. Christianity follows the teachings of Christ - the New Testament. The Savior Unit concentrates on the Old Testament, which is pre-Christ, and therefore not especially Christian.
But the greater point is that a person or group can CALL themselves whatever they wish - that does not make it so. I can call myself the Imperial Potus Of The Patriarchal Planet Of Xenos - but that does not make it so.
Christianity is not a "label" that can be applied to a person simply by going to church or reading Scriptures. Christianity is a lifestyle - the actual following (or sincere attempt at following) the word of Christ. Anyone who does not follow Christ and His teachings is not a Christian. Period!
If Charles Manson had been a Catholic churchgoer, he still would not be a Christian because he did not act or live like a Christian. And if a church preaches hate and bigotry as the Reverend Wright church has always done, that does not make Wright - or his followers - Christians.
So, even if the "Savior Unit" were to call themselves Christian, that does not make them Christian. Ergo, AOL?HuffPost is again being deceitful and dishonest in their reporting in an attempt to minimalize Christianity in America so the far-left loons can push their crazy agenda on the rest of us.
/
Monday, December 12, 2011
Liberal Playwright Calls Palin A "Witless Bully", But It Seems HE is...
Aaron Sorkin's recent attack on Sarah Palin, calling her a "witless bully" once again shows that he, not Palin is the witless one. And a bully.
After successfully shooting a caribou, Palin said, "I feel a lot better now." Sorkin wrote, "Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them."
In other words, it's OK to eat meat and use leather, but it's not OK for anyone to kill the animals from whence they come. That is as hypocritical - and as weak - as it gets.
I certainly hope I am not the only one to see that Sorkin and his ilk are completely witless in that they want to eat meat, but they don't want that meat to come from a dead animal. Frankly, I know of no other source. As for his assinine claim that the animal was tortured, it was not. It was a quick, clean kill, unlike the animals that are raised, mistreated and then slaughtered without any chance of escape - you know, the animals that Sorkin and his friends buy at the supermarket and is OK with. So, if anyone is responsible for the torture of meat animals, it is Sorkin, not Palin.
So it would appear that Sorkin's issue is not really that Palin killed a caribou. His issue is simply that he does not like the fact that Palin is more of a man than he is; that he is eager to eat meat only if his squimish little tummy does not have to turn over knowing that it did not really come from a package at the grocery store, but that it actually came from a dead animal.
Sorkin's problem is not that Palin killed a caribou. His problem is that he cannot. In the real world where it is still survival of the fittest, Palin would survive and Sorkin would perish. THAT is Sorkin's problem. In a world of predators and prey, Sorkin is the prey, and that offends him.
As it should.
/
After successfully shooting a caribou, Palin said, "I feel a lot better now." Sorkin wrote, "Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them."
In other words, it's OK to eat meat and use leather, but it's not OK for anyone to kill the animals from whence they come. That is as hypocritical - and as weak - as it gets.
I certainly hope I am not the only one to see that Sorkin and his ilk are completely witless in that they want to eat meat, but they don't want that meat to come from a dead animal. Frankly, I know of no other source. As for his assinine claim that the animal was tortured, it was not. It was a quick, clean kill, unlike the animals that are raised, mistreated and then slaughtered without any chance of escape - you know, the animals that Sorkin and his friends buy at the supermarket and is OK with. So, if anyone is responsible for the torture of meat animals, it is Sorkin, not Palin.
So it would appear that Sorkin's issue is not really that Palin killed a caribou. His issue is simply that he does not like the fact that Palin is more of a man than he is; that he is eager to eat meat only if his squimish little tummy does not have to turn over knowing that it did not really come from a package at the grocery store, but that it actually came from a dead animal.
Sorkin's problem is not that Palin killed a caribou. His problem is that he cannot. In the real world where it is still survival of the fittest, Palin would survive and Sorkin would perish. THAT is Sorkin's problem. In a world of predators and prey, Sorkin is the prey, and that offends him.
As it should.
/
Yahoo! Starting To Sound Like AOL...
Like AOL/Huffington Post, Yahoo! has always has a liberal bias. But normally they at least try to keep it from being too obvious. That may be coming to an end as Yahoo! is beginning to remove the veil and show its bias.
From a Yahoo! "news blog" this morning they make the claim that Newt Gingrich wants to change the mission of the Federal Reserve by removing their mandate to increase employment. They also claim in the same story that Gingrich wants to give wealthy financial industry tycoons like Warren Buffett a big tax cut.
On the surface, and in their reporting, these claims appear valid.
Except...
Until 1975, the only lawful mission of the FED was to control inflation. In '75 a Democrat congress expanded that mandate to include increasing employment. While that sounds good, it is not. The two are not compatible. No one can serve two masters and do a good job of both.
