President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have once again topped the list of the most admired individuals in the world, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted earlier this month.
It seems 30% of the folks admire Obama in spite of his driving the debt up to $17 trillion; in spite of passing $1 trillion in NEW taxes via ObamaCare; in spite of NOT addressing jobs or the economy for 4 years; in spite of having not kept any of his promises for closing GITMO, or immigration reform, or jobs; in spite of not leading; and in spite of dividing the country so horribly that almost everyone hates almost everyone else. Hate the rich; hate Republicans; hate women; hate religion; hate those who choose not to join a union. Hate, hate and more hate.
And 21% of the folks admire Hillary Clinton, in spite of how it was her repeated bungling that got our ambassador and three others tortured and murdered; in spite of finding a never-ending line of excuses to not address the Benghazi tragedy she caused; in spite of refusing to provide the security requested, resulting in those murders; and in spite of her being completely AWOL every time the Secretary of State was needed somewhere - once, when she was sorely needed, she was "too busy in her schedule" at a wine tasting event in Peru. Much like Obama being too busy on Meet The Press to actually be busy doing his job and sitting down with Congress to resolve the problem.
The two LEAST admirable people in America are admired by 20-25% of "the folks".
But not to worry TOO much - after all, those same pollsters show that 20-25% of Americans consider themselves far-left liberals. So, we KNOW the poll is rigged when there are so many people to choose from. Bear in mind, 70% DO NOT think obama is the most admired, and 79% do NOT think Clinton is the most admired.
And that's the REAL story here, folks, not the slanted story the liberal media is painting. But we'll allow the lamestream media to have what they incorrectly see as a victory. Let them revel in the fact that so few actually admire the fools they elected. The rest of us know that the vast majority do NOT have Obama or Hillary on the top of their "admired" list.
/
Monday, December 31, 2012
Time To Hold Congress' Feet To The Fire
Nothing gets done in Washington because We, The People, allow Congress to do nothing. It's time we took control. And it is as simple as contacting your Congressional Representatives and Senators and telling them point blank you will NOT vote for any politician who refuses to do the following:
1) Enact legislation that mandates, under penalty of law, that any bill passed in one chamber MUST be voted on in the other chamber within 60 days. No one person (i.e. Harry Reid) can thwart the will of the people by simply refusing to put a bill up for a vote. The House passed 32 bills that Reid refuses to bring up for a vote in the Senate - he fears his Democrat senate may actually pass some.
2) Unless incapacitated by a physical or mental issue, EVERY elected Representative and Senator WILL be in their respective seats when issues are voted on, and WILL vote on each measure. If any official fails to show up to do their job, they forfeit their job.
3) Any representative or senator who fails to comply will be immediately impeached for failure to comply with the Oath of Office, and will not be allowed to run for any other national office or accept any political position with national implications for at least 5 years. Furthermore, anyone who violates these tenets will forfeit any further payment, including salary, benefits and pension from the position the individual was impeached from.
Time to get serious, folks! If you care about America, regadless of your party or ideology, you owe it to yourself, you family and your country to REQUIRE that your elected officials do the job they are being paid to do. If you fail to do your part, you have no complaint when Congress fails to do theirs!
/
1) Enact legislation that mandates, under penalty of law, that any bill passed in one chamber MUST be voted on in the other chamber within 60 days. No one person (i.e. Harry Reid) can thwart the will of the people by simply refusing to put a bill up for a vote. The House passed 32 bills that Reid refuses to bring up for a vote in the Senate - he fears his Democrat senate may actually pass some.
2) Unless incapacitated by a physical or mental issue, EVERY elected Representative and Senator WILL be in their respective seats when issues are voted on, and WILL vote on each measure. If any official fails to show up to do their job, they forfeit their job.
3) Any representative or senator who fails to comply will be immediately impeached for failure to comply with the Oath of Office, and will not be allowed to run for any other national office or accept any political position with national implications for at least 5 years. Furthermore, anyone who violates these tenets will forfeit any further payment, including salary, benefits and pension from the position the individual was impeached from.
Time to get serious, folks! If you care about America, regadless of your party or ideology, you owe it to yourself, you family and your country to REQUIRE that your elected officials do the job they are being paid to do. If you fail to do your part, you have no complaint when Congress fails to do theirs!
/
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Liberal Judges Tear Down 1st Amendment
Now that a preponderance of "low information voters" have re-elected Barack Obama and other far-left liberal democrats, their machine to destroy the Constitution is crunching forward.
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution list several of the GOD-given rights that EVERY citizen has. Every single one of us. So, when the Constitution states, "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." it means that every individual has a God-given right to exercise their freedom of religion where and when they choose, without any interference from government.
But that has not stopped the liberal progressives from trouncing on our rights. In ObamaCare, the liberals mandate that everyone is subject to paying insurance premiums that pay for abortion, birth control and other things that violate the religious beliefs of many. They claim, contrary to the Constitution, that "only churches and religious organizations" are safe from government interference, and that the rest of us are not protected under the 1st Amendement.
In reference to a decision against Hobby Lobby, U.S. District Court judge Joe Heaton (I use the term "judge" only as a technicality - he has no right to be a judge) said churches and religious organizations have constitutional protection from birth-control provisions, but others do not. It appears this "judge" believes Constitutional protections only belong to a select few, and not to everyone.
He was recently backed up by a decision put forth by uber-liberal Justice Sotomayer who refused to grant Hobby Lobby an injunction to protect their religious freedom, and Hobby Lobby now faces being fined up to $1.3 million dollars for any failure to comply with the new, unconstitutional law.
This is the way of liberals - they hate the Constitution because it gets in the way of their socialist agenda. In fact, since the Constitution is the backbone of America, they must also hate America. And they will stop at nothing to destroy both, a little piece at a time, through the courts upon which liberal "judges" sit.
Frankly, I think it is time to clean house, while we still have one to clean.
/
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution list several of the GOD-given rights that EVERY citizen has. Every single one of us. So, when the Constitution states, "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." it means that every individual has a God-given right to exercise their freedom of religion where and when they choose, without any interference from government.
But that has not stopped the liberal progressives from trouncing on our rights. In ObamaCare, the liberals mandate that everyone is subject to paying insurance premiums that pay for abortion, birth control and other things that violate the religious beliefs of many. They claim, contrary to the Constitution, that "only churches and religious organizations" are safe from government interference, and that the rest of us are not protected under the 1st Amendement.
In reference to a decision against Hobby Lobby, U.S. District Court judge Joe Heaton (I use the term "judge" only as a technicality - he has no right to be a judge) said churches and religious organizations have constitutional protection from birth-control provisions, but others do not. It appears this "judge" believes Constitutional protections only belong to a select few, and not to everyone.
He was recently backed up by a decision put forth by uber-liberal Justice Sotomayer who refused to grant Hobby Lobby an injunction to protect their religious freedom, and Hobby Lobby now faces being fined up to $1.3 million dollars for any failure to comply with the new, unconstitutional law.
This is the way of liberals - they hate the Constitution because it gets in the way of their socialist agenda. In fact, since the Constitution is the backbone of America, they must also hate America. And they will stop at nothing to destroy both, a little piece at a time, through the courts upon which liberal "judges" sit.
Frankly, I think it is time to clean house, while we still have one to clean.
/
Monday, December 24, 2012
Political Dynasties In America?
Dynasties of any kind are wrong, simply because leaders should have leadership ability, not just a name associated with a past leadership. But I have noticed that liberals appear to be contemplating setting up political dynasties here in America.
In case you have not noticed, Ted Kennedy Jr is contemplating a Senate run based not on any ability, but simply because his father had been a powerful Senator. And there are rumors that Michelle Obama, with no real experience is being eyed for a Senate seat in Illinois.
I can remember a time when a politician had to make the grade on his own, by proving his ability to lead. But among liberals, leadership plays no part in their ascent to the throne. After all, other than being a "community organizer", and a Senator who, for his 2 years in office only voted "present", what leadership ability or experience did Barack Obama have?
And Michelle has even less. As for Ted Jr., what has he EVER done?
Voters beware - there are usurpers among us!
/
In case you have not noticed, Ted Kennedy Jr is contemplating a Senate run based not on any ability, but simply because his father had been a powerful Senator. And there are rumors that Michelle Obama, with no real experience is being eyed for a Senate seat in Illinois.
I can remember a time when a politician had to make the grade on his own, by proving his ability to lead. But among liberals, leadership plays no part in their ascent to the throne. After all, other than being a "community organizer", and a Senator who, for his 2 years in office only voted "present", what leadership ability or experience did Barack Obama have?
And Michelle has even less. As for Ted Jr., what has he EVER done?
Voters beware - there are usurpers among us!
/
Saturday, December 22, 2012
How To Protect Our Children In Schools
OK, so a few deranged maniacs, knowing they can attack schools safely (because they are "gun-free zones") have set out to kill our kids. Liberals want to ban "assault weapons", which was tried for 10 years without any effect. The NRA says hire armed security personnel at a staggering cost to taxpayers.
Here are some (better?) ideas:
1) First and foremost, all entrances to the building should be secured at all times. Easy to do at a minor one-time expense
2) The door to every classroom should be bullet-proof, and locked from the inside at all times. When the bell rings, the locks are automatically disengaged long enough to allow exit/entrance to the room. The "inside" lock allows for emergency exiting. A small one-time cost
3) At least one school administrator should be required, as part of the job, to be professionally trained in the use of a handgun, and to carry the handgun at all times during school hours. There would be no "staggering cost" to taxpayers - the administrator is already being paid for their job. This would simply be a new job responsibility. There would be a small one-time cost for training.
I'm sure these ideas can be fleshed out more, but this provides some reasonable food for thought.
/
Here are some (better?) ideas:
1) First and foremost, all entrances to the building should be secured at all times. Easy to do at a minor one-time expense
2) The door to every classroom should be bullet-proof, and locked from the inside at all times. When the bell rings, the locks are automatically disengaged long enough to allow exit/entrance to the room. The "inside" lock allows for emergency exiting. A small one-time cost
3) At least one school administrator should be required, as part of the job, to be professionally trained in the use of a handgun, and to carry the handgun at all times during school hours. There would be no "staggering cost" to taxpayers - the administrator is already being paid for their job. This would simply be a new job responsibility. There would be a small one-time cost for training.
I'm sure these ideas can be fleshed out more, but this provides some reasonable food for thought.
/
Friday, December 21, 2012
"Gun Stories" You Won't Hear In The Media
You know the mainstream media leans heavily to the left. So, every incident of a wrongful shooting of any kind will make Page One Headlines. The following is one of literally hundreds of stories the media will not even mention, because they undermine the agenda of the liberal left.
Yesterday, in Atlanta Georgia three perpetrators invaded a home with intent to burglarize and do harm to the residents. They worked their way up to the second floor where they met the homeowner, armed with his legally owned gun. The homeowner shot one in the leg, the second jumped from a second story window and was killed, and the third got away (for now). The result: one family safe from harm, perpetrators not - but ONLY because the homeowner was armed.
This news story never made the news media - it was reported only by the police officer who filed the report of the incident. The media found "no interest" in the story, which is just another way of saying they do not want to report on how guns SAVE lives.
And remember Katrina? Some homeowners had to use guns to protect themselves and their property from armed looters - some of which turned out to be police officers!
And as a side note, have you ever wondered why so many of these mass shootings occur at schools and universities? Just maybe it is because the government advertises they are "gun free zones", and therefore they are safe, easy, soft targets. What gunman intent on killing a bunch of people is going to invade a well-armed facility? When was the last time a gunman hit a Police Station?
Put politics aside for a moment, ask yourself one question, then answer honestly - what if any of those gunmen, upon entering the school, had come face-to-face with someone who was armed and knew how to use their weapon? Do you really think so many children would be getting put to rest today?
/
Yesterday, in Atlanta Georgia three perpetrators invaded a home with intent to burglarize and do harm to the residents. They worked their way up to the second floor where they met the homeowner, armed with his legally owned gun. The homeowner shot one in the leg, the second jumped from a second story window and was killed, and the third got away (for now). The result: one family safe from harm, perpetrators not - but ONLY because the homeowner was armed.
This news story never made the news media - it was reported only by the police officer who filed the report of the incident. The media found "no interest" in the story, which is just another way of saying they do not want to report on how guns SAVE lives.
And remember Katrina? Some homeowners had to use guns to protect themselves and their property from armed looters - some of which turned out to be police officers!
And as a side note, have you ever wondered why so many of these mass shootings occur at schools and universities? Just maybe it is because the government advertises they are "gun free zones", and therefore they are safe, easy, soft targets. What gunman intent on killing a bunch of people is going to invade a well-armed facility? When was the last time a gunman hit a Police Station?
Put politics aside for a moment, ask yourself one question, then answer honestly - what if any of those gunmen, upon entering the school, had come face-to-face with someone who was armed and knew how to use their weapon? Do you really think so many children would be getting put to rest today?
/
Doomsday Cancelled?
Millions around the world are at least a little apprehensive about the so-called Mayan Doomsday to take place today. While the chances of today actually being doomsday are infinitesimal, it would be most unwise to believe Doomsday has been cancelled. Postponed would be a better word.
Eventually, Doomsday will come for the world. But no one knows just when that will happen. As the Bible says, "No one knows the day or the hour". It could be in a million years. It could be today. But it WILL occur, because everything comes to an end sooner or later.
Now to the point of this post - a point I have made before: smart people will take steps to help insure survival in the event of a life-threatening event. It does not have to be a world-ending cataclysm. There are mini-doomsdays every day. A tsunami here; a volcano there. And over here a hurricane. If it kills you, it is YOUR "doomsday."
And the best way to survive is to be prepared for as many possibilities as you can prepare for. You are NOT crazy to be a "prepper." You are crazy if you are NOT a prepper.
Wherever I go I carry certain items that help me cope with lesser daily problems - a knife, a lighter, a short piece of paracord - things like that. I call it my "McGuyver Kit". (McGuyver - look him up).
In my car I carry the essentials in case of emergency - fire extinguiser, flares, tool kit, medical kit, space blamket, emergency food bars etc.
At home we have a supply of medical stuff, including masks, Lysol, meds we use, nitrile gloves - just in case another pandemic rolls around like the 1918 Spanish Flu that killed 60 million.
We also have a 3 year supply of foods put away (long shelf life), just in case another famine hits. And heirloom seeds - I keep a two year supply in deep freeze, and I plant some of each every year to keep fresh seed on hand. The reason for a 2 year supply - what if there is a drought the first year and your seed doesn't sprout?
I also keep certain necessary electrical components locked up in those huge aluminum truck boxes (a Faraday Cage), in case an EMP wipes electrical stuff out. With a couple solar panels, solar charger, rechargeable batters, booster packs, short wave radio, two-way radios etc., I can keep basic needs up and running until the power is restored.
Now, I am not suggesting everyone do the same, but everyone should take SOME steps to increase their survival factor. If nothing else, you will sleep better at night.
/
Eventually, Doomsday will come for the world. But no one knows just when that will happen. As the Bible says, "No one knows the day or the hour". It could be in a million years. It could be today. But it WILL occur, because everything comes to an end sooner or later.
Now to the point of this post - a point I have made before: smart people will take steps to help insure survival in the event of a life-threatening event. It does not have to be a world-ending cataclysm. There are mini-doomsdays every day. A tsunami here; a volcano there. And over here a hurricane. If it kills you, it is YOUR "doomsday."