Gingrich wants the Fed to focus on inflation, as was their task since 1913. He understands that "money maneuvering" is not the way to increase employment, at least not in any permanent or meaningful way. This has been proved by the Fed's succession of "quantitative easing" programs aimed at spurring growth and jobs. Those measures haven't produced a strong and sustained recovery, yet it has cost our nation dearly. And in printing all that money, they set the stage for inflation - violating their first and most important mandate. As Gingrich states on his website, "The same policies that the Fed uses to try to force job and economic growth are also the mechanisms that most dangerously weaken the value of the dollar by promoting inflation..."
Yes, we want higher employment. But the task of achieving that should never be in the hands of the Fed.
As for giving big tax cuts to Buffett and his ilk, only fools fall for that line. Buffet does not pay taxes. No matter how high you tax the wealthiest folks, they will not pay those taxes. They do not have to. There are loopholes, and shelters. For example, Buffett only pays himself $1 a year. So go ahead, liberals, increase his tax from 35 cents to 50 cents. Do you really think he will mind?
Furthermore - and I have proved this many times over the years - only the poorest Americans pay taxes. That's because they are in no position to "pass them down the line" because there is no one below them.
When you increase the taxes for Bill Gates, he simply raises the cost of Windows products, and thereby has the consumer pay his taxes for him.
By increasing the tax on the wealthy, the only ones who pay the price are consumers - and usually the poorest ones. And when consumer prices increase because of higher taxes on the wealthy, consumers have less to spend, resulting in reduced demand. Reduced demand results in manufacturing cut-backs, which ultimately results in lay-offs and higher unemployment.
Hence, increasing taxes on the rich only results in higher prices, lower demand and higher unemployment. That has been proved over and over in the last several decades since Woodrow Wilson and the Democrat Congress illegally created the FED in 1913, and later when the government changed the Constitution to allow "progressive" taxation.
So, Gingrich is correct - the Fed needs to get out of the business of creating employment because they cannot do it. And taxing the rich will hurt the economy, not help it.
Obama and the Democrats keep saying Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize winning "trickle down theory" does not work. But it was used by Reagan and the American economy boomed for 20 years. The Dems say, "Yeah, but it finally burst." Yes, it did burst - but only because Dems again took the helm, passed overly-burdensome regulation, failed to reign in Fannie Mae (which Dems created), and the huge "dot-com" bubble burst and THAT is what caused the economic failure.
Free markets for the first 170 years of our nation, with limited regulations from the government is what built America into the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth, in record time. To say free markets do not work because government regulations strangled those markets is an absurd idea.
You live, you prosper, you grow. But if someone puts a noose around your neck and tightens it, or ties your hands and feet to restrict your free movement, you will wither and die.
And so will business, our economy and our nation.
/
From a Yahoo! "news blog" this morning they make the claim that Newt Gingrich wants to change the mission of the Federal Reserve by removing their mandate to increase employment. They also claim in the same story that Gingrich wants to give wealthy financial industry tycoons like Warren Buffett a big tax cut.
On the surface, and in their reporting, these claims appear valid.
Except...
Until 1975, the only lawful mission of the FED was to control inflation. In '75 a Democrat congress expanded that mandate to include increasing employment. While that sounds good, it is not. The two are not compatible. No one can serve two masters and do a good job of both.
Gingrich wants the Fed to focus on inflation, as was their task since 1913. He understands that "money maneuvering" is not the way to increase employment, at least not in any permanent or meaningful way. This has been proved by the Fed's succession of "quantitative easing" programs aimed at spurring growth and jobs. Those measures haven't produced a strong and sustained recovery, yet it has cost our nation dearly. And in printing all that money, they set the stage for inflation - violating their first and most important mandate. As Gingrich states on his website, "The same policies that the Fed uses to try to force job and economic growth are also the mechanisms that most dangerously weaken the value of the dollar by promoting inflation..."
Yes, we want higher employment. But the task of achieving that should never be in the hands of the Fed.
As for giving big tax cuts to Buffett and his ilk, only fools fall for that line. Buffet does not pay taxes. No matter how high you tax the wealthiest folks, they will not pay those taxes. They do not have to. There are loopholes, and shelters. For example, Buffett only pays himself $1 a year. So go ahead, liberals, increase his tax from 35 cents to 50 cents. Do you really think he will mind?
Furthermore - and I have proved this many times over the years - only the poorest Americans pay taxes. That's because they are in no position to "pass them down the line" because there is no one below them.
When you increase the taxes for Bill Gates, he simply raises the cost of Windows products, and thereby has the consumer pay his taxes for him.
By increasing the tax on the wealthy, the only ones who pay the price are consumers - and usually the poorest ones. And when consumer prices increase because of higher taxes on the wealthy, consumers have less to spend, resulting in reduced demand. Reduced demand results in manufacturing cut-backs, which ultimately results in lay-offs and higher unemployment.
Hence, increasing taxes on the rich only results in higher prices, lower demand and higher unemployment. That has been proved over and over in the last several decades since Woodrow Wilson and the Democrat Congress illegally created the FED in 1913, and later when the government changed the Constitution to allow "progressive" taxation.
So, Gingrich is correct - the Fed needs to get out of the business of creating employment because they cannot do it. And taxing the rich will hurt the economy, not help it.
Obama and the Democrats keep saying Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize winning "trickle down theory" does not work. But it was used by Reagan and the American economy boomed for 20 years. The Dems say, "Yeah, but it finally burst." Yes, it did burst - but only because Dems again took the helm, passed overly-burdensome regulation, failed to reign in Fannie Mae (which Dems created), and the huge "dot-com" bubble burst and THAT is what caused the economic failure.
Free markets for the first 170 years of our nation, with limited regulations from the government is what built America into the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth, in record time. To say free markets do not work because government regulations strangled those markets is an absurd idea.
You live, you prosper, you grow. But if someone puts a noose around your neck and tightens it, or ties your hands and feet to restrict your free movement, you will wither and die.
And so will business, our economy and our nation.
/
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Dems Say Obama Should Win Because He Is A Good Family Man...
As I listen to the pundits who say Obama (or even Romney) should easily beat Gingrich because Obama is a good family man, all I can say is, "So what?"
I agree he is a apparently a good husband and father. So was Ozzie Nelson. Or even Ozzie Osbourne. But I wouldn't want them leading our country!
What we need is a strong leader, even if he is not a perfect family man. And I trust the American people will realize that when they enter the polling booth.
/
I agree he is a apparently a good husband and father. So was Ozzie Nelson. Or even Ozzie Osbourne. But I wouldn't want them leading our country!
What we need is a strong leader, even if he is not a perfect family man. And I trust the American people will realize that when they enter the polling booth.
/
I Have Solved The Global Warming Problem...
The United Nations would like for us to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by at least 30 billion pounds per year.
Liberals are actively seeking to have us accomplish this.
The average person exhales about 1000 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.
So, if we eliminate 30 million people, we can achieve that goal.
According to polls, there are roughly 30 million liberals in America.
Since liberals are the ones who want to reduce the CO2, if they drop dead - Voila! We're there.
/
Liberals are actively seeking to have us accomplish this.
The average person exhales about 1000 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.
So, if we eliminate 30 million people, we can achieve that goal.
According to polls, there are roughly 30 million liberals in America.
Since liberals are the ones who want to reduce the CO2, if they drop dead - Voila! We're there.
/
Has Anyone Seen My Country? (more...)
Has Anyone Seen My Country?
When I was a young lad, Americans were proud to proclaim their self-reliance. Independence and self-sufficiency was a thing to be proud of. I had to build my first bicycle from random parts from around town. I had to barter, trade, and even work to get what I wanted.
When Dad needed to build a new addition because of yet another brother coming into the world. he simply built it. No permission or permits were necessary.
There were no mandatory laws that forced people to be safe - if we wanted to risk ourselves, being a free people we could do so. There were no laws to determine what we ate, nor regulations on how high the grass in our lawns could grow.
In the first 150 years, Americans were actually FREE. And it was that freedom and the strength it nurtures that made this the greatest, strongest, wealthiest nation the Earth has ever known.
But that is all gone. No longer are Americans free to be strong, self-reliant and independent. Where once those traits were considered good, we are now penalized for them, as a liberal "progressivism" started by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and pushed by FDR, LBJ and now Obama are making this a country where the weak are in charge. Those who are self-reliant and play by the rules are forced to pay the way of those who are weak, lazy and unwilling to play by the rules.
That which made America strong and great is now outlawed, and the very traits that are destroying the European nations are being adopted here.
It reminds me of the weak little geek who, in school, never had a hot muscle car or a hot girlfriend, and hated the people who did. And now those geeks have taken control, and are punishing those with the muscle cars and pretty women, and are passing regulations and laws that make muscle cars obsolete.
Our nation, once built by the strong to protect the weak is now a nation being run by the weak that we protected. And from their envy and jealousy they are now penalizing the strong for being strong.
When America was born, the People were king, and the government served us. We were free to grow, expand, build, innovate. Now the government is our tyrant, and we are forced to serve it. No longer are we permitted to grow, individually. Only collectively. And that, my friend, whether you like it or not is the very basis of communism.
Where once we were like the crew of the Starship Enterprise, we are, unfortunately, being forced to become more like the Borg collective.
Has anyone seen my country lately?
/
When I was a young lad, Americans were proud to proclaim their self-reliance. Independence and self-sufficiency was a thing to be proud of. I had to build my first bicycle from random parts from around town. I had to barter, trade, and even work to get what I wanted.
When Dad needed to build a new addition because of yet another brother coming into the world. he simply built it. No permission or permits were necessary.
There were no mandatory laws that forced people to be safe - if we wanted to risk ourselves, being a free people we could do so. There were no laws to determine what we ate, nor regulations on how high the grass in our lawns could grow.