And the best way to survive is to be prepared for as many possibilities as you can prepare for. You are NOT crazy to be a "prepper." You are crazy if you are NOT a prepper.
Wherever I go I carry certain items that help me cope with lesser daily problems - a knife, a lighter, a short piece of paracord - things like that. I call it my "McGuyver Kit". (McGuyver - look him up).
In my car I carry the essentials in case of emergency - fire extinguiser, flares, tool kit, medical kit, space blamket, emergency food bars etc.
At home we have a supply of medical stuff, including masks, Lysol, meds we use, nitrile gloves - just in case another pandemic rolls around like the 1918 Spanish Flu that killed 60 million.
We also have a 3 year supply of foods put away (long shelf life), just in case another famine hits. And heirloom seeds - I keep a two year supply in deep freeze, and I plant some of each every year to keep fresh seed on hand. The reason for a 2 year supply - what if there is a drought the first year and your seed doesn't sprout?
I also keep certain necessary electrical components locked up in those huge aluminum truck boxes (a Faraday Cage), in case an EMP wipes electrical stuff out. With a couple solar panels, solar charger, rechargeable batters, booster packs, short wave radio, two-way radios etc., I can keep basic needs up and running until the power is restored.
Now, I am not suggesting everyone do the same, but everyone should take SOME steps to increase their survival factor. If nothing else, you will sleep better at night.
/
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Who Wants Us Over The Fiscal Cliff - And Why
If the world ends tomorrow, you can forget this post. It won't matter.
I'll not dwell on the "fiscal cliff", itself - anyone not familiar with it is probably a low information voter who would not understand the following, anyway.
In the '60's, it was REPUBLICANS who pushed through the Civil Rights Act, in spite of a Democrat filibuster. But Democrats stole that from Republicans simply because it was Johnson, a Democrat, who signed it into law.
In the '90's it was the Republican Congress who pushed through a balanced budget - twice - leaving the nation with a surplus. But Democrats stole that victory, too, simply because it was Clinton, a Democrat, who signed it into law.
The point being, the Democrats steal Republican victories and claim them for themselves. And Republicans, not as good at deception, don't know how to fight back and keep what they earn.
Understanding that, it is not a guess that Democrats want to steal the one, powerful victory that Republicans still have - being the party of tax cuts. Reagan tax cuts. Bush tax cuts. All very popular with the folks - so the Democrats want to steal that, too.
And here is how they will do it.
Obama will find some reason to veto any proposal by Republicans to avoid the fiscal cliff. He and his minions need America to go over the cliff, so the people will blame "those vile republicans" for being responsible for everyone's taxes going up.
Then in rides Obama and Reid on their white horses. They will pass a bill that gives tax cuts to most Americans, but not to those they consider "wealthy". And 98% of the folks would have their taxes returned to previous levels (which Obama will call tax "cuts"). And the Democrats will have successfully stolen the "tax cuts" issue from Republicans.
It will not matter that there are no tax "cuts" at all, nor will it matter that most other taxes will still go up (capital gains, estate etc). And it will not matter that Republicans TRIED to get tax cuts through in a responsible manner. It will not matter because the vast majority of voters are "low information voters." They will believe whatever the lamestrean media tells them - and that media is made up of progressive liberal Democrats.
And the truth will not matter because the Democrats, with help from the left-leaning media, will sell it as a tax cut victory for Democrats, while painting Republicans as "vile".
In this way, the 2014 elections will result in a Democrat House, Democrat Senate and we already have a Democrat president. And we will again be in the same ugly position we were in during the first 2 years of Obama's first term - the Democrats will push through every liberal, socialist, liberty-stealing bill they can think of. Obamacare was nothing compared to what is coming if they steal the House in 2014 using their lies and deception.
/
I'll not dwell on the "fiscal cliff", itself - anyone not familiar with it is probably a low information voter who would not understand the following, anyway.
In the '60's, it was REPUBLICANS who pushed through the Civil Rights Act, in spite of a Democrat filibuster. But Democrats stole that from Republicans simply because it was Johnson, a Democrat, who signed it into law.
In the '90's it was the Republican Congress who pushed through a balanced budget - twice - leaving the nation with a surplus. But Democrats stole that victory, too, simply because it was Clinton, a Democrat, who signed it into law.
The point being, the Democrats steal Republican victories and claim them for themselves. And Republicans, not as good at deception, don't know how to fight back and keep what they earn.
Understanding that, it is not a guess that Democrats want to steal the one, powerful victory that Republicans still have - being the party of tax cuts. Reagan tax cuts. Bush tax cuts. All very popular with the folks - so the Democrats want to steal that, too.
And here is how they will do it.
Obama will find some reason to veto any proposal by Republicans to avoid the fiscal cliff. He and his minions need America to go over the cliff, so the people will blame "those vile republicans" for being responsible for everyone's taxes going up.
Then in rides Obama and Reid on their white horses. They will pass a bill that gives tax cuts to most Americans, but not to those they consider "wealthy". And 98% of the folks would have their taxes returned to previous levels (which Obama will call tax "cuts"). And the Democrats will have successfully stolen the "tax cuts" issue from Republicans.
It will not matter that there are no tax "cuts" at all, nor will it matter that most other taxes will still go up (capital gains, estate etc). And it will not matter that Republicans TRIED to get tax cuts through in a responsible manner. It will not matter because the vast majority of voters are "low information voters." They will believe whatever the lamestrean media tells them - and that media is made up of progressive liberal Democrats.
And the truth will not matter because the Democrats, with help from the left-leaning media, will sell it as a tax cut victory for Democrats, while painting Republicans as "vile".
In this way, the 2014 elections will result in a Democrat House, Democrat Senate and we already have a Democrat president. And we will again be in the same ugly position we were in during the first 2 years of Obama's first term - the Democrats will push through every liberal, socialist, liberty-stealing bill they can think of. Obamacare was nothing compared to what is coming if they steal the House in 2014 using their lies and deception.
/
Monday, December 17, 2012
Obama's "Fiscal Cliff" Offer - A Load Of Crud
WASHINGTON -- The White House made a new offer to House Speaker John Boehner to avoid the "fiscal cliff". The proposal calls for two stimulus measures and seeks an avoidance of a debt limit fight for the next two years.
The White House has moved off of its initial and second revenue demands of $1.6 trillion and $1.4 trillion respectively. As of now, the president would be fine raising $1.2 trillion in revenue.
What a boatload of crap! If Boehner even THINKS about that offer he should be run out of Washington on a rail, tarred and feathered.
First, the two "stimulus" bills already passed have both failed miserably - you cannot spend youre way out of financial difficulty.
Second, he is asking for carte blanche on the debt limit - that means he could spend us into oblivion without any fight from Congress. And that is not only absurd, but would constitute virtual treason.
And what about his demand to raise revenues "only" by $1.2 trillion? While campaigning he said he only wanted to raise revenues by $800 billion. That is what he promised the American people, yet even before he gets inaugurated he wants that amount increased by 50%. In fact, just days after the election he called to DOUBLE it.
This incompetent clown that is in the White House is bent on destroying this great nation financially, which would allow socialism to take over as desperate people would grasp at any "promise" for salvation. And Obama is great at making promises he never expects to keep. He will tell any lie in order to push his far-left progressive/socialist agenda.
Boehner should simply walk away. He should pass the Republican bill in the House and send it to the Senate, putting the ball in THEIR court. Then he should go home for Christmas. He should tell Obama to present his own "offer" to the Senate to vote on, knowing full well it would never even get through the Democrat-held Senate.
And when Obama and the Democrats get serious about cutting spending and NOT increasing it, let Boehner know.
/
The White House has moved off of its initial and second revenue demands of $1.6 trillion and $1.4 trillion respectively. As of now, the president would be fine raising $1.2 trillion in revenue.
What a boatload of crap! If Boehner even THINKS about that offer he should be run out of Washington on a rail, tarred and feathered.
First, the two "stimulus" bills already passed have both failed miserably - you cannot spend youre way out of financial difficulty.
Second, he is asking for carte blanche on the debt limit - that means he could spend us into oblivion without any fight from Congress. And that is not only absurd, but would constitute virtual treason.
And what about his demand to raise revenues "only" by $1.2 trillion? While campaigning he said he only wanted to raise revenues by $800 billion. That is what he promised the American people, yet even before he gets inaugurated he wants that amount increased by 50%. In fact, just days after the election he called to DOUBLE it.
This incompetent clown that is in the White House is bent on destroying this great nation financially, which would allow socialism to take over as desperate people would grasp at any "promise" for salvation. And Obama is great at making promises he never expects to keep. He will tell any lie in order to push his far-left progressive/socialist agenda.
Boehner should simply walk away. He should pass the Republican bill in the House and send it to the Senate, putting the ball in THEIR court. Then he should go home for Christmas. He should tell Obama to present his own "offer" to the Senate to vote on, knowing full well it would never even get through the Democrat-held Senate.
And when Obama and the Democrats get serious about cutting spending and NOT increasing it, let Boehner know.
/
School Shootings - Why Liberals Refuse To Fight The Cause
Since 1997 there have been numerous school shootings. Prior to 1997, there was only one in the history of America. All have been perpetrated by young people.
Those on the left are blaming "guns", and most particularly "assault rifles." But most reasonable, thinking people blame the simple fact that young people today are raised in a world where there is little respect for the sanctity of life.
And the availability of "assault weapons" makes little difference - just the other day, a young man in China used a knife or sword to kill many students. If they cannot get guns, they will make bombs, use knives or even use poison. Someone intent on killing will kill. Period. Banning guns will not help. President Clinton banned assault weapons in 1994 - and the school shootings began just 3 years later. The only thing that WILL help is to start rebuilding our society to once again have a reverence for human life.
There are several things that contribute to the "desensitizing" of our youth, making them capable of multiple, random murder. And all have been introduced since the late '60's. Notably, all the young murderers have been raised since then.
First, there was the liberal Warren Court kicking God out of school, and out of the public sphere. Without a strong sense of God, and of "good and evil", children become less attuned to the sanctity of human life.
Then there was the Warren Court making abortion legal. Frankly, that, in and of itself does not contribute very much to the loss of respect for human life, for the adults COULD have kept it out of public view. Instead, liberals make it a point to publicize abortion, "women's rights" etc. They make it such a public spectacle that every child born in America understands from a very young age that, but not for luck, his/her mother could have simply ended their existence. Tell me, what child would have respect for life once he or she realizes that their own life could have been extinguished on a whim?
Couple that with not having a fear of God...
And now place into the mix all the video games that every one of these "shooters" spent much of their childhood playing. Kill everything on the screen. And if you die, so what? Just restart the game. They are learning to kill. They are learning to kill efficiently and effectively.
So, to most thinking people, the thing we should be addressing is finding ways to renew the sanctity of life into our society, rather than introduce bills to ban assault weapons. Such weapons have been available for decades, and never posed a real threat - not until our children lost respect for life.
So, why are liberals so intent on banning guns instead of rejuvenating the sanctity of life? Simply because any renewal of respect for the sanctity of life would completely undo the liberal agenda. If we re-introduce God, the liberal fight to legalize "sin" would go down the drain. No legalization of drugs, or gay marriage. No legalization of "man-boy love." No more "social justice", as it would be pushed aside in favor of the moral justice found in the Bible. And if we keep abortion private, instead of publicizing it at every turn, fewer people would "give in" as they tire of the fight. Liberals need to keep abortion in everyone's line of sight, as they do with gay marriage and the legalization of drugs. They know that by keeping it in your face, you will eventually become desensitized to it, shrug your shoulders and say "What the Hell - why not?"
No, liberals cannot and will not address the cause of the shootings. Instead, they will try to ban guns, in the hope that eventually the citizenry will be unarmed, and their agenda brought to fruition. They know an armed citizenry will be detrimental to the liberal take-over of America.
And that is precisely why Huffington Post called Governor Huckabee's remark "outrageous". He simply stated the obvious - if we want to stop these shootings, we need to bring respect for human life back into our society. To those on the left, that certainly is "outrageous."
The truth usually is.
Those on the left are blaming "guns", and most particularly "assault rifles." But most reasonable, thinking people blame the simple fact that young people today are raised in a world where there is little respect for the sanctity of life.
And the availability of "assault weapons" makes little difference - just the other day, a young man in China used a knife or sword to kill many students. If they cannot get guns, they will make bombs, use knives or even use poison. Someone intent on killing will kill. Period. Banning guns will not help. President Clinton banned assault weapons in 1994 - and the school shootings began just 3 years later. The only thing that WILL help is to start rebuilding our society to once again have a reverence for human life.
There are several things that contribute to the "desensitizing" of our youth, making them capable of multiple, random murder. And all have been introduced since the late '60's. Notably, all the young murderers have been raised since then.
First, there was the liberal Warren Court kicking God out of school, and out of the public sphere. Without a strong sense of God, and of "good and evil", children become less attuned to the sanctity of human life.
Then there was the Warren Court making abortion legal. Frankly, that, in and of itself does not contribute very much to the loss of respect for human life, for the adults COULD have kept it out of public view. Instead, liberals make it a point to publicize abortion, "women's rights" etc. They make it such a public spectacle that every child born in America understands from a very young age that, but not for luck, his/her mother could have simply ended their existence. Tell me, what child would have respect for life once he or she realizes that their own life could have been extinguished on a whim?
Couple that with not having a fear of God...
And now place into the mix all the video games that every one of these "shooters" spent much of their childhood playing. Kill everything on the screen. And if you die, so what? Just restart the game. They are learning to kill. They are learning to kill efficiently and effectively.
So, to most thinking people, the thing we should be addressing is finding ways to renew the sanctity of life into our society, rather than introduce bills to ban assault weapons. Such weapons have been available for decades, and never posed a real threat - not until our children lost respect for life.
So, why are liberals so intent on banning guns instead of rejuvenating the sanctity of life? Simply because any renewal of respect for the sanctity of life would completely undo the liberal agenda. If we re-introduce God, the liberal fight to legalize "sin" would go down the drain. No legalization of drugs, or gay marriage. No legalization of "man-boy love." No more "social justice", as it would be pushed aside in favor of the moral justice found in the Bible. And if we keep abortion private, instead of publicizing it at every turn, fewer people would "give in" as they tire of the fight. Liberals need to keep abortion in everyone's line of sight, as they do with gay marriage and the legalization of drugs. They know that by keeping it in your face, you will eventually become desensitized to it, shrug your shoulders and say "What the Hell - why not?"
No, liberals cannot and will not address the cause of the shootings. Instead, they will try to ban guns, in the hope that eventually the citizenry will be unarmed, and their agenda brought to fruition. They know an armed citizenry will be detrimental to the liberal take-over of America.
And that is precisely why Huffington Post called Governor Huckabee's remark "outrageous". He simply stated the obvious - if we want to stop these shootings, we need to bring respect for human life back into our society. To those on the left, that certainly is "outrageous."
The truth usually is.
Friday, December 14, 2012
School Shootings - The Growing Problem
This post will not spend time moaning over what happened in Newtown CT today so much as trying to get a handle on why these "multiple random shootings" are growing in America.
A lot of folks, unfortunately, will ignore the real source of the problem and will concentrate on screaming for tighter controls on guns. But history - and statistics - prove that gun controls only make the problem worse. The highest rates for gun crimes in America are in the cities with the most stringent gun controls - Chicago and Washington D.C.
But if gun control is not the real answer, what is? To get the answer to that question we must look again to history and statistics. Here are two things that must be given serious consideration:
1) The vast majority of these shooters are between the ages of 15 and 25. Almost none have been over 40. This is important as you will soon discover.
2) With one exception (University of Texas, 1966) all the "school shootings" in American history occured since 1997 - just 15 years ago. Columbine happened in 1999.
By understanding those two facts, you have to ask - what changed in America that would explain this phenomenon?
By using the ages of the shooters and the dates of the shootings, you start to see a pattern of sorts - the shooters were born and raised between 1980 and 1992, They were raised in the environment of the end of the 20th Century. So, what was different?
One thing history teaches us is that America took a sudden and huge shift to the left with the inception of the "Warren Court" in the '60's and '70's. Prior to that, the vast majority of young people were raised with a firm belief in the sanctity of life - life was precious. Young people were raised to believe in God, and respect life and property. But when the Warren Court kicked God out of the schools and public square, and then made abortion legal, suddenly our society was placing much less reverence on life. A child who sees adults callously aborting babies soon understands that human life has little value. And without a fear of God, the child grows up to believe the taking of a life is not that big a deal.
Enter video games. Those kids quickly learn how much fun and excitement there is in killing everything on the screen. He also learns that if the game player "dies", he can simply restart the game. There is no lasting penalty.
And then the social networks - our kids no longer have to get PERSONALLY involved in human relationships. Most of their "connections" are online. There is little or no emotional attachment to people you never really meet face-to-face.
When you add the three, you begin to see that every one of these shooters was raised in an environment that is conducive to random murder. No fear of God, no sancity of life, no respect for life and property, and no emotional connections that tend to tie people together.
If mom could abort me, my life has no value. If there is no God, there is no real hope. And if there are no emotional, personal connections, you have a hollow individual with little or no conscience.
If we, as a society want to quell the rising tide of these tragedies, the answer is not the control of guns - it is the control of the conscience. To quiet this terrible beast we must bring back, and instill in our children by our own choices and actions, the sense that life is precious.
/
A lot of folks, unfortunately, will ignore the real source of the problem and will concentrate on screaming for tighter controls on guns. But history - and statistics - prove that gun controls only make the problem worse. The highest rates for gun crimes in America are in the cities with the most stringent gun controls - Chicago and Washington D.C.
But if gun control is not the real answer, what is? To get the answer to that question we must look again to history and statistics. Here are two things that must be given serious consideration:
1) The vast majority of these shooters are between the ages of 15 and 25. Almost none have been over 40. This is important as you will soon discover.
2) With one exception (University of Texas, 1966) all the "school shootings" in American history occured since 1997 - just 15 years ago. Columbine happened in 1999.
By understanding those two facts, you have to ask - what changed in America that would explain this phenomenon?
By using the ages of the shooters and the dates of the shootings, you start to see a pattern of sorts - the shooters were born and raised between 1980 and 1992, They were raised in the environment of the end of the 20th Century. So, what was different?
One thing history teaches us is that America took a sudden and huge shift to the left with the inception of the "Warren Court" in the '60's and '70's. Prior to that, the vast majority of young people were raised with a firm belief in the sanctity of life - life was precious. Young people were raised to believe in God, and respect life and property. But when the Warren Court kicked God out of the schools and public square, and then made abortion legal, suddenly our society was placing much less reverence on life. A child who sees adults callously aborting babies soon understands that human life has little value. And without a fear of God, the child grows up to believe the taking of a life is not that big a deal.
Enter video games. Those kids quickly learn how much fun and excitement there is in killing everything on the screen. He also learns that if the game player "dies", he can simply restart the game. There is no lasting penalty.
And then the social networks - our kids no longer have to get PERSONALLY involved in human relationships. Most of their "connections" are online. There is little or no emotional attachment to people you never really meet face-to-face.
When you add the three, you begin to see that every one of these shooters was raised in an environment that is conducive to random murder. No fear of God, no sancity of life, no respect for life and property, and no emotional connections that tend to tie people together.
If mom could abort me, my life has no value. If there is no God, there is no real hope. And if there are no emotional, personal connections, you have a hollow individual with little or no conscience.
If we, as a society want to quell the rising tide of these tragedies, the answer is not the control of guns - it is the control of the conscience. To quiet this terrible beast we must bring back, and instill in our children by our own choices and actions, the sense that life is precious.
/
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Zero Dark Thirty - A False Narrative?
This latest flick to hit the theaters claims to be factual and accurate, based on "firt-hand accounts" according to its producer. In fact, the producer received unheard of access to confidential, even classified information direct from the Obama administration. So, you would think the movie would actually be accurate. Um - not so much.
As with so much that comes out of the Obama admuinistration, "Zero Dark Thirty" is embellished with bull. Take the first 15 minutes as an example. The film opens to a scene of UBL's courier being water-boarded, where he gives up information that leads to the eventual killing of bin Laden.
But according to Senator Barbara Boxer (head of the Senate Intelligence Committee) and the CIA and FBI, that never happened. the TRUE account shows that it was the "Blind Sheik", Kahlid Sheik Muhammad, who was water-boarded. During one of his wet sessions, KSM gave up the nickname of UBL's courier. The CIA then followed up on that until they identified the courier, then found and followed him to UBL.
In other words, despite the information provided to her by the White House, the producer of "Zero Dark Thirty" couldn't even get the first scene of her movie correct. It's BS.
And that tells me I would want to take the rest of the "Obama account" of what transpired with more than a grain of salt. It may make for good entertainment, but you may want to stop short of taking it as Gospel.
/
As with so much that comes out of the Obama admuinistration, "Zero Dark Thirty" is embellished with bull. Take the first 15 minutes as an example. The film opens to a scene of UBL's courier being water-boarded, where he gives up information that leads to the eventual killing of bin Laden.
But according to Senator Barbara Boxer (head of the Senate Intelligence Committee) and the CIA and FBI, that never happened. the TRUE account shows that it was the "Blind Sheik", Kahlid Sheik Muhammad, who was water-boarded. During one of his wet sessions, KSM gave up the nickname of UBL's courier. The CIA then followed up on that until they identified the courier, then found and followed him to UBL.
In other words, despite the information provided to her by the White House, the producer of "Zero Dark Thirty" couldn't even get the first scene of her movie correct. It's BS.
And that tells me I would want to take the rest of the "Obama account" of what transpired with more than a grain of salt. It may make for good entertainment, but you may want to stop short of taking it as Gospel.
/
Why Does God Let Bad Things Happen?
When I was 15 my mother passed away. At the time, I was angry with God for taking her. I could not believe any God worth believing in could do such a thing. That was before I wised up.
No one escapes tragedy. Whether it is a personal loss, such as the death of a loved one, or a widespread catastrophe like a tsunami or hurricane, we all suffer. And many of us begin to falter in our faith because we do not understand.
Let's look at that more closely. First, assume for a moment that God exists. If that is true, then it is likely that Satan also exists. And that would suggest a struggle between Good and Evil.
Let us further assume that in any struggle, the strong have a better chance of winning. So, it stands to reason that God would want an army of strong souls, not weak ones. And strength comes from being tempered by fire. Trials and tribulation. Without tragedy and suffering, we could not grow stronger. In addition, suffering tends to weed out those whose faith is weak. A farmer calls it "culling the wheat from the chaff."
When my mother died, I became stronger by having realized that we are all mortal. Her passing helped make me the person I am. Later, losing my first wife and child also strengthened me, and helped forge me into the man who my present wife could love. Had I not suffered that loss, I would never have found my true soul-mate, and the happiness that comes from that.
When you graduate school and move on with life, you often leave behind old friends. But that opens the door for new friends. And you cannot go on to college unless you first leave high school. You cannot become the CEO until first you work in the office pool or production line. Life is not easy - it is not supposed to be. In fact, it is supposed to be hard as Hell. It is supposed to be survival of the fittest.
Yes, suffering is a part of life that we cannot escape. If it does not kill us, it makes us stronger. And that is the reason for it.
An army made up of weaklings cannot win many battles. Think of our time here on Earth as "Boot Camp" - preparing us for surviving battle. Now, think back to some tragedy or loss in your own life and ask yourself whether or not you grew from the experience.
It might also be a good idea to stop and think what it would be like on Earth today if no one ever died of disease, or in battle. Instead of 6 billion people infesting this granite planet, it would be hundreds of billions - far more than the Earth could sustain. We would have become extinct long ago from having laid waste to all of Earth's resources. It is a fact of life that each person must die. And that means each of us must suffer loss.
In the eternal battle between Good and Evil, God needs strong soldiers. And strength comes from tempering the steel in fire.
As a final note, you may want to consider this during the Christmas season that is upon us - no one suffered more than Jesus, and He was the Son of God according to the Testaments! Had he not suffered as He did, the world would probably be far less civilized, ruled by the same barbarism that rules in many non-Christian countries today.
/
No one escapes tragedy. Whether it is a personal loss, such as the death of a loved one, or a widespread catastrophe like a tsunami or hurricane, we all suffer. And many of us begin to falter in our faith because we do not understand.
Let's look at that more closely. First, assume for a moment that God exists. If that is true, then it is likely that Satan also exists. And that would suggest a struggle between Good and Evil.
Let us further assume that in any struggle, the strong have a better chance of winning. So, it stands to reason that God would want an army of strong souls, not weak ones. And strength comes from being tempered by fire. Trials and tribulation. Without tragedy and suffering, we could not grow stronger. In addition, suffering tends to weed out those whose faith is weak. A farmer calls it "culling the wheat from the chaff."
When my mother died, I became stronger by having realized that we are all mortal. Her passing helped make me the person I am. Later, losing my first wife and child also strengthened me, and helped forge me into the man who my present wife could love. Had I not suffered that loss, I would never have found my true soul-mate, and the happiness that comes from that.
When you graduate school and move on with life, you often leave behind old friends. But that opens the door for new friends. And you cannot go on to college unless you first leave high school. You cannot become the CEO until first you work in the office pool or production line. Life is not easy - it is not supposed to be. In fact, it is supposed to be hard as Hell. It is supposed to be survival of the fittest.
Yes, suffering is a part of life that we cannot escape. If it does not kill us, it makes us stronger. And that is the reason for it.
An army made up of weaklings cannot win many battles. Think of our time here on Earth as "Boot Camp" - preparing us for surviving battle. Now, think back to some tragedy or loss in your own life and ask yourself whether or not you grew from the experience.
It might also be a good idea to stop and think what it would be like on Earth today if no one ever died of disease, or in battle. Instead of 6 billion people infesting this granite planet, it would be hundreds of billions - far more than the Earth could sustain. We would have become extinct long ago from having laid waste to all of Earth's resources. It is a fact of life that each person must die. And that means each of us must suffer loss.
In the eternal battle between Good and Evil, God needs strong soldiers. And strength comes from tempering the steel in fire.
As a final note, you may want to consider this during the Christmas season that is upon us - no one suffered more than Jesus, and He was the Son of God according to the Testaments! Had he not suffered as He did, the world would probably be far less civilized, ruled by the same barbarism that rules in many non-Christian countries today.
/
Proving The Existence Of God
It never fails - every time religion is brought up, the atheists pile on with their tripe about how the existence of God has never been proven, and therefore God does not exist.
They are so stupid they miss the entire point - if the existence of God could be proven, there would be no need for "faith". And without faith, God would not be able to determine the worthy from the unworthy. It's a lot like asking a person to say "Thank you" - if you have to ask, it's not worth anything.
The belief in God MUST be taken as a matter of faith, not as a matter of provable fact.
And anyone who cares to open their eyes would find all the evidence needed for faith. Take my own experiences as an example.
As a homeless person I needed $5 to buy a suit at Goodwill for an interview. I went to the clothing room at the homeless shelter and got a pair of clean pants, instead. In the pocket I found a $5 bill - exactly the amount I needed to buy the suit!
My wife was told by two doctors that here multiple operations rendered her incapable of having children of her own. When she asked God if I was the right person for her, she got pregnant that very night (by me).
My Dad, born in 1898 went off to WWI in 1917, leaving his fiance behind until the war was over. After the war, she was gone. In 1983 Dad was visiting my Mother's grave. A woman was across from him, visiting her husband's grave. She saw the last name on my mother's stone and asked if my father was related to the man she had been engaged to over 65 years earlier - it was her! They finally married in 1985.
I tried quitting smoking for over 40 years to no avail. One night I prayed and asked God to help. I have not smoked since (it's been 11 years), and I have never suffered withdrawal symptoms or any cravings!
I can list dozens of such "coincidences". But I do not believe much in coincidence. Especially the convoluted ones that are so improbable.
Yes, I know these things do not prove there is a God. But that's the point - if God can be proved, faith would have no value. And that would makes our "free will" rather pointless - we would almost have to believe in Him then.
Atheists also like to say they do not fear God because you cannot fear that which does not exist - which is precisely why they fear God more than believers do. You see, they cannot prove God does NOT exist any more than believers can prove He does. Since they cannot prove God does not exist, deep down they know that there is a possibility that He does. They BELIEVE He does not exist, but believing it does not make it a fact. Naturally, to any person spending their life denying God, the possibility He may actually exist scares the Hell out of them.
I fear God because I may not measure up. The atheist fears God because he doesn't even try.
/
They are so stupid they miss the entire point - if the existence of God could be proven, there would be no need for "faith". And without faith, God would not be able to determine the worthy from the unworthy. It's a lot like asking a person to say "Thank you" - if you have to ask, it's not worth anything.
The belief in God MUST be taken as a matter of faith, not as a matter of provable fact.
And anyone who cares to open their eyes would find all the evidence needed for faith. Take my own experiences as an example.
As a homeless person I needed $5 to buy a suit at Goodwill for an interview. I went to the clothing room at the homeless shelter and got a pair of clean pants, instead. In the pocket I found a $5 bill - exactly the amount I needed to buy the suit!
My wife was told by two doctors that here multiple operations rendered her incapable of having children of her own. When she asked God if I was the right person for her, she got pregnant that very night (by me).
My Dad, born in 1898 went off to WWI in 1917, leaving his fiance behind until the war was over. After the war, she was gone. In 1983 Dad was visiting my Mother's grave. A woman was across from him, visiting her husband's grave. She saw the last name on my mother's stone and asked if my father was related to the man she had been engaged to over 65 years earlier - it was her! They finally married in 1985.
I tried quitting smoking for over 40 years to no avail. One night I prayed and asked God to help. I have not smoked since (it's been 11 years), and I have never suffered withdrawal symptoms or any cravings!
I can list dozens of such "coincidences". But I do not believe much in coincidence. Especially the convoluted ones that are so improbable.
Yes, I know these things do not prove there is a God. But that's the point - if God can be proved, faith would have no value. And that would makes our "free will" rather pointless - we would almost have to believe in Him then.
Atheists also like to say they do not fear God because you cannot fear that which does not exist - which is precisely why they fear God more than believers do. You see, they cannot prove God does NOT exist any more than believers can prove He does. Since they cannot prove God does not exist, deep down they know that there is a possibility that He does. They BELIEVE He does not exist, but believing it does not make it a fact. Naturally, to any person spending their life denying God, the possibility He may actually exist scares the Hell out of them.
I fear God because I may not measure up. The atheist fears God because he doesn't even try.