In the first 150 years, Americans were actually FREE. And it was that freedom and the strength it nurtures that made this the greatest, strongest, wealthiest nation the Earth has ever known.
But that is all gone. No longer are Americans free to be strong, self-reliant and independent. Where once those traits were considered good, we are now penalized for them, as a liberal "progressivism" started by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and pushed by FDR, LBJ and now Obama are making this a country where the weak are in charge. Those who are self-reliant and play by the rules are forced to pay the way of those who are weak, lazy and unwilling to play by the rules.
That which made America strong and great is now outlawed, and the very traits that are destroying the European nations are being adopted here.
It reminds me of the weak little geek who, in school, never had a hot muscle car or a hot girlfriend, and hated the people who did. And now those geeks have taken control, and are punishing those with the muscle cars and pretty women, and are passing regulations and laws that make muscle cars obsolete.
Our nation, once built by the strong to protect the weak is now a nation being run by the weak that we protected. And from their envy and jealousy they are now penalizing the strong for being strong.
When America was born, the People were king, and the government served us. We were free to grow, expand, build, innovate. Now the government is our tyrant, and we are forced to serve it. No longer are we permitted to grow, individually. Only collectively. And that, my friend, whether you like it or not is the very basis of communism.
Where once we were like the crew of the Starship Enterprise, we are, unfortunately, being forced to become more like the Borg collective.
Has anyone seen my country lately?
/
Does This Happen To Anyone Else?...Please Read
When I was 4 years old my mother gave me a 78 record of "Blow The Man Down", followed by "The Ballad of Davey Crockett". That was my introduction to music. It's also as far back as my memory takes me. And ever since that day, I cannot recall a time when there was not music in my head. Let me explain (if I can)...
Every time I awaken, there is already a song going through my mind, as though it had been playing all night as I slept. And every day it's a different song. This morning it was "Heart of My Heart" from the '40's I think. Yesterday it was "Joy To The World" by Three Dog Night - in the '70's. Every morning, without fail, a song is already playing like a radio that is permanently on, with no commercial interruptions.
And the music continues throughout the day, changing songs every now and again. The only time the music stops is when my mind is working on something. But when idle - music. Constant music. Thousands of different songs, spanning centuries (I sometimes "channel" Pachebel or Strauss).
I cannot stop it. As a child in school my teacher complained to my parents that I was constantly humming. I was not aware I was doing so.
I do not know where the music comes from, or why it afflicts me so. And I am curious to find out if anyone else "suffers" from this. Not that it is suffering - I love music. But after 60 years of it, it can get frustrating when you cannot shut it off.
Naturally, I grew up wanting to be a singer - the next Elvis or Dion. And while I can carry a note pretty well, and even sang in a band for a few years, I was no Elvis.
I could understand being constantly plagued by music in my mind if I were destined to be a great singer or musician. But that was not my calling. So I just do not understand it.
But I would like to hear from others (if there are any) who suffer from similar symptoms, even if it is not music. Perhaps your mind plays with math all the time.
So, if you can relate, please post a comment below.
/
Every time I awaken, there is already a song going through my mind, as though it had been playing all night as I slept. And every day it's a different song. This morning it was "Heart of My Heart" from the '40's I think. Yesterday it was "Joy To The World" by Three Dog Night - in the '70's. Every morning, without fail, a song is already playing like a radio that is permanently on, with no commercial interruptions.
And the music continues throughout the day, changing songs every now and again. The only time the music stops is when my mind is working on something. But when idle - music. Constant music. Thousands of different songs, spanning centuries (I sometimes "channel" Pachebel or Strauss).
I cannot stop it. As a child in school my teacher complained to my parents that I was constantly humming. I was not aware I was doing so.
I do not know where the music comes from, or why it afflicts me so. And I am curious to find out if anyone else "suffers" from this. Not that it is suffering - I love music. But after 60 years of it, it can get frustrating when you cannot shut it off.
Naturally, I grew up wanting to be a singer - the next Elvis or Dion. And while I can carry a note pretty well, and even sang in a band for a few years, I was no Elvis.
I could understand being constantly plagued by music in my mind if I were destined to be a great singer or musician. But that was not my calling. So I just do not understand it.
But I would like to hear from others (if there are any) who suffer from similar symptoms, even if it is not music. Perhaps your mind plays with math all the time.
So, if you can relate, please post a comment below.
/
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Why Our Eyes Face Forward...
No, this is not a joke. In the animal kingdom (yes, Man is an animal), some critters have eyes on the sides of their head (horse, cow, rabbit etc.) and others have eyes on the front (man, owls, canines, cats etc.) But do you know why a creature has one and not the other?
If you look at the ones whose eyes are on the sides of the face you might notice that they are all herbivores, otherwise known as "prey". Having eyes on the side allows them to view much more of the environment, looking out for predators. It gives them a better chance at survival.