/
Monday, December 10, 2012
Dan Froomkin - Idiot Beyond Compare?
I was reading a "story" by Dan Froomkin, a very far left lunatic who will say or do anything to get attention and accolades from others on the fringe. Today his non-story was titled, "How the Mainstream Press Bungled the Single Biggest Story of the 2012 Campaign". According to this whacko, the mainstream media has a CONSERVATIVE bent (stop laughing) and missed the "story" that Republicans lied about everything during the recent campaign.
Of course, this flies in the face of reality, but that is what we have come to expect from the lunatic left. He even took issue with FACT-CHECKING, stating that they, too, were pro-conservative. It never occurs to him that the reason fact checkers called out Democrats more than Republicans just might be because the Democrats were more dishonest! After all, Romney did not kill a woman with cancer.
Froomkin cites the laughable postulations by a pair of truly moronic lefty "political observers" named Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. For the record, a "political observer" is lib-speak for someone who sits on the sidelines, knows little, talks a lot and is usually wrong.
As evidence that Froomkin is a screwball, along with his little playmates Mann & Ornstein, both Mann & Ornstein have become, as Froomkin puts it, "virtual pariahs" even among most people on the left.
That Froomkin still stands by them, and even worships them only goes to prove that Froomkin, himself, is a nothing more than a loser looking for an audience.
/
Of course, this flies in the face of reality, but that is what we have come to expect from the lunatic left. He even took issue with FACT-CHECKING, stating that they, too, were pro-conservative. It never occurs to him that the reason fact checkers called out Democrats more than Republicans just might be because the Democrats were more dishonest! After all, Romney did not kill a woman with cancer.
Froomkin cites the laughable postulations by a pair of truly moronic lefty "political observers" named Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. For the record, a "political observer" is lib-speak for someone who sits on the sidelines, knows little, talks a lot and is usually wrong.
As evidence that Froomkin is a screwball, along with his little playmates Mann & Ornstein, both Mann & Ornstein have become, as Froomkin puts it, "virtual pariahs" even among most people on the left.
That Froomkin still stands by them, and even worships them only goes to prove that Froomkin, himself, is a nothing more than a loser looking for an audience.
/
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Take "Science" With A Grain Of Salt
A lot of progrssives on the left keep trying to use "science" as the basis for beating up conservatives, especially with issues such as "global warming" and evolution. And, generally speaking, TRUE science is fine - but the garbage science the progressives cite have no business being up for discussion.
True science is based on the results of having uncovered ALL the facts. Bogus science is based on conjecture and theory based on superficial facts.
Here are some examples of how humankind has been misled by bogus science:
* For a thousand years "science" told us the Earth was flat
* As late as the 1800's "science" claimed a woman's menstruation was due to her uterus moving around her body in 28 day cycles
* For generations "science" taught us that Pluto was a planet - now it is not
*As late as the 20th century "science" told us the "Great Ape" was a myth and could not possibly exist.
* Today's "science" talks of "global warming" despite the known fact that Earth's temperature has typically been even hotter throughout 85% of its history. In fact, until the 12th century grapes were grown not in southern France, but in England - which is still too cold today for growing grapes.
There are literally thousands of examples of science being very, very wrong, about a lot of things. So, the next time some soft-headed lefty tries to pummel you with the "science says" crap, you can now respond with some examples of your own.
/
True science is based on the results of having uncovered ALL the facts. Bogus science is based on conjecture and theory based on superficial facts.
Here are some examples of how humankind has been misled by bogus science:
* For a thousand years "science" told us the Earth was flat
* As late as the 1800's "science" claimed a woman's menstruation was due to her uterus moving around her body in 28 day cycles
* For generations "science" taught us that Pluto was a planet - now it is not
*As late as the 20th century "science" told us the "Great Ape" was a myth and could not possibly exist.
* Today's "science" talks of "global warming" despite the known fact that Earth's temperature has typically been even hotter throughout 85% of its history. In fact, until the 12th century grapes were grown not in southern France, but in England - which is still too cold today for growing grapes.
There are literally thousands of examples of science being very, very wrong, about a lot of things. So, the next time some soft-headed lefty tries to pummel you with the "science says" crap, you can now respond with some examples of your own.
/
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Armando Montelongo Unhappy With The Truth
As you may already know, I run a website that reviews the major "real estate gurus" and their offerings. Among those reviewed is Armando Montelongo. Our reviews are 100% accurate in every detail.
And that is what irritates Mr. Montelongo. He does not appreciate that someone is pointing out the truth, and he is trying his darndest to shut down that page. Yesterday he filed a DMCA complaint to our webhost, demanding they remove the page because it "violates his copyright".
But here's the (other) problem. DMCA is the Digital Milennium Copyright Act, and it cover copyrights. If someone pirates and reprints your copyrighted material, you may file a DMCA complaint. Mr. Montelongo, however, does not, and cannot claim any copyright infringement. Instead he claims we are misusing his trademark (we are not - under the Lanham Act - trademark law - it is "fair use" to use a mark for comparative commercial advertising, as when Coke compares themselves to Pepsi). And the DMCA does not apply to trademarks. So, he claims copyright infringement, but only lists trademark issues, because there are no copyright issues.
DMCA applies only to copyrights. It does not apply to trademarks. So, Mr Montelongo knowingly misrepresented the facts in his DMCA complaint. Some people would call that lying, or at the very least, gross deception.
This does not surprise us - after all, this is the same Armando Montelongo that sued his own brother. But that does not give him the right to perjure himself in an effort to shut down an accurate review of his offering.
A note to Mr. Montelongo - or anyone else who takes issue with the truth: if you want people to provide a POSITIVE review, or positive reports on you or your offering, perhaps you should offer something of value. Improve what you offer. Make it GOOD. And do it without ripping people off for thousands of dollars. Offer a product that is good enough to warrant an "A" rating at the Better Business Bureau instead of the "F" rating Montelongo has.
Frankly, if you offer a poor product that is not worth what you charge, then you deserve to take hits for it and have no right to complain when the truth comes out.
/
And that is what irritates Mr. Montelongo. He does not appreciate that someone is pointing out the truth, and he is trying his darndest to shut down that page. Yesterday he filed a DMCA complaint to our webhost, demanding they remove the page because it "violates his copyright".
But here's the (other) problem. DMCA is the Digital Milennium Copyright Act, and it cover copyrights. If someone pirates and reprints your copyrighted material, you may file a DMCA complaint. Mr. Montelongo, however, does not, and cannot claim any copyright infringement. Instead he claims we are misusing his trademark (we are not - under the Lanham Act - trademark law - it is "fair use" to use a mark for comparative commercial advertising, as when Coke compares themselves to Pepsi). And the DMCA does not apply to trademarks. So, he claims copyright infringement, but only lists trademark issues, because there are no copyright issues.
DMCA applies only to copyrights. It does not apply to trademarks. So, Mr Montelongo knowingly misrepresented the facts in his DMCA complaint. Some people would call that lying, or at the very least, gross deception.
This does not surprise us - after all, this is the same Armando Montelongo that sued his own brother. But that does not give him the right to perjure himself in an effort to shut down an accurate review of his offering.
A note to Mr. Montelongo - or anyone else who takes issue with the truth: if you want people to provide a POSITIVE review, or positive reports on you or your offering, perhaps you should offer something of value. Improve what you offer. Make it GOOD. And do it without ripping people off for thousands of dollars. Offer a product that is good enough to warrant an "A" rating at the Better Business Bureau instead of the "F" rating Montelongo has.
Frankly, if you offer a poor product that is not worth what you charge, then you deserve to take hits for it and have no right to complain when the truth comes out.
/
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
EPA Run By Liberal Sociopaths
Well all know the atrocities the EPA has caused over the last two decades, and lately they have gotten to be outrageous. But there is little that can compare to their latest criminal act against humanity. In fact, if a foreign despot were to commit such an atrocity against his people, he would be tried for war crimes.
The town of Tombstone, AZ has been around for over 150 years, and earned the name "The Town Too Tough To Die." But that was before the Obama administration developed a strong hatred for Arizona.
Earlier this year, a wildfire interrupted the crucial water supply to the town. Naturally, the town decided they would have to repair the pipes that brought water to Tombstone.
Enter the EPA, with an edict saying, "No, you cannot fix the water pipes." (This is reminiscent of the EPA depriving a farming valley in CA of their water supply, forcing the farmers into bankruptcy).
The EPA said that repairing the water lines would "disrupt" the habitat of wildlife. That is so absurd as to be delusional. What about disrupting the lives of PEOPLE? After all, going in to fix water lines is only a temporary disturbance, and would do no lasting harm. But the EPA does not care. In fact, liberals in general do not care about human life. They elevate animal life over human life. They push for abortion on demand. They have previously advocated euthanasia of the old and infirm. They want to remove animals from the human diet.
These sociopathic nuts have to go. The EPA needs to be shut down, permanently. We can address environmental concerns adequately without giving Gestapo powers to a bunch of unelected liberal psychos.
/
The town of Tombstone, AZ has been around for over 150 years, and earned the name "The Town Too Tough To Die." But that was before the Obama administration developed a strong hatred for Arizona.
Earlier this year, a wildfire interrupted the crucial water supply to the town. Naturally, the town decided they would have to repair the pipes that brought water to Tombstone.
Enter the EPA, with an edict saying, "No, you cannot fix the water pipes." (This is reminiscent of the EPA depriving a farming valley in CA of their water supply, forcing the farmers into bankruptcy).
The EPA said that repairing the water lines would "disrupt" the habitat of wildlife. That is so absurd as to be delusional. What about disrupting the lives of PEOPLE? After all, going in to fix water lines is only a temporary disturbance, and would do no lasting harm. But the EPA does not care. In fact, liberals in general do not care about human life. They elevate animal life over human life. They push for abortion on demand. They have previously advocated euthanasia of the old and infirm. They want to remove animals from the human diet.
These sociopathic nuts have to go. The EPA needs to be shut down, permanently. We can address environmental concerns adequately without giving Gestapo powers to a bunch of unelected liberal psychos.
/
Monday, December 3, 2012
Troubles At The New York Times
If you have ever wondered if liberals are sane, check out these comments after a news story about the far-left New York Times announces cuts to their workforce:
HeliosOne - It's crazy to me that our nation's newspaper of record is probably at the height of its influence and they can barely keep the lights on. [Editor: if they still had any real influence, they would not be having trouble keeping the lights on. Your statement makes no sense]
Not a Nut Patriot - This is really depressing news as I am a subscriber. The NYT rocks, and they don't lie. [Editor: those of us who actually do research know that the NYT rarely is honest when it comes to political or ideological news]
llLeoll - News lovers, relax. The NYT has a way to absorb these cuts relatively easily, with no loss in journalistic integrity or accuracy. They will just watch Faux News. And report the opposite. [Editor: Typical moronic response by a liberal. All research - and ratings - show Fox is the most balanced of all news outlets, and have often forced the NYT to report stories that the Times was trying to ignore. And exit polls show Fox viewers to be the best informed.]
CatGot9Lives - The Grey Lady, one of the last bastions of balanced in depth news and reporting. Time to light a candle. [Editor: only an unbalanced person could possibly think the NYT is "balanced". As for in-depth reporting, they have not done any of that for more than 20 years. If we light a candle, it should be used to butrn their yellow rag]
/
HeliosOne - It's crazy to me that our nation's newspaper of record is probably at the height of its influence and they can barely keep the lights on. [Editor: if they still had any real influence, they would not be having trouble keeping the lights on. Your statement makes no sense]
Not a Nut Patriot - This is really depressing news as I am a subscriber. The NYT rocks, and they don't lie. [Editor: those of us who actually do research know that the NYT rarely is honest when it comes to political or ideological news]
llLeoll - News lovers, relax. The NYT has a way to absorb these cuts relatively easily, with no loss in journalistic integrity or accuracy. They will just watch Faux News. And report the opposite. [Editor: Typical moronic response by a liberal. All research - and ratings - show Fox is the most balanced of all news outlets, and have often forced the NYT to report stories that the Times was trying to ignore. And exit polls show Fox viewers to be the best informed.]
CatGot9Lives - The Grey Lady, one of the last bastions of balanced in depth news and reporting. Time to light a candle. [Editor: only an unbalanced person could possibly think the NYT is "balanced". As for in-depth reporting, they have not done any of that for more than 20 years. If we light a candle, it should be used to butrn their yellow rag]
/
Lightinthebox.com - SCAM ALERT
There is a company called Lightinthebox that offers what appears to be some great itens at fair prices. And many of the "review" pages post hundreds of great 5 star reviews - BUT...
As many review sites have recently discovered, those "customer reviews" all came from the same ISP (as in, the lightinthebox ISP). ALL of the remaing reviews are bad - very bad.
The company is Chinese, and based in China. That should have been my first "red flag." But they offered what I was looking for and could not find elsewhere, so I took a chance.
I paid extra for "3-5 Day Expedited Shipping". So, I thought I might get it within a few days. Wrong!
A week after ordering, and paying the extra shipping, the item still had not shipped, and their "tracking" page estimated delivery in another 10 days! A total of AT LEAST 15 days, even though I paid extra for 3-5 day expedited shipping.
But that is only the start of the nightmare.
Try as I might, I could find no way to contact Customer Service. I discovered they have none. But they do have an "online chat", or so they would have you believe. The "online chat" is nothing more than an autobot that gives the same responses no matter what the question, then refers you to a customer service that does not appear to exist.
I am still trying to get info on my order. I am still trying to get answers about a refund for the "expedited shipping" that just does not happen.
Lightinthebox visits the review sites, and when they find a bad review, they post a very apologetic reply, saying all the things they think other potential customers would like to hear. It is a ploy designed to assuage fears of potential customers, so you will think they are really nice folks. Wrong again!
Be aware - lightinthebox (dot.com) is a very bad company to do business with. However, if you are a masochist who likes pain, then by all means, blow your hard-0earned bucks with this Chinese company that screws Americans.
/
As many review sites have recently discovered, those "customer reviews" all came from the same ISP (as in, the lightinthebox ISP). ALL of the remaing reviews are bad - very bad.
The company is Chinese, and based in China. That should have been my first "red flag." But they offered what I was looking for and could not find elsewhere, so I took a chance.
I paid extra for "3-5 Day Expedited Shipping". So, I thought I might get it within a few days. Wrong!
A week after ordering, and paying the extra shipping, the item still had not shipped, and their "tracking" page estimated delivery in another 10 days! A total of AT LEAST 15 days, even though I paid extra for 3-5 day expedited shipping.
But that is only the start of the nightmare.
Try as I might, I could find no way to contact Customer Service. I discovered they have none. But they do have an "online chat", or so they would have you believe. The "online chat" is nothing more than an autobot that gives the same responses no matter what the question, then refers you to a customer service that does not appear to exist.
I am still trying to get info on my order. I am still trying to get answers about a refund for the "expedited shipping" that just does not happen.
Lightinthebox visits the review sites, and when they find a bad review, they post a very apologetic reply, saying all the things they think other potential customers would like to hear. It is a ploy designed to assuage fears of potential customers, so you will think they are really nice folks. Wrong again!
Be aware - lightinthebox (dot.com) is a very bad company to do business with. However, if you are a masochist who likes pain, then by all means, blow your hard-0earned bucks with this Chinese company that screws Americans.