Carnivores and omnivores have eyes in the front because it provides depth perception necessary for hunting, and attacking. It's difficult to jump on prey if you can't judge its distance from you.
Just one more piece of proof that in nature, Man was intended to hunt and eat meat to at least some extent. It helps prove that vegetarianism is probably not the best way to go. We need to be what we were created to be - hunters.
Take that, PETA.
/
If you look at the ones whose eyes are on the sides of the face you might notice that they are all herbivores, otherwise known as "prey". Having eyes on the side allows them to view much more of the environment, looking out for predators. It gives them a better chance at survival.
Carnivores and omnivores have eyes in the front because it provides depth perception necessary for hunting, and attacking. It's difficult to jump on prey if you can't judge its distance from you.
Just one more piece of proof that in nature, Man was intended to hunt and eat meat to at least some extent. It helps prove that vegetarianism is probably not the best way to go. We need to be what we were created to be - hunters.
Take that, PETA.
/
Why "Political Correctness" Is Morally Wrong...
Political correctness was started by liberals for the express purpose of changing the conversation by changing the language. This accomplishes two liberal goals - it prevents the truth from being told, and it gives liberals a way to relieve themselves of any guilt.
Let's look at fat people. Liberals decided it was "kinder" and "more sensitive" to call fat people "weight challenged." Truth is, it is less kind and less sensitive. Think about it - if you call fatso "weight challenged" do you really think he does not know you are calling him fat, but hiding it in nice words so you don't have the guilt associated with calling him fat? He knows! And it insults him even more than if you had been up front and called him fat.
Political correctness is like shooting at people while you hide in the bushes.
Liberals are always looking for ways to escape responsibility, and do whatever they want without guilt. That is why liberals strongly support abortion - the politically correct word is "choice". They conveniently overlook the fact that it has nothing to do with choice, since the choices were already made - the choice to sleep with someone. The choice of not employing protection. So, abortion is nothing more than escaping the responsibility for choices already made. And again, political correct verbiage colors the issue - it is simply "choice" and no one can argue that people deserve a choice! It changes the language to change the conversation.
It is politically correct to not allow Christians to employ any public displays, in spite of the 1st Amendment which clearly states we all have the right to practice our religions without government intervention or restriction. Liberals are using PC to weaken the power that Christianity holds, because it is Christianity that provides a moral fabric - one that many committed liberals want nothing to do with. As long as Christianity has a hold on America, drugs will never be legalized. Man-Boy Love will never be legalized. All the sins will become OK once Christianity is gone, which relieves them of guilt.
Christianity requires personal responsibility, and lays guilt upon those who do wrong. Most liberals want nothing to do with personal responsibility or guilt. That is why they use PC to weaken Christianity's hold on America.
Political correctness keeps people from telling the truth. Mitt Romney wants to use PC to make sure he does not offend the Palestinians. Newt Gingrich says "to Hell with PC - let's tell the world that Palestinians are terrorists and an invented people (which they are, in fact). But all the establishment GOP, the liberals and the media think Gingrich said a bad thing - they have all been conned by liberals into believing PC is good, truth bad.
Reagan believed PC was wrong, truth good. Against all advice from all sides, he called Russia an "evil empire" and told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". Had he chosen the PC manners of Romney or any of the others, the wall would still be standing.
Political correctness is a sign of weakness and always morally wrong. Always. Because it is diametrically opposed to MORAL correctness.
/
Let's look at fat people. Liberals decided it was "kinder" and "more sensitive" to call fat people "weight challenged." Truth is, it is less kind and less sensitive. Think about it - if you call fatso "weight challenged" do you really think he does not know you are calling him fat, but hiding it in nice words so you don't have the guilt associated with calling him fat? He knows! And it insults him even more than if you had been up front and called him fat.
Political correctness is like shooting at people while you hide in the bushes.
Liberals are always looking for ways to escape responsibility, and do whatever they want without guilt. That is why liberals strongly support abortion - the politically correct word is "choice". They conveniently overlook the fact that it has nothing to do with choice, since the choices were already made - the choice to sleep with someone. The choice of not employing protection. So, abortion is nothing more than escaping the responsibility for choices already made. And again, political correct verbiage colors the issue - it is simply "choice" and no one can argue that people deserve a choice! It changes the language to change the conversation.
It is politically correct to not allow Christians to employ any public displays, in spite of the 1st Amendment which clearly states we all have the right to practice our religions without government intervention or restriction. Liberals are using PC to weaken the power that Christianity holds, because it is Christianity that provides a moral fabric - one that many committed liberals want nothing to do with. As long as Christianity has a hold on America, drugs will never be legalized. Man-Boy Love will never be legalized. All the sins will become OK once Christianity is gone, which relieves them of guilt.
Christianity requires personal responsibility, and lays guilt upon those who do wrong. Most liberals want nothing to do with personal responsibility or guilt. That is why they use PC to weaken Christianity's hold on America.
Political correctness keeps people from telling the truth. Mitt Romney wants to use PC to make sure he does not offend the Palestinians. Newt Gingrich says "to Hell with PC - let's tell the world that Palestinians are terrorists and an invented people (which they are, in fact). But all the establishment GOP, the liberals and the media think Gingrich said a bad thing - they have all been conned by liberals into believing PC is good, truth bad.
Reagan believed PC was wrong, truth good. Against all advice from all sides, he called Russia an "evil empire" and told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". Had he chosen the PC manners of Romney or any of the others, the wall would still be standing.
Political correctness is a sign of weakness and always morally wrong. Always. Because it is diametrically opposed to MORAL correctness.
/
Friday, December 9, 2011
A Valid Question For Anyone Who Supports The "Occupy" Protesters...
Here is the real question that I would ask of any "Occupy Wall Street" supporter, who believe some people have too much wealth.
Let's say a person builds a certain item. It costs him $95 to manufacture, market and ship the item. Do you believe it is too much for him to ask and deserve a $5 profit for all his work and trouble?
Sane people would say a 5% profit is more than reasonable.
Now let's say his product is so useful and popular that he sells 10 million of those things (think Apple iPad). In the process, and directly because of his efforts and investment, he has to hire 1000 people to produce those items. Since his cost is $95 per unit, that means he is directly responsible for pumping $950 million into the economy for salaries, inventory, marketing, shipping etc. And he still gets $5 per unit. But that $5 per unit now comes to $50 million.
NOW you suddenly have a problem with him. But why? He has invested everything he has. He has worked hard. He has provided jobs for 1000 families. He pumps $950 million into the economy. And he is still only earning the same 5% he did in the beginning. Meanwhile, let us not forget that he has sold 10 million items - which means 10 million people now have a useful item they did not have before. All because of him. Thank GOD for him, and those like him!
And you begrudge him his profit!
And now for one last question - if we take away his right to earn that much, what are the odds he would have designed, built and marketed the first one? What are the odds he would have hired 1000 people, or pumped $950 million into the economy. If Steve Jobs could not hope to become wealthy, what are the odds we would have the iPad or iPhone today? I'll tell you the odds - about zero. No one will go to that much trouble, and risk their capital and sanity just to make a modest income that is no different from the income they could earn working in some factory.
If the world were to operate the way "Occupy" people and socialists want, the world simply would grind to a halt. It happened in the USSR. It is happening in the socialist nations of Europe as you read this.
One thing the "occupy" folks fail to acknowledge - it is "wealth" that is the incentive for progress, for innovation, for research and development. It is the promise of wealth that causes some to risk everything. Without that incentive, no one would put in the resources or effort. And there would be no iPads, smartphones or computers. There would never have been automobiles, airplanes or electric lights. All those things required risk, effort and capital. And no one would invest those things just to achieve a mediocre income. The short take -- If Bill is going to end up with everything that Joe has, why would Bill try harder. Why risk your capital, home, work, family etc. when you know that you will not get anything more for it - you will still have the same as Joe, the guy who is camping out in a park on Wall Street.
If the "occupy" bunch want to have what the so-called "1%" have, all they have to do is do what the 1%-ers have done. Risk everything you have, work a hundred ours a week, work harder and think smarter than most people, and drive yourselves nuts trying to beat your way to the top.
Anyone not willing to do that does not DESERVE to have what the 1%-ers have. And you won't get it by camping out in tents in a public park for months, making a mess, doing drugs and just complaining.
/
Let's say a person builds a certain item. It costs him $95 to manufacture, market and ship the item. Do you believe it is too much for him to ask and deserve a $5 profit for all his work and trouble?
Sane people would say a 5% profit is more than reasonable.
Now let's say his product is so useful and popular that he sells 10 million of those things (think Apple iPad). In the process, and directly because of his efforts and investment, he has to hire 1000 people to produce those items. Since his cost is $95 per unit, that means he is directly responsible for pumping $950 million into the economy for salaries, inventory, marketing, shipping etc. And he still gets $5 per unit. But that $5 per unit now comes to $50 million.
NOW you suddenly have a problem with him. But why? He has invested everything he has. He has worked hard. He has provided jobs for 1000 families. He pumps $950 million into the economy. And he is still only earning the same 5% he did in the beginning. Meanwhile, let us not forget that he has sold 10 million items - which means 10 million people now have a useful item they did not have before. All because of him. Thank GOD for him, and those like him!
And you begrudge him his profit!
And now for one last question - if we take away his right to earn that much, what are the odds he would have designed, built and marketed the first one? What are the odds he would have hired 1000 people, or pumped $950 million into the economy. If Steve Jobs could not hope to become wealthy, what are the odds we would have the iPad or iPhone today? I'll tell you the odds - about zero. No one will go to that much trouble, and risk their capital and sanity just to make a modest income that is no different from the income they could earn working in some factory.