/
Why Buffett & Others Want Higher Tax Rate
You all have heard Warren Buffett and many other wealthy people say they want higher tax rates on the wealthy. In fact, the CEO of COSTCO spoke in favor of them at the Democratic National Convention.
And every one of them is a hypocrite, and they are fooling us - fooling us because they know something most of us do not.
Here goes - they do not pay the tax rate, no matter what it is. They pay taxes only according to the multitude of tax loopholes they are allowed. This means that they will pay little or no tax, no matter what the tax rates are.
And the reason they favor higher tax rates goes hand-in-hand with that. They realize that in order to increase revenues, the government must either increase rates, or decrease loopholes. Which do you think the wealthy prefer?
The richhest of the rich - almost all of them Democrats - want higher tax rates because that means they can keep their precious loopholes.
The problem lies with the simple fact that our Mainstream Media refuses to do their job. Instead of informing the folks of the truth, they act as a wing of the Democrat party. So, the folks end up believing the liberal BS and flog Repblicans for being "obstructionist".
But when the government lies to us, and goes in the wrong direction, I thank God for "obstructionists."
/
And every one of them is a hypocrite, and they are fooling us - fooling us because they know something most of us do not.
Here goes - they do not pay the tax rate, no matter what it is. They pay taxes only according to the multitude of tax loopholes they are allowed. This means that they will pay little or no tax, no matter what the tax rates are.
And the reason they favor higher tax rates goes hand-in-hand with that. They realize that in order to increase revenues, the government must either increase rates, or decrease loopholes. Which do you think the wealthy prefer?
The richhest of the rich - almost all of them Democrats - want higher tax rates because that means they can keep their precious loopholes.
The problem lies with the simple fact that our Mainstream Media refuses to do their job. Instead of informing the folks of the truth, they act as a wing of the Democrat party. So, the folks end up believing the liberal BS and flog Repblicans for being "obstructionist".
But when the government lies to us, and goes in the wrong direction, I thank God for "obstructionists."
/
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Despite Bogus Denials From Libs, War On Christmas Is REAL
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA -- Students at Terry Elementary School in Little Rock, Ark., were invited on a class field trip to see a performance of “A Charlie Brown Christmas” this December. But their excitement was quickly quenched when a parent complained; an atheist group got wind of the outing and called it a “violation of religious freedom” because it contains some religious content and will be performed at a church.
My first question may appear somewhat obvious, but the loons on the left would never ask it - how can the free expression of religion be a "violation of religious freedom?" The Constitution guarantees us the right to freely worship as we please, without interference. But nowhere does it give anyone the right to be free FROM religion. A person may choose to not worship anything, but that does not bequest to them any right to keep others from worshipping how, where and when they choose.
Anti-Christmas sentiments are spreading, despite the hoots from the left that try to convince us the "war on Christmas" is not real, and manufactured by Fox News. Yet, in Alabama, a group of 5- to 7- year -olds were asked not to sing “Silent Night” in their Christmas program because it was considered “unconstitutional", even though it is not. In Davis, California, students at Emerson Junior High encountered problems when the play they planned to perform, Charles Dickens’ “ A Christmas Carol,” was banned because of—you guessed it—the word “Christmas.” Lest we forget, "Christmas" is a legal, federal holiday. "Winter Solstice" is not.
The list goes on. In Stockton, the school district warned teachers not to put up any poinsettias, Christmas trees or other decorations that would be considered festive, just to make sure they did not offend anyone. I guess no one ever told these educated idiots that everything offends someone, somewhere. For example, liberals offend me, but I am not calling to have them banned. (Well, maybe...)
And in Fort Worth, Texas, Santa was banned from classrooms because his visit was considered “endorsing religious activity.” It did not matter to the morons in power that Santa has nothing at all to do with the religious aspects of Christmas. It was not Santa who was born in a Manger. The ban was later overturned and the schools agreed Santa could come to the schools but not enter the classrooms.
In places like Santa Monica, the mere sight of a nativity scene on public property is supposedly a reason for outcry, although the "reason" is bogus - the Nativity scene offends no one. What offends those clowns is the simple fact that we (Christians) refuse to believe what they (atheists) believe. They truly think they have the right to destroy anything they do not like or agree with; that everyone must march in lock-step with them (think "Nazi"). In an age of “over-political correctness” schools and cities have taken things too far and taken the fun and meaning out of a holiday that’s been celebrated worldwide for years and years. Heaven forbid (can I still say "Heaven"?) that our children should have great and wonderful memories of this awesome holiday.
But are the atheists and loons on the left really so offended after all? Do they punch in on Christmas, and work? Do they require their children attend school on Christmas? Do they not take advantage of the bargains on Black Friday or CyberMonday? Do they refuse the gifts they get on Christmas?
The Grinches and Scrooges can cheat themselves out of the fun and festivities if they so desire, but they have NO right to deprive others of those great and wonderful things.
Yes, Virginia, there IS a war on Christmas - and Christianity, in general. The secular progressives on the left can mock us for recognizing it, but their derision is nothing more than a diversion. The question is, will Christians stand up to them and fight?
/
My first question may appear somewhat obvious, but the loons on the left would never ask it - how can the free expression of religion be a "violation of religious freedom?" The Constitution guarantees us the right to freely worship as we please, without interference. But nowhere does it give anyone the right to be free FROM religion. A person may choose to not worship anything, but that does not bequest to them any right to keep others from worshipping how, where and when they choose.
Anti-Christmas sentiments are spreading, despite the hoots from the left that try to convince us the "war on Christmas" is not real, and manufactured by Fox News. Yet, in Alabama, a group of 5- to 7- year -olds were asked not to sing “Silent Night” in their Christmas program because it was considered “unconstitutional", even though it is not. In Davis, California, students at Emerson Junior High encountered problems when the play they planned to perform, Charles Dickens’ “ A Christmas Carol,” was banned because of—you guessed it—the word “Christmas.” Lest we forget, "Christmas" is a legal, federal holiday. "Winter Solstice" is not.
The list goes on. In Stockton, the school district warned teachers not to put up any poinsettias, Christmas trees or other decorations that would be considered festive, just to make sure they did not offend anyone. I guess no one ever told these educated idiots that everything offends someone, somewhere. For example, liberals offend me, but I am not calling to have them banned. (Well, maybe...)
And in Fort Worth, Texas, Santa was banned from classrooms because his visit was considered “endorsing religious activity.” It did not matter to the morons in power that Santa has nothing at all to do with the religious aspects of Christmas. It was not Santa who was born in a Manger. The ban was later overturned and the schools agreed Santa could come to the schools but not enter the classrooms.
In places like Santa Monica, the mere sight of a nativity scene on public property is supposedly a reason for outcry, although the "reason" is bogus - the Nativity scene offends no one. What offends those clowns is the simple fact that we (Christians) refuse to believe what they (atheists) believe. They truly think they have the right to destroy anything they do not like or agree with; that everyone must march in lock-step with them (think "Nazi"). In an age of “over-political correctness” schools and cities have taken things too far and taken the fun and meaning out of a holiday that’s been celebrated worldwide for years and years. Heaven forbid (can I still say "Heaven"?) that our children should have great and wonderful memories of this awesome holiday.
But are the atheists and loons on the left really so offended after all? Do they punch in on Christmas, and work? Do they require their children attend school on Christmas? Do they not take advantage of the bargains on Black Friday or CyberMonday? Do they refuse the gifts they get on Christmas?
The Grinches and Scrooges can cheat themselves out of the fun and festivities if they so desire, but they have NO right to deprive others of those great and wonderful things.
Yes, Virginia, there IS a war on Christmas - and Christianity, in general. The secular progressives on the left can mock us for recognizing it, but their derision is nothing more than a diversion. The question is, will Christians stand up to them and fight?
/
Timothy Geithner Thinks We Are All Idiots
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner predicted Republicans would agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest to secure a deal by year-end to avoid the "fiscal cliff." Geithner insisted that Republicans have so far resisted agreeing to tax hikes - but he is lying through his teeth. Not unusual for liberals in Washington.
He also said, "The only thing standing in the way of [a deal] would be a refusal by Republicans to accept that rates are going to have to go up on the wealthiest Americans." Another outright lie - higher taxes on the wealthy will only pay America's expenses for 8 days. That does not help one iota.
Last week almost all top Republicans stated clearly - clear enough for even tax-cheat Geithner to understand - that they were willing to compromise on tax revenues and hikes PROVIDED the administration gets serious about spending cuts. But Democrats try to gloss over that, insisting that Republicans are being obstructionist. In fact, it is the Democrats, who have repeatedly refused to even discuss the possibility of spending cuts, who are the obstructionists here.
Instead, Geithner and his boss, Obama, have repeatedly offered a "deal" that includes INCREASING spending by $1.6 trillion. And while they toss out some "pie-in-the-sky" promise of $400 billion in cuts, there are no cuts if the spending is increased more than you are "cutting". In other words, they aren't cutting spending - they are simply spending more on different things - like useless government programs designed to enslave the American people and bankrupt businesses.
In simpler terms, let's say you earn $3,000/month but you spend $5,000/month. You cannot afford that, so your family says you need to cut spending. So you say, "I'll cut current spending by $2,000/month, but I will add other spending to the tune of $10,000/month.
That is the Obama-Geithner plan. They will "cut" $400 billion, but would spend an additional $1.6 trillion.
But leave it to the lying, moronic liberals in Washington - and their Mainstream Media henchmen - to make it sound like it's the Republicans who are holding America hostage because they will not agree to such stupidity. The only ones holding us hostage are the Democrats who keep insisting that both the taxes AND the spending go up, even though everyone with an I.Q. of 10 or higher understands we do not have a revenue problem. We have a SPENDING problem. And more spending will not solve it.
And I must ask - if government needs more money, why not cut the $800 billion per year of waste that we already know exists? I should think that before asking anyone to pay more, we should first make sure we are using their money wisely.
/
He also said, "The only thing standing in the way of [a deal] would be a refusal by Republicans to accept that rates are going to have to go up on the wealthiest Americans." Another outright lie - higher taxes on the wealthy will only pay America's expenses for 8 days. That does not help one iota.
Last week almost all top Republicans stated clearly - clear enough for even tax-cheat Geithner to understand - that they were willing to compromise on tax revenues and hikes PROVIDED the administration gets serious about spending cuts. But Democrats try to gloss over that, insisting that Republicans are being obstructionist. In fact, it is the Democrats, who have repeatedly refused to even discuss the possibility of spending cuts, who are the obstructionists here.
Instead, Geithner and his boss, Obama, have repeatedly offered a "deal" that includes INCREASING spending by $1.6 trillion. And while they toss out some "pie-in-the-sky" promise of $400 billion in cuts, there are no cuts if the spending is increased more than you are "cutting". In other words, they aren't cutting spending - they are simply spending more on different things - like useless government programs designed to enslave the American people and bankrupt businesses.
In simpler terms, let's say you earn $3,000/month but you spend $5,000/month. You cannot afford that, so your family says you need to cut spending. So you say, "I'll cut current spending by $2,000/month, but I will add other spending to the tune of $10,000/month.
That is the Obama-Geithner plan. They will "cut" $400 billion, but would spend an additional $1.6 trillion.
But leave it to the lying, moronic liberals in Washington - and their Mainstream Media henchmen - to make it sound like it's the Republicans who are holding America hostage because they will not agree to such stupidity. The only ones holding us hostage are the Democrats who keep insisting that both the taxes AND the spending go up, even though everyone with an I.Q. of 10 or higher understands we do not have a revenue problem. We have a SPENDING problem. And more spending will not solve it.
And I must ask - if government needs more money, why not cut the $800 billion per year of waste that we already know exists? I should think that before asking anyone to pay more, we should first make sure we are using their money wisely.
/
Liberals - Anti-Semitic and Pro Terrorist
If you doubt that those on the looney left are anti-Semites and pro-terrorists, these posts come directly from Huffington Post by its liberal, nutcase readers. These posts are in reference to a story about the U.N. being stupid enough to grant Palestinians a fake state, insuring that they have no need to negotiate for peace. One even advocates that the U.N. should use military force against Israel, and be its dictator.
Zhorshik - "Why is the United States still supporting a terroristic state such as Israel? This has cost our country Trillions over the decades and we are the Outliers in the world community. Until we take a firm stance Israel will continue to de-stabilize the Mideast and refuse to negotiate on any terms other than its own.Long past time for change in US policy." [Editor: at one time almost the entire world thought the Earth was flat. That did not make them right. I would rather be an "outlier" than to be on the wrong side.]
designcreature - "Someone somewhere should do something about the rulers in Israel. These people are beyond common decency."
DaveMB - "Why do we support Israel? It's clearly not an ethical state." [Editor: but the Palestinians, who send thousands of missiles into Israel killing women and children, THAT'S ethical?]
eagle17765 - "It would sure be nice if the US ended the $30 Billion we send to Israel yearly -- perhaps then Bibi would actually try for Peace"
Waltcigs - "Money, power and control the Jewish race has used these tactics before, and they wonder why their feared and loathed." [Editor: only feared and loathed by terrorists and liberals. People who hate the Jews need to recognize they are in the same company as Adolf Hitler]
nomoredead - "Now Bibi needs to grow a little [Hitler] mustache and the picture will be complete."
edjowilliams - "It is a shame on Israel to go against the wishes of the UN, the world body of 198 nation. The UN should adopt military action against Israel for its unwillingness to vacate the territories it forcibly occupied after the 1967 war. Its territorial ambition should be forcibly thwarted by the UN and international law should be enforced upon the aggressor, Israel." [Editor: kinda like what Hitler tried to do to the Jews]
SoutheastBeast - "This is further proof that Netanyahu and the Israeli government are not serious about a two state solution. They say they want a two state solution and then they punish the Palestinians when a symbolic, completely nonbinding vote to acknowledge as much is held in the UN, which has no authority whatsoever in this process. Netanyahu uses any excuse he can find to punish Palestinians and to encroach upon their land. I'm appalled that my tax dollars support this nonsense." [Editor: this idiot overlooks that the U.N. resolution ALSO gives more land to the Palestinians, and would force Israelis to leave their homes. But hey, that's OK as long as the U.N. panders to the terrorists]
Tomtom2 - "The (Israeli) terrorist murders will stop when the U.S. stops sending the Israelis the weapons to carry out those assaults" [Editor: this moron seems to believe that the Palestinians, who have lobbed thousands of missiles into Israel just this year, are merely innocent victims.]
James David - "If President Obama wanted to improve relations with the Arab world, this is the perfect opportunity. He should immediately inform Israel that any money confiscated from the Palestinians would result in the subtraction of tripple the amount from U.S. aid to Israel. The amount of money that the Palestinians lost would be made up in part by U.S. reimbursement of lost aid to Israel. This action by President Obama would shock the world, and it might also bring about victory on the war on terror. With this announcement the president could instantly quiet guerilla warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. Further, he would be taking a major step toward restoring the U.S. to the position of respect and honor it once held among all Muslim and Arab nations. It may also be the best move ever to bring peace to the Middle East." [Editor: now THIS guy is just a fool! He has no clue why the Muslim jihadists are trying so hard to kill us. It's not about money, appeasement or being anti-semitic. It's simply that if you are not Muslim, you must either be enslaved or murdered. Period. That is what the Qu'ran says. And Muslims have NEVER respected America - even Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin wrote on the threat of Muslims against America. These liberal fools simply do not bother getting educated]
JellyBean2144 - "What is shameful in all of this is, Israel is being exposed, yet again, as a bully and the world is starting to standup and say enough is enough of this of bullying. The world is sick of the double speak by Israel and sadly, America. Hopefully this action will force us to be real advocates for peace and fairness in the Middle East."