If the world were to operate the way "Occupy" people and socialists want, the world simply would grind to a halt. It happened in the USSR. It is happening in the socialist nations of Europe as you read this.
One thing the "occupy" folks fail to acknowledge - it is "wealth" that is the incentive for progress, for innovation, for research and development. It is the promise of wealth that causes some to risk everything. Without that incentive, no one would put in the resources or effort. And there would be no iPads, smartphones or computers. There would never have been automobiles, airplanes or electric lights. All those things required risk, effort and capital. And no one would invest those things just to achieve a mediocre income. The short take -- If Bill is going to end up with everything that Joe has, why would Bill try harder. Why risk your capital, home, work, family etc. when you know that you will not get anything more for it - you will still have the same as Joe, the guy who is camping out in a park on Wall Street.
If the "occupy" bunch want to have what the so-called "1%" have, all they have to do is do what the 1%-ers have done. Risk everything you have, work a hundred ours a week, work harder and think smarter than most people, and drive yourselves nuts trying to beat your way to the top.
Anyone not willing to do that does not DESERVE to have what the 1%-ers have. And you won't get it by camping out in tents in a public park for months, making a mess, doing drugs and just complaining.
/
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The Way Romney Spins, You'd Think He Was A Liberal. Examples...
I always suspected Mitt Romney was a liberal in disguise, having come from being governor of the bluest state. And now that he is resorting to spinning the truth out of shape just like liberals do, his colors are showing. Here are just two of the latest examples...
Newt Gingrich says he wants to find a way to legalize - without citizenship - those illegals who have been here a long, long time, have raised their families here and have been good neighbors. That represents maybe one million folks. But today Romney stated that Gingrich "wants to legalize all 11 million illegals." And that is obviously a blatant lie - er, spin.
Newt also stated clearly that he thought some teens from poorer families might benefit from being given jobs as school janitors, to develop a work ethic, and earn them some money. I, myself, was assistant school janitor when I was 14 and it helped pay my way into college.
But Romney stated that Gingrich "wants to violate child labor laws." Again, liberal spinmeister crap. It is perfectly legal for young teens to work, provided they have permission (work papers) to insure it will not interfere with family or school. Romney purposely - and deceitfully - wants people to think Gingrich wants to force child labor of little children.
Here is the summary, folks, as I see it --- if a candidate has to spin, or be deceitful in order to earn votes, that candidate should not be getting any votes at all - and certainly will not get mine. I'm tired of having a liar in the White House.
/
Newt Gingrich says he wants to find a way to legalize - without citizenship - those illegals who have been here a long, long time, have raised their families here and have been good neighbors. That represents maybe one million folks. But today Romney stated that Gingrich "wants to legalize all 11 million illegals." And that is obviously a blatant lie - er, spin.
Newt also stated clearly that he thought some teens from poorer families might benefit from being given jobs as school janitors, to develop a work ethic, and earn them some money. I, myself, was assistant school janitor when I was 14 and it helped pay my way into college.
But Romney stated that Gingrich "wants to violate child labor laws." Again, liberal spinmeister crap. It is perfectly legal for young teens to work, provided they have permission (work papers) to insure it will not interfere with family or school. Romney purposely - and deceitfully - wants people to think Gingrich wants to force child labor of little children.
Here is the summary, folks, as I see it --- if a candidate has to spin, or be deceitful in order to earn votes, that candidate should not be getting any votes at all - and certainly will not get mine. I'm tired of having a liar in the White House.
/
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
What The Pundits Just Don't Understand About Gingrich...
It seems none of the pundits are capable of understanding the rapid rise of Gingrich, and it leaves them all scratching their (empty) heads. So, for those that may get wind of this blog, I'll try to explain it in terms that even pundits can comprehend.
Congress has the lowest approval rating in history - BOTH parties. The People do not like the politicians in Congress. That said, it is common knowledge that neither party in Congress has any love for Gingrich. That tells the People that maybe Gingrich is the man they are looking for. It's kinda like that old saw about "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
The People dislike Congress. Congress dislikes Gingrich. Hence, Gingrich is the guy they need to beat Congress into line (because that is what it will take).
So, when either party of Washington insiders trashes Gingrich, it actually HELPS him
It shows that Gingrich, though he knows his way around D.C., is still an outsider, because he is an outsider politically.
And that is what the folks are looking for - an outsider who has been inside long enough to know how it works and can get in there and repair some of the damage.
The fact that he is also the only one who can out-debate Obama doesn't hurt, either.
/
Congress has the lowest approval rating in history - BOTH parties. The People do not like the politicians in Congress. That said, it is common knowledge that neither party in Congress has any love for Gingrich. That tells the People that maybe Gingrich is the man they are looking for. It's kinda like that old saw about "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
The People dislike Congress. Congress dislikes Gingrich. Hence, Gingrich is the guy they need to beat Congress into line (because that is what it will take).