Excelsam - "It's time we reminded Israel of the Symington amendment. “Symington amendment,” bans US assistance to any country found to be trafficking in nuclear enrichment or reprocessing technology that is not governed by international safeguards" [Editor: This clown does not even know that Israel is not trafficking in enrichment. They produce their own, which is legal, but do NOT export it. Iran, Afghanistan & North Korea, however, ARE trafficking, but these liberals are OK with that. As long as a country is Anti-America and Anti-Israel, they can do what they want]
blutopie - "Israel has a clinical problem - they have become the abusers of Palestine and nothing else fulfills that need for them" [Editor: unbelieveable. The Palestinians have been pummeling Israel with missiles for years - thousands each year. Israel rarely stands up and fights back. But the minute they do, the loons on the left say they are "abusing" and "murdering" the poor, innocent Palestinians.]
I've said it before - let's keep the illegal immigrants and deport the liberals. Liberals are the greatest threat to America.
/
Zhorshik - "Why is the United States still supporting a terroristic state such as Israel? This has cost our country Trillions over the decades and we are the Outliers in the world community. Until we take a firm stance Israel will continue to de-stabilize the Mideast and refuse to negotiate on any terms other than its own.Long past time for change in US policy." [Editor: at one time almost the entire world thought the Earth was flat. That did not make them right. I would rather be an "outlier" than to be on the wrong side.]
designcreature - "Someone somewhere should do something about the rulers in Israel. These people are beyond common decency."
DaveMB - "Why do we support Israel? It's clearly not an ethical state." [Editor: but the Palestinians, who send thousands of missiles into Israel killing women and children, THAT'S ethical?]
eagle17765 - "It would sure be nice if the US ended the $30 Billion we send to Israel yearly -- perhaps then Bibi would actually try for Peace"
Waltcigs - "Money, power and control the Jewish race has used these tactics before, and they wonder why their feared and loathed." [Editor: only feared and loathed by terrorists and liberals. People who hate the Jews need to recognize they are in the same company as Adolf Hitler]
nomoredead - "Now Bibi needs to grow a little [Hitler] mustache and the picture will be complete."
edjowilliams - "It is a shame on Israel to go against the wishes of the UN, the world body of 198 nation. The UN should adopt military action against Israel for its unwillingness to vacate the territories it forcibly occupied after the 1967 war. Its territorial ambition should be forcibly thwarted by the UN and international law should be enforced upon the aggressor, Israel." [Editor: kinda like what Hitler tried to do to the Jews]
SoutheastBeast - "This is further proof that Netanyahu and the Israeli government are not serious about a two state solution. They say they want a two state solution and then they punish the Palestinians when a symbolic, completely nonbinding vote to acknowledge as much is held in the UN, which has no authority whatsoever in this process. Netanyahu uses any excuse he can find to punish Palestinians and to encroach upon their land. I'm appalled that my tax dollars support this nonsense." [Editor: this idiot overlooks that the U.N. resolution ALSO gives more land to the Palestinians, and would force Israelis to leave their homes. But hey, that's OK as long as the U.N. panders to the terrorists]
Tomtom2 - "The (Israeli) terrorist murders will stop when the U.S. stops sending the Israelis the weapons to carry out those assaults" [Editor: this moron seems to believe that the Palestinians, who have lobbed thousands of missiles into Israel just this year, are merely innocent victims.]
James David - "If President Obama wanted to improve relations with the Arab world, this is the perfect opportunity. He should immediately inform Israel that any money confiscated from the Palestinians would result in the subtraction of tripple the amount from U.S. aid to Israel. The amount of money that the Palestinians lost would be made up in part by U.S. reimbursement of lost aid to Israel. This action by President Obama would shock the world, and it might also bring about victory on the war on terror. With this announcement the president could instantly quiet guerilla warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world. Further, he would be taking a major step toward restoring the U.S. to the position of respect and honor it once held among all Muslim and Arab nations. It may also be the best move ever to bring peace to the Middle East." [Editor: now THIS guy is just a fool! He has no clue why the Muslim jihadists are trying so hard to kill us. It's not about money, appeasement or being anti-semitic. It's simply that if you are not Muslim, you must either be enslaved or murdered. Period. That is what the Qu'ran says. And Muslims have NEVER respected America - even Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin wrote on the threat of Muslims against America. These liberal fools simply do not bother getting educated]
JellyBean2144 - "What is shameful in all of this is, Israel is being exposed, yet again, as a bully and the world is starting to standup and say enough is enough of this of bullying. The world is sick of the double speak by Israel and sadly, America. Hopefully this action will force us to be real advocates for peace and fairness in the Middle East."
Excelsam - "It's time we reminded Israel of the Symington amendment. “Symington amendment,” bans US assistance to any country found to be trafficking in nuclear enrichment or reprocessing technology that is not governed by international safeguards" [Editor: This clown does not even know that Israel is not trafficking in enrichment. They produce their own, which is legal, but do NOT export it. Iran, Afghanistan & North Korea, however, ARE trafficking, but these liberals are OK with that. As long as a country is Anti-America and Anti-Israel, they can do what they want]
blutopie - "Israel has a clinical problem - they have become the abusers of Palestine and nothing else fulfills that need for them" [Editor: unbelieveable. The Palestinians have been pummeling Israel with missiles for years - thousands each year. Israel rarely stands up and fights back. But the minute they do, the loons on the left say they are "abusing" and "murdering" the poor, innocent Palestinians.]
I've said it before - let's keep the illegal immigrants and deport the liberals. Liberals are the greatest threat to America.
/
Friday, November 30, 2012
From The Greatest Generation to...
I am so sick of these whiny little brats complaining on Facebook about how hard their pathetic little lives are.
And I wish they could have known my parents. My Dad was born in 1898, when travel was by horse and carriage that could travel 50 miles a day, and not a heated, air conditioned vehicle that could travel 1000 miles a day. No radio. Most families did not yet have a telephone. No computers, video games or TV.
No school buses to take them to school on a cold, wintry day. Chores before the sun rose, and more chores until the sun set. At the age of seven he worked in a woolen mill to help support the family.
In 1917 Dad joined the Marines and was off to France in WWI. During that same period, both my parents lost many loved ones from the Spanish Flu pandemic that killed 60 million people across the globe.
They suffered the Great Depression and 12 years of sacrifice, hunger and cold. There were no food stamps, unemployment benefits or other welfare.
And then WWII broke out and my Dad signed up in the Army - and back to France, where many comrades died.
Two of their 9 children died before the age of 5 because doctors, hospitals and medicine were not like they are now.
After the war, I was born. And from that day until my parents passed away, I never ONCE heard them complain about anything, least of all how tough life was for them. They never mentioned it.
Yet, today's youth think they have it tough just because they ran out of minutes on their cell, or Mom would not let them dress like a hooker for their Prom.
What they need is a dose of reality - how the world REALLY is when we do not step in to make things easier and better.
/
And I wish they could have known my parents. My Dad was born in 1898, when travel was by horse and carriage that could travel 50 miles a day, and not a heated, air conditioned vehicle that could travel 1000 miles a day. No radio. Most families did not yet have a telephone. No computers, video games or TV.
No school buses to take them to school on a cold, wintry day. Chores before the sun rose, and more chores until the sun set. At the age of seven he worked in a woolen mill to help support the family.
In 1917 Dad joined the Marines and was off to France in WWI. During that same period, both my parents lost many loved ones from the Spanish Flu pandemic that killed 60 million people across the globe.
They suffered the Great Depression and 12 years of sacrifice, hunger and cold. There were no food stamps, unemployment benefits or other welfare.
And then WWII broke out and my Dad signed up in the Army - and back to France, where many comrades died.
Two of their 9 children died before the age of 5 because doctors, hospitals and medicine were not like they are now.
After the war, I was born. And from that day until my parents passed away, I never ONCE heard them complain about anything, least of all how tough life was for them. They never mentioned it.
Yet, today's youth think they have it tough just because they ran out of minutes on their cell, or Mom would not let them dress like a hooker for their Prom.
What they need is a dose of reality - how the world REALLY is when we do not step in to make things easier and better.
/
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
War On Christmas - How Liberals Will Win
The mainstream media refuses to acknowledge the simple fact that liberals and atheists are waging a war on Christmas for several years. And the reason is fairly obvious - Christmas is representative of Christianity, and it is Christianity that keeps the majority of the people from embracing sinful activities. And liberals want to push for legalization of those activities. So, in order to make gains in gay marriage, man/boy love, drug use etc., liberals need to minimalize Christianity.
But to the point of this post - they will win. They will win because they are using a very sneaky tactic that no one seems to notice. And this tactic gives them the cover of legitimacy.
In simple terms, they first find a way to cause a controversy. Then they use the anger inherent in the controversy as an excuse to eliminate that which caused the controversy.
For example, last Christmas Governor Lincoln Chaffee (RI) declared that the capitol Christmas Tree would henceforth be called the "Holiday Tree". He knew that would generate controversy and anger, and that is exactly what he wanted. Because that anger and controversy gives him a legitimate excuse this year to shut down the tree lighting ceremoney altogether. Note that he did not simply shut down the tree lighting first-hand, because he would have been crucified for that. No, he first created a controversy, then uses that controversy to give him the excuse to cancel any Christmas festivities at the capitol.
The capitol in Orgegon did something quite similar. For decades there was a traditional Nativity scene at the capitol. Two years ago the liberal governor allowed some pretty nasty groups to set up some pretty nasty displays alongside the Nativity - knowing it would cause controvery. Today, there are NO religious displays at the capitol because the governor no longer allows displays - blaming the controvery.
Are you beginning to see a pattern? If so, you are among the very first.
We will be seeing more such "controversies" created artificially by liberals and atheists for the sole purpose of "ending the controvery" by ending all public displays of Christianity. And they will likely win because most people are not noticing the subterfuge being perpetrated, nor do they understand the reason behind it.
/
But to the point of this post - they will win. They will win because they are using a very sneaky tactic that no one seems to notice. And this tactic gives them the cover of legitimacy.
In simple terms, they first find a way to cause a controversy. Then they use the anger inherent in the controversy as an excuse to eliminate that which caused the controversy.
For example, last Christmas Governor Lincoln Chaffee (RI) declared that the capitol Christmas Tree would henceforth be called the "Holiday Tree". He knew that would generate controversy and anger, and that is exactly what he wanted. Because that anger and controversy gives him a legitimate excuse this year to shut down the tree lighting ceremoney altogether. Note that he did not simply shut down the tree lighting first-hand, because he would have been crucified for that. No, he first created a controversy, then uses that controversy to give him the excuse to cancel any Christmas festivities at the capitol.
The capitol in Orgegon did something quite similar. For decades there was a traditional Nativity scene at the capitol. Two years ago the liberal governor allowed some pretty nasty groups to set up some pretty nasty displays alongside the Nativity - knowing it would cause controvery. Today, there are NO religious displays at the capitol because the governor no longer allows displays - blaming the controvery.
Are you beginning to see a pattern? If so, you are among the very first.
We will be seeing more such "controversies" created artificially by liberals and atheists for the sole purpose of "ending the controvery" by ending all public displays of Christianity. And they will likely win because most people are not noticing the subterfuge being perpetrated, nor do they understand the reason behind it.
/
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Marco Rubio - How Old Is The Earth?
Earlier this week a GQ interviewer asked Senator Marco Rubio how old the Earth is, since Rubio had already stated he belives in Creationism.
This is a bogus ploy by the loony left to try and pidgeonhole Creationists as idiots who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that Creation only took 6 days.
Neither is the case - and the true Scriptures never make any such claims.
The current "Bible" is a mere (and very loose) translation from the original Hebrew language. The translation was done at the behest of King James. And whenever the translators could not quite "fit" a proper translation, they made their own.
For example, the original Scriptures say the Earth was created in SIX TIMES, not six days. In ancient Hebrew, the same word (yom) is used to denote any period of time, from a moment to an eon. In fact, in Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time (yom) to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." The translators needed to choose a specific timeframe in Genesis, so they chose DAY. But in reality, it could have been a month, year, milennia, age or eon. But nowhere does the original Scriptures say the Earth was created in 6 days.
As to how old the Earth is, according to the Bible, no one knows. But we do know that a liberal professor in the 1970's used the "six days" reference to determine the Earth was only 6,000 years old according to the Bible, and used his formula to discount Creationism.
In reality, and only assuming the professor was correct in his formula but incorrect about the 6 days, then it could be hypothesized that it was Adam & Eve that were created 6,000 years ago - not the Earth.
So, the liberals, atheists and other lunatics who choose to use the bogus "6 days" assumption only prove their own ignorance.
Further, and just to set the record straight, nowhere in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve were the first humans. On the contrary, they were only the first INTELLIGENT, MODERN humans. According to Scripture, God had already created man in His image during the 4th "day" (time). Adam was created after God finished, and took a "day" of rest. As further evidence, when Adam's son Cain was cast out, the Scripture says he went to the land of Nod, where "he took a wife." So, the Bible apparently recognizes that some form of Man was already resident on Earth. Still, libs and atheists insist on saying otherwise, because they need to discount Creationism in order to destroy Christianity that they may pursue their lives of sin and gluttony without recrimination.
The next time some liberal or atheist moron hits you with the "6 days", or "6,000 year old Earth" crap, you can now set them straight.
/
This is a bogus ploy by the loony left to try and pidgeonhole Creationists as idiots who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that Creation only took 6 days.
Neither is the case - and the true Scriptures never make any such claims.
The current "Bible" is a mere (and very loose) translation from the original Hebrew language. The translation was done at the behest of King James. And whenever the translators could not quite "fit" a proper translation, they made their own.
For example, the original Scriptures say the Earth was created in SIX TIMES, not six days. In ancient Hebrew, the same word (yom) is used to denote any period of time, from a moment to an eon. In fact, in Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time (yom) to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." The translators needed to choose a specific timeframe in Genesis, so they chose DAY. But in reality, it could have been a month, year, milennia, age or eon. But nowhere does the original Scriptures say the Earth was created in 6 days.
As to how old the Earth is, according to the Bible, no one knows. But we do know that a liberal professor in the 1970's used the "six days" reference to determine the Earth was only 6,000 years old according to the Bible, and used his formula to discount Creationism.
In reality, and only assuming the professor was correct in his formula but incorrect about the 6 days, then it could be hypothesized that it was Adam & Eve that were created 6,000 years ago - not the Earth.
So, the liberals, atheists and other lunatics who choose to use the bogus "6 days" assumption only prove their own ignorance.
Further, and just to set the record straight, nowhere in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve were the first humans. On the contrary, they were only the first INTELLIGENT, MODERN humans. According to Scripture, God had already created man in His image during the 4th "day" (time). Adam was created after God finished, and took a "day" of rest. As further evidence, when Adam's son Cain was cast out, the Scripture says he went to the land of Nod, where "he took a wife." So, the Bible apparently recognizes that some form of Man was already resident on Earth. Still, libs and atheists insist on saying otherwise, because they need to discount Creationism in order to destroy Christianity that they may pursue their lives of sin and gluttony without recrimination.
The next time some liberal or atheist moron hits you with the "6 days", or "6,000 year old Earth" crap, you can now set them straight.