So, when either party of Washington insiders trashes Gingrich, it actually HELPS him
It shows that Gingrich, though he knows his way around D.C., is still an outsider, because he is an outsider politically.
And that is what the folks are looking for - an outsider who has been inside long enough to know how it works and can get in there and repair some of the damage.
The fact that he is also the only one who can out-debate Obama doesn't hurt, either.
/
Whose Awkward Moment Is This?..
Michele Bachmann was left speechless after an encounter with a young 8 year old activist named Elija.
"My mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing," Elijah said to Bachmann, after some coaxing from his mother.
Then HuffPost goes on to claim this was an "awkward moment" for Bachmann. If you ask me, it was Elijah's mom, exploiting her own child who was having an awkward moment. Joined by the awkward moment of HuffPost/AOL for slanting the story in such a biased way.
/
"My mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing," Elijah said to Bachmann, after some coaxing from his mother.
Then HuffPost goes on to claim this was an "awkward moment" for Bachmann. If you ask me, it was Elijah's mom, exploiting her own child who was having an awkward moment. Joined by the awkward moment of HuffPost/AOL for slanting the story in such a biased way.
/
Friday, December 2, 2011
Unemployment Rate Drops To 8.6% - NOT! Here's the truth...
Today the administration pointed out that the unemployment rate in November dropped to 8.6%. But did it?
Until the 1970's, the government counted all unemployed people in their calculation to determine unemployment rate. But under Carter, when the unemployment rate got out of control, it was decided to only count those who were collecting unemployment benefits. If a person was unemployed but was no longer collecting, that person would not be counted.
And that is how things are done to this day.
So, when the government says the unemployment rate has gone down, it is more likely that it actually went up, as people fall off the "collecting" list.
Also, this is the season where businesses hire a lot of temp help for the holidays. Even though those jobs will end in a month or two, the government still counts them, which also fraudulently reduces the unemployment figures.
I'm afraid the unemployment rate as stated by the government is just meaningless BS designed to help politicians paint a rosier picture. The true unemployment rate today is estimated at over 17%.
/
Until the 1970's, the government counted all unemployed people in their calculation to determine unemployment rate. But under Carter, when the unemployment rate got out of control, it was decided to only count those who were collecting unemployment benefits. If a person was unemployed but was no longer collecting, that person would not be counted.
And that is how things are done to this day.
So, when the government says the unemployment rate has gone down, it is more likely that it actually went up, as people fall off the "collecting" list.
Also, this is the season where businesses hire a lot of temp help for the holidays. Even though those jobs will end in a month or two, the government still counts them, which also fraudulently reduces the unemployment figures.
I'm afraid the unemployment rate as stated by the government is just meaningless BS designed to help politicians paint a rosier picture. The true unemployment rate today is estimated at over 17%.
/
Do We REALLY Need A Businessman As President? Think about this...
Mitt Romney, and most pundits, claim that Romney is the best GOP candidate because he is a businessman, and therefore knows how to create the jobs we need. But I have just one question...
How does a President, who does not have the authoritarian position of a CEO, go about creating jobs?
Look, businesses already know how to create jobs, and if the government will get out of their way, they will create all the jobs we need. We do not need a businessman President for that. What we need in a President is someone who knows enough about the lawmaking body to be able to direct Congress in getting out of the way of business.
No, we do not need a businessman in the Oval Office. We need a true conservative (which Romney is not) who will work with Congress to remove the government as an obstacle to businessmen who can and would create jobs.
Having looked over all the candidates carefully, only two stand out as persons who would reduce government interference - and knows HOW to do that - Gingrich and Santorum. Of the two, I believe only one has the legislative power and strength to succeed - Gingrich.
No, I do not like Newt's "smarter-than-thou" attitude. But I can put up with attitude if he will do what needs to be done! Besides, it is that very attitude that would benefit America in foreign affairs.
/
How does a President, who does not have the authoritarian position of a CEO, go about creating jobs?
Look, businesses already know how to create jobs, and if the government will get out of their way, they will create all the jobs we need. We do not need a businessman President for that. What we need in a President is someone who knows enough about the lawmaking body to be able to direct Congress in getting out of the way of business.
No, we do not need a businessman in the Oval Office. We need a true conservative (which Romney is not) who will work with Congress to remove the government as an obstacle to businessmen who can and would create jobs.
Having looked over all the candidates carefully, only two stand out as persons who would reduce government interference - and knows HOW to do that - Gingrich and Santorum. Of the two, I believe only one has the legislative power and strength to succeed - Gingrich.
No, I do not like Newt's "smarter-than-thou" attitude. But I can put up with attitude if he will do what needs to be done! Besides, it is that very attitude that would benefit America in foreign affairs.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)