/
Liberals vs Israel
OK, so I have been Tweeting how liberals are pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. And some people are telling me I am wrong. But I am not.
On MSNBC, the so-called "journalist" claimed Israel was "over-reacting" and killing too many Palestinians in their attacks. She failed to mention that it was the Palestinians who have fired nearly 800 missiles into Israel since January, without provocation, and with Israel taking no action in retaliation until now.
As further evidence, the following post (a direct quote) is but one of many by liberal loons, found on AOL, Yahoo and Huffington Post:
On MSNBC, the so-called "journalist" claimed Israel was "over-reacting" and killing too many Palestinians in their attacks. She failed to mention that it was the Palestinians who have fired nearly 800 missiles into Israel since January, without provocation, and with Israel taking no action in retaliation until now.
As further evidence, the following post (a direct quote) is but one of many by liberal loons, found on AOL, Yahoo and Huffington Post:
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
December 21, 2012 - Doomsday or Hoax?
The title of this post may be somewhat misleading since the answer to the question is not all that relevant. What will be, will be. The real question is, are you prepared for either?
I was listening to some so-called scientists who went to great lengths to debunk the Doomsday idea. And it struck me that these "intelligent" people will be the first to perish if, in fact, a doomsday scenario were to occur, as they are so arrogant in their "knowledge" that they make no preparation for anything outside their little sphere of understanding.
Here's the point - no one KNOWS what will, or will not occur. No one. So what we have are three kinds of people - those who dismiss doomsday events and make no preparation in case they are wrong; those who believe doomsday is a real threat and prepare accordingly, and those, like myself, who are educated enough to believe doomsday is not likely, yet wise enough to know the unexpected should be expected, so we prepare, just in case.
If nothing happens, all three groups of people will survive. But if the proverbial crap hits the proverbial fan, the know-it-all intelligentsia who made no preps will be the ones to perish.
So, who are the smart ones? Certainly not those who think they are so smart that they need not prepare.
One thing my Pop always said - hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, and you'll do OK. The Boy Scouts motto added, "Be Prepared".
As for myself, I have been around long enough to know that eventually the world will suffer a variety of catastrophic events, ranging from the not-so-bad to the truly devastating. Because that is life. In fact, I would bet the farm that we will suffer either a world famine, world war or world pandemic within the next 50 years or so, and millions of us will face smaller, yet deadly events within the next 5 years on the Katrina or Indonesian tsunami scale. While that may not be "doomsday" on a global level, it would certainly be doomsday for the millions who will perish.
Events like Hurricane Sandy are only devastating because the folks simply were not prepared. Even when they knew it was coming 7 days in advance, they did nothing. Imagine if all the gas stations had generators for pumping gas? That, alone would have alleviated much of the suffering.
When an unforeseen event hits, will your family be among the victims, or the survivors?
/
I was listening to some so-called scientists who went to great lengths to debunk the Doomsday idea. And it struck me that these "intelligent" people will be the first to perish if, in fact, a doomsday scenario were to occur, as they are so arrogant in their "knowledge" that they make no preparation for anything outside their little sphere of understanding.
Here's the point - no one KNOWS what will, or will not occur. No one. So what we have are three kinds of people - those who dismiss doomsday events and make no preparation in case they are wrong; those who believe doomsday is a real threat and prepare accordingly, and those, like myself, who are educated enough to believe doomsday is not likely, yet wise enough to know the unexpected should be expected, so we prepare, just in case.
If nothing happens, all three groups of people will survive. But if the proverbial crap hits the proverbial fan, the know-it-all intelligentsia who made no preps will be the ones to perish.
So, who are the smart ones? Certainly not those who think they are so smart that they need not prepare.
One thing my Pop always said - hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, and you'll do OK. The Boy Scouts motto added, "Be Prepared".
As for myself, I have been around long enough to know that eventually the world will suffer a variety of catastrophic events, ranging from the not-so-bad to the truly devastating. Because that is life. In fact, I would bet the farm that we will suffer either a world famine, world war or world pandemic within the next 50 years or so, and millions of us will face smaller, yet deadly events within the next 5 years on the Katrina or Indonesian tsunami scale. While that may not be "doomsday" on a global level, it would certainly be doomsday for the millions who will perish.
Events like Hurricane Sandy are only devastating because the folks simply were not prepared. Even when they knew it was coming 7 days in advance, they did nothing. Imagine if all the gas stations had generators for pumping gas? That, alone would have alleviated much of the suffering.
When an unforeseen event hits, will your family be among the victims, or the survivors?
/
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
The Not-So-Secret Secret To A Happy Marriage
It is so very sad. Of every 5 marriages, 3 end up in broken homes, broken hearts, broken dreams. How is that possible when most couples start out so very much in love?
My wife and I have been married 21 years. And every day has been better and happier than the one before. We are closer now than when we wed. And we owe it all to our little "scret", that really is not much of a secret. In fact, it is quite obvious, as long as we do not allow life to distract us.
I'm not sure how to explain it, or what to name it, but I can tell you what it is we make it a point to do - every day.
Upon waking, we have our morning java, 'cuz our eyes don't open and our brains do not function without that burst of caffeine to jump-start everything. And before I can see the bottom of the cup, I have silently asked myself the following questions:
1) What can I do today to make my wife smile?
2) What can I do today to make her life easier?
3) What can I do today to make her life fuller, happier?
4) What can I do today that will make he realize how important she is to me?
By doing this, I make her the center of my world, which is where every spouse should be to the other. And by answering those questions, and doing those things (pour her coffee, start the laundry, tell a joke, sweep her off her feet), I get the joy of making her happy, and she, in turn, does the same for me. It is something we agreed to do those many long years ago.
We then spend the day doing all those things that life requires of us, but we never forget that they are NOT life, and they are only important as long as we are happy. So, day-to-day stuff, though necessary, is secondary. My wife and I are ALWAYS first in each other's hearts and minds.
No day has ever passed without holding each other, looking deeply into each other's eys, and saying, "I love you." And we kiss. Deeply. With passion.
And when the day is done and darkness falls over the bedroom, we each pray. We pray to thank the Lord for the day we just had, and the love we share. We pray that He gives us yet another, tomorrow.
It is just sad that so many people forget to do the little things they did when they first fell in love. They allow work to come first. Their "schedule" becomes more important than taking a few moments to hug, to kiss. They allow life to get in the way of thier love.
/
My wife and I have been married 21 years. And every day has been better and happier than the one before. We are closer now than when we wed. And we owe it all to our little "scret", that really is not much of a secret. In fact, it is quite obvious, as long as we do not allow life to distract us.
I'm not sure how to explain it, or what to name it, but I can tell you what it is we make it a point to do - every day.
Upon waking, we have our morning java, 'cuz our eyes don't open and our brains do not function without that burst of caffeine to jump-start everything. And before I can see the bottom of the cup, I have silently asked myself the following questions:
1) What can I do today to make my wife smile?
2) What can I do today to make her life easier?
3) What can I do today to make her life fuller, happier?
4) What can I do today that will make he realize how important she is to me?
By doing this, I make her the center of my world, which is where every spouse should be to the other. And by answering those questions, and doing those things (pour her coffee, start the laundry, tell a joke, sweep her off her feet), I get the joy of making her happy, and she, in turn, does the same for me. It is something we agreed to do those many long years ago.
We then spend the day doing all those things that life requires of us, but we never forget that they are NOT life, and they are only important as long as we are happy. So, day-to-day stuff, though necessary, is secondary. My wife and I are ALWAYS first in each other's hearts and minds.
No day has ever passed without holding each other, looking deeply into each other's eys, and saying, "I love you." And we kiss. Deeply. With passion.
And when the day is done and darkness falls over the bedroom, we each pray. We pray to thank the Lord for the day we just had, and the love we share. We pray that He gives us yet another, tomorrow.
It is just sad that so many people forget to do the little things they did when they first fell in love. They allow work to come first. Their "schedule" becomes more important than taking a few moments to hug, to kiss. They allow life to get in the way of thier love.
/
Monday, November 12, 2012
What Do ObamaCare, The Economy, The Environment, Immigration & Math Have In Common?
At first it seems to be a head-scratcher - what could ObamaCare, the economy, the environment, immigration and math have in common?
The common denominator is that liberals do not understand any of them, even though they are core issues that liberals advocate for. And here is proof of the pudding...
Let's take immigration for starters. Liberals want Granny to undergo full-body scans and frisking to fly from one American location to another, but they have no problem with illegal immigrants - some of which are murderers or terrorists - to be able to just saunter across our border without so much as a "hello". If you do not see the irony and stupidity in that, you are probably a liberal.
The environment is a favorite of liberals - whether it's global warming, or preventing necessary development for a population that is expanding (partly because of illegal immigrants) in order to save some stupid insect we can live without. I say, let mosquitos go extinct, and take the roaches with you. And the rats. But here is what liberals do not understand - every time they try to "protect" the environment, they actually do even greater harm.
Take ethanol, one of their favorite "green" strategies. It ruins car engines. It requires 1.8 gallons of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol. Ethanol production uses up the supply of corn, making almost all foods more expensive - cows, pigs, chickens etc - all consume corn. And that means even your ice cream and pizza starts costing more (cheese comes from corn-fed cows, folks).
Now Los Angeles liberals want a "meatless Monday", and PETA libs want a meatless America. But if we stop consuming meat, a coupla things go wrong. Over 90% of organic fertilizer comes from the manure of meat animals. No meat animals means no fertlizer for veggies. We starve. And only meats have a full complement of amino acids necessary for life. And, of course, think of the devastation to the economy as meat farmers go out of business, and hundreds of thousands who depend on them for their jobs become unemployed.
Liberals want an end to hunting, but it is hunters who provide the funds for preserving game. And if hunting stops, many game animals will over-populate and starve, since Mankind has pretty much eliminated all other natural predators.
If you think liberals have an intelligent grip on the environment, you must be a liberal.
And then there is the economy. Let's tackle math at the same time, since they go hand in hand. Liberals believe an economy works from the bottom up, or the middle out. What they never comprehend is that you cannot DISTRIBUTE anything until you first CREATE it. And the poor and middle-class do not create wealth - the poor get theirs handed to them from Uncle Sam, and the middle class earns theirs from the upper class. Wealth is ALWAYS created at the top, so the only direction it can go is DOWN.. I have proven that many times in earlier posts. And Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Milton Friedman, also proved it. In short, don't expect to get a good-paying job from a poor person.
As further evidence that liberals fail at math, only a liberal would believe you can take $716 billion from Medicare and spend it twice, which is what ObamaCare does. Or rather, tries to.
So now we are at ObamaCare. This is the ultimate in liberal lunacy, in so many ways. But I'll limit this to just a couple of the dumber points. Like fining businesses that do not provide insurance for full-time employees. Since insuring an employee costs up to $15,000/year per person, most small businesses (you know, the ones that employ over 80% of the rest of us) cannot afford that. So, they have to cut full-time workers back to part-time. And America becomes a nation of part-time workers, all of whom fall into poverty because they now only get 28 hours a week.
And it gets worse - when those businesses are forced into hiring only part-timers, liberals piss and moan, and blame the business rather than the ObamaCare that caused the problem. They threaten to boycott Pappa John's, Target, WalMart, Westinghouse, McDonald's, Applebees and others, simply because those businesses have been victimized by the ObamaCare that liberals love.
Liberals will not blame ObamaCare for forcing people out of work. They would rather blame the victims, and punish them. And when they do that, the businesses lose even MORE money, so guess what? Now they are forced to either raise prices, or lay off people. And again the dumb liberals blame the businesses for raising prices or laying folks off. They fail to understand that businesses cannot print money the way Uncle Sam can.
If you think it makes sense to punish the job creators rather than the regulations that put their businesses at risk, you must be a liberal.
One more thing - liberals also have a big problem differentiating between WORDS and ACTION. To a liberal, they are the same. When Obama says "I am willing to compromise", liberals actually believe that is the same as having compromised. The statement is enough. Obama does not need to compromise - he only needs to SAY it. Just like what he did with Hurricane Sandy. He shows up, says, "America is with you. Call, and we'll answer in 15 minutes", then he goes to play golf, not to be seen in NY/NJ again. And no one answers in 15 minutes (or at all). And the people still suffer, weeks later. But to liberals, Obama was a "Sandy Hero". It was enough for him to simply SAY he was going to help, and in the mind of a liberal, that was the same as helping.
It isn't!
When Obama says he wants to compromise, he does not mean HE will compromise. He only means that he wants REPUBLICANS to compromise. He does not realize that compromise means BOTH sides share the burden. For example, in the very next sentence after saying he was willing to compromise, Obama said he would veto any bill that did not include tax increases on anyone earning over $250k. How is that compromise, when he starts out the conversation with an ultimatum?
Only a liberal would consider that a compromise.
In all fairness, I should state that liberals cannot help themselves. Science has proven that conservatives think primarily with the analytical side of the brain that favors stronger math and logic skills, while liberals think primarily with the more creative right side of the brain, which is why liberals use imagery (granny pushed over the cliff, or "The Life of Julia") instead of logic. And the "creative" side of the brain is the side that makes it easy to lie - and even begin to BELIEVE the lies.
Unfortunately for America, we are under the rule of those who lack common sense logic and the ability to balance a budget. We are ruled by morons who draw pictures and insist on driving us to bankruptcy for the sake of phony "social justice."
/
The common denominator is that liberals do not understand any of them, even though they are core issues that liberals advocate for. And here is proof of the pudding...
Let's take immigration for starters. Liberals want Granny to undergo full-body scans and frisking to fly from one American location to another, but they have no problem with illegal immigrants - some of which are murderers or terrorists - to be able to just saunter across our border without so much as a "hello". If you do not see the irony and stupidity in that, you are probably a liberal.
The environment is a favorite of liberals - whether it's global warming, or preventing necessary development for a population that is expanding (partly because of illegal immigrants) in order to save some stupid insect we can live without. I say, let mosquitos go extinct, and take the roaches with you. And the rats. But here is what liberals do not understand - every time they try to "protect" the environment, they actually do even greater harm.
Take ethanol, one of their favorite "green" strategies. It ruins car engines. It requires 1.8 gallons of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol. Ethanol production uses up the supply of corn, making almost all foods more expensive - cows, pigs, chickens etc - all consume corn. And that means even your ice cream and pizza starts costing more (cheese comes from corn-fed cows, folks).
Now Los Angeles liberals want a "meatless Monday", and PETA libs want a meatless America. But if we stop consuming meat, a coupla things go wrong. Over 90% of organic fertilizer comes from the manure of meat animals. No meat animals means no fertlizer for veggies. We starve. And only meats have a full complement of amino acids necessary for life. And, of course, think of the devastation to the economy as meat farmers go out of business, and hundreds of thousands who depend on them for their jobs become unemployed.
Liberals want an end to hunting, but it is hunters who provide the funds for preserving game. And if hunting stops, many game animals will over-populate and starve, since Mankind has pretty much eliminated all other natural predators.
If you think liberals have an intelligent grip on the environment, you must be a liberal.
And then there is the economy. Let's tackle math at the same time, since they go hand in hand. Liberals believe an economy works from the bottom up, or the middle out. What they never comprehend is that you cannot DISTRIBUTE anything until you first CREATE it. And the poor and middle-class do not create wealth - the poor get theirs handed to them from Uncle Sam, and the middle class earns theirs from the upper class. Wealth is ALWAYS created at the top, so the only direction it can go is DOWN.. I have proven that many times in earlier posts. And Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Milton Friedman, also proved it. In short, don't expect to get a good-paying job from a poor person.
As further evidence that liberals fail at math, only a liberal would believe you can take $716 billion from Medicare and spend it twice, which is what ObamaCare does. Or rather, tries to.
So now we are at ObamaCare. This is the ultimate in liberal lunacy, in so many ways. But I'll limit this to just a couple of the dumber points. Like fining businesses that do not provide insurance for full-time employees. Since insuring an employee costs up to $15,000/year per person, most small businesses (you know, the ones that employ over 80% of the rest of us) cannot afford that. So, they have to cut full-time workers back to part-time. And America becomes a nation of part-time workers, all of whom fall into poverty because they now only get 28 hours a week.
And it gets worse - when those businesses are forced into hiring only part-timers, liberals piss and moan, and blame the business rather than the ObamaCare that caused the problem. They threaten to boycott Pappa John's, Target, WalMart, Westinghouse, McDonald's, Applebees and others, simply because those businesses have been victimized by the ObamaCare that liberals love.
Liberals will not blame ObamaCare for forcing people out of work. They would rather blame the victims, and punish them. And when they do that, the businesses lose even MORE money, so guess what? Now they are forced to either raise prices, or lay off people. And again the dumb liberals blame the businesses for raising prices or laying folks off. They fail to understand that businesses cannot print money the way Uncle Sam can.
If you think it makes sense to punish the job creators rather than the regulations that put their businesses at risk, you must be a liberal.
One more thing - liberals also have a big problem differentiating between WORDS and ACTION. To a liberal, they are the same. When Obama says "I am willing to compromise", liberals actually believe that is the same as having compromised. The statement is enough. Obama does not need to compromise - he only needs to SAY it. Just like what he did with Hurricane Sandy. He shows up, says, "America is with you. Call, and we'll answer in 15 minutes", then he goes to play golf, not to be seen in NY/NJ again. And no one answers in 15 minutes (or at all). And the people still suffer, weeks later. But to liberals, Obama was a "Sandy Hero". It was enough for him to simply SAY he was going to help, and in the mind of a liberal, that was the same as helping.
It isn't!
When Obama says he wants to compromise, he does not mean HE will compromise. He only means that he wants REPUBLICANS to compromise. He does not realize that compromise means BOTH sides share the burden. For example, in the very next sentence after saying he was willing to compromise, Obama said he would veto any bill that did not include tax increases on anyone earning over $250k. How is that compromise, when he starts out the conversation with an ultimatum?
Only a liberal would consider that a compromise.
In all fairness, I should state that liberals cannot help themselves. Science has proven that conservatives think primarily with the analytical side of the brain that favors stronger math and logic skills, while liberals think primarily with the more creative right side of the brain, which is why liberals use imagery (granny pushed over the cliff, or "The Life of Julia") instead of logic. And the "creative" side of the brain is the side that makes it easy to lie - and even begin to BELIEVE the lies.
Unfortunately for America, we are under the rule of those who lack common sense logic and the ability to balance a budget. We are ruled by morons who draw pictures and insist on driving us to bankruptcy for the sake of phony "social justice."
/
Thursday, November 8, 2012
What It Takes To Be A Democrat
I am reproducing this from one of my other blogs a few years ago - enjoy!
To Be A Good Democrat...
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
6. You have to believe that "gender roles are artificial" but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters who support & protect nature don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
18. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, but manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
19. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States .
20. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
21. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."
22. You have to believe that only liberals have freedom of speech, while all others should be shouted down.
23. You have to believe that it is necessary to subject Americans to embarrassing searches at airports in the name of national security, but it's not a problem for illegal immigrants to sneak across the borders by the millions without any controls whatsoever.
24. You have to believe that people who retire and collect Social Security are unpatriotic because they "suck up tax money", but it's just fine to use that same tax money to support illegal immigrants.
25. You have to believe it is a crime for a republican to commit perjury for a crime that never even occured (Libby), but it is perfectly acceptable for a democrat to be involved in bribery (Jefferson), illicit sex (Clinton), or leaving a girl to drown in your car (Kennedy).
/
To Be A Good Democrat...
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
6. You have to believe that "gender roles are artificial" but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters who support & protect nature don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
18. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, but manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
19. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States .
20. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
21. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."
22. You have to believe that only liberals have freedom of speech, while all others should be shouted down.
23. You have to believe that it is necessary to subject Americans to embarrassing searches at airports in the name of national security, but it's not a problem for illegal immigrants to sneak across the borders by the millions without any controls whatsoever.
24. You have to believe that people who retire and collect Social Security are unpatriotic because they "suck up tax money", but it's just fine to use that same tax money to support illegal immigrants.
25. You have to believe it is a crime for a republican to commit perjury for a crime that never even occured (Libby), but it is perfectly acceptable for a democrat to be involved in bribery (Jefferson), illicit sex (Clinton), or leaving a girl to drown in your car (Kennedy).
/
Lilly Ledbetter & Women's Rights - A Reasonable Solution
A sane & reasonable method of bringing more women into the GOP fold:
1) First and foremost, do NOT allow the Democrats to produce a bill designed to benefit women by offering things like "equal pay", because they will intentionally load the bill with crap they know the GOP cannot swallow (like they did with the "Lilly Ledbetter Act"). because they will then declare that it was those nasty republicans that kept women from fair pay. Democrats are NOT interested in fair pay for women, or they would not load the bill with crap. They are only interested in making Republicans look bad. It's all about politics.
2) Republicans should present an "equal pay for equal work" bill for ALL people of every gender, race, sexual orientation and ethnicity that does not include any other non-related garbage that would prevent Democrats from having an excuse to vote against it. A straight, virgin bill, BEFORE the Democrats offer their own loaded bill.
3) Make sure every American is AWARE of the Republican effort to get equality for women, and are so determined to do so that they presented a "pure" bill.
It is then up to the Democrats to either pass the Republican bill, or shoot it down. The onus is upon them, not the Republicans.
Put the Democrats on the defense on this and other issues.
/
1) First and foremost, do NOT allow the Democrats to produce a bill designed to benefit women by offering things like "equal pay", because they will intentionally load the bill with crap they know the GOP cannot swallow (like they did with the "Lilly Ledbetter Act"). because they will then declare that it was those nasty republicans that kept women from fair pay. Democrats are NOT interested in fair pay for women, or they would not load the bill with crap. They are only interested in making Republicans look bad. It's all about politics.
2) Republicans should present an "equal pay for equal work" bill for ALL people of every gender, race, sexual orientation and ethnicity that does not include any other non-related garbage that would prevent Democrats from having an excuse to vote against it. A straight, virgin bill, BEFORE the Democrats offer their own loaded bill.
3) Make sure every American is AWARE of the Republican effort to get equality for women, and are so determined to do so that they presented a "pure" bill.
It is then up to the Democrats to either pass the Republican bill, or shoot it down. The onus is upon them, not the Republicans.
Put the Democrats on the defense on this and other issues.
/
Gay Marriage - A Reasonable Solution
Republicans can easily garner the support of a large part of the gay community by presenting a clean bill that gives both sides of the issue most of what they want, in a way that extricates both parties - and the government - from the issue.
1) All adult couples, regardless of sexual orientation, who want to consummate their love with a formal contract would have to do so via a Civil Union - even heterosexuals. (Bear with me - that is only the first part.) This Civil Union would be licensed by the state, and could be performed by anyone with the legal authority to do so. This Civil Union would provide EVERY united couple with all the same benefits and protections currently afforded through marriage.
2) "Marriage" would (and should) be the sole jurisdiction of the church, separate from Civil Unions. Marriage would not grant any legal benefits - it would simply be what it was created to be - a union in the presence of God, to be sanctified by the church.
3) Any adult couple, regardless of sexual orientation, may ALSO marry provided a) they are already united via a Civil Union, and b) the church will perform the ceremony. If a church chooses not to do so, they do not have to. In such case, the couple may seek marriage through a different church.
For those who are concerned with 'gay marriage" on religious grounds, you would not have to condone it. But if a church performs the ceremony, then it must be accepted, even if not supported by some individuals. The moral terpitude of an individual is not threatened by what a church deems to be acceptable.
Whether or not a couple marries should be totally up to the church. But EVERY adult couple should be entitled to a legal union that provides all the benefits and protections currently provided by marriage.
/
1) All adult couples, regardless of sexual orientation, who want to consummate their love with a formal contract would have to do so via a Civil Union - even heterosexuals. (Bear with me - that is only the first part.) This Civil Union would be licensed by the state, and could be performed by anyone with the legal authority to do so. This Civil Union would provide EVERY united couple with all the same benefits and protections currently afforded through marriage.
2) "Marriage" would (and should) be the sole jurisdiction of the church, separate from Civil Unions. Marriage would not grant any legal benefits - it would simply be what it was created to be - a union in the presence of God, to be sanctified by the church.
3) Any adult couple, regardless of sexual orientation, may ALSO marry provided a) they are already united via a Civil Union, and b) the church will perform the ceremony. If a church chooses not to do so, they do not have to. In such case, the couple may seek marriage through a different church.
For those who are concerned with 'gay marriage" on religious grounds, you would not have to condone it. But if a church performs the ceremony, then it must be accepted, even if not supported by some individuals. The moral terpitude of an individual is not threatened by what a church deems to be acceptable.
Whether or not a couple marries should be totally up to the church. But EVERY adult couple should be entitled to a legal union that provides all the benefits and protections currently provided by marriage.
/
Immigration - A Reasonable Solution
There is a sane and reasonable way for Republicans to address the issue of illegal immigration, and help bring immigrants (including Latinos) into the GOP fold.
1) First, seal the borders to prevent a sudden and vast influx that cannot be controlled
2) Next - underage children of illegal immigrants should be granted the opportunity to participate in the naturalization process provided that upon graduating high school (a must) they either a) complete college, or b) serve in the active U.S. Armed Forces, or c) spend 4 years in the Peace Corps or other acceptable community service. If they fail to graduate high school, they may apply for the guest worker/green card program (see #3).
3) Adult illegal immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years may remain as a guest worker with a green card for as long as they remain gainfully employed to the degree that they are self-supporting (no welfare). After another 5 years these workers would be permitted to participate in the naturalization process, to become citizens.
/
1) First, seal the borders to prevent a sudden and vast influx that cannot be controlled
2) Next - underage children of illegal immigrants should be granted the opportunity to participate in the naturalization process provided that upon graduating high school (a must) they either a) complete college, or b) serve in the active U.S. Armed Forces, or c) spend 4 years in the Peace Corps or other acceptable community service. If they fail to graduate high school, they may apply for the guest worker/green card program (see #3).
3) Adult illegal immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years may remain as a guest worker with a green card for as long as they remain gainfully employed to the degree that they are self-supporting (no welfare). After another 5 years these workers would be permitted to participate in the naturalization process, to become citizens.
/
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
How To Win ANY Election (Repubs take note)
Though we are a center-right nation, we have twice elected a far-left liberal to the Oval Office (Obama), and far-left lunatics like Elizabeth Warren to the Senate. It becomes obvious that there is a disconnect with the electorate when so many far-left people are given power in a center-right country. In fact, even today as I write this 64% of Americans say we are on the wrong track - so HOW and WHY did those who put us there get re-elected?
To win any election there are a few simple things to consider. Each will be explained in detail, below.
1) Understand the audience (average voters). The average voter today is often not well educated, not well informed and/or inexperienced (as in under 25). The average voter does not have the time to "keep up" with the news, and is often pre-occupied with entertainment and celebrity
2) Play to the largest share of the audience by reducing your message to its lowest common denominator. If your message is geared to the best educated and well-informed, your message will only reach 1/3 of the voters. But a message geared to the lesser informed will reach both groups - the informed, and the non-informed, which doubles the audience.
3) Make your message entertaining (see #1), as well as informative. If you do not entertain, you will not hold their attention, and hence will not reach them with your message
4) Sell the sizzle, not the steak. People do not buy "features" - they buy the BENEFITS that those features offer. Know what benefits the average voter wants, then find a way to help them get it YOUR way.
Republicans need to advertise the benefits, not the features, for electing
conservatives. We need to create PICTURES for the small-minded
electorate, not just words. Conservatives are good at offering great
ideas and plans, but liberals are good at drawing SIMPLE PICTURES
designed to appeal to EMOTIONS, not intellect (which 38% of people lack
in any quantity). The uninformed do not pay attention to grand ideas,
but they will always be attracted to a pretty picture. Bear in mind - a
whopping 38% of the electorate have no clue what is going on, and they
make choices based not on reality, but on the pictures they have in
their minds. To them, a photo-op is not just perception - it is reality.
Hence, conservatives need to start presenting their ideas with simple
pictures that appeal to a person's emotions.
Case in point: which do you think is more effective - a thoughtful
discussion on a plan to save Medicare, or a visual of Republicans
pushing Granny over a cliff?
In order to have your message resound with the greatest number of people, you must first create the message in such a way as to be understood by the least of them. Intelligent people will understand simple explanations, but simple people will not understand intellectual explanations. Use the KISS principle - Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Once your message has been simplified and made easily understood by even the least educated, least informed and inexperienced, it is imperative that the message be presented in an entertaining fashion. Jesus, Aesop and Reagan all understood this principle. Jesus taught by using parables that entertained, yet instructed. Aesop used fables to do the same. And Reagan was "the Great Communicator" because he used stories, humor, and helped people draw a mental picture they would remember. So, instead of "political ads" on YouTube, create an entertaining video that could go viral, and inform people while entertaining them.
As an example, if you want people to understand the economy better (a subject that BORES most), connect it to a modern, updated version like I did with this children's story about "The Little Red Hen". Entertain while teaching.
And never forget that people are bored by features, but interested in benefits. I learned this while investing in real estate. If I told a buyer that "This home is close to schools", all I would get is a nod and a yawn. But if I told them that "Mom can sleep late because the home is close to schools", THAT got their attention.
Liberals win elections because they understand the value of selling benefits and using imagery. They use pictures, entertainment and stories to sell their agenda. Instead of a lengthy, boring dissertation on how we can fix Medicare, they simply showed a Republican pushing Granny over a cliff. Instead of a lengthy discussion on the role of government in our lives, liberals produced "The Life of Julia." As they say - one picture is worth a thousand words.
If you doubt that last statement, think about Hurricane Sandy. More than 1/3 of voters stated that Sandy affected their vote. Even though President Obama actually did nothing to help the victims, everyone saw the photo op of him being praised by powerhouse Republican Governor Chris Christie. The picture told voters that Obama was "presidential" and also "praised by Republicans." That is what made an impression on voters - not the long-term misery that Obama was not addressing.
We live in a culture where most voters simply cannot be reached unless they are being entertained, and the message is kept simple and creates imagery. Take that to the bank - either appeal to the audience, or lose them.
Democrats won the woman vote because they offered BENEFIT. They won Latinos because the offered BENEFIT. Republicans need to repackage their message to offer a similar or better benefit, which could be provided the Republican way. An example - Democrats offer hungry people a fish (benefit). Republicans offer to teach hungry people how to fish (feature). Republicans should emphasize that by teaching them how to fish (feature) they will never be hungry again (benefit). Get it? Sell the sizzle, not the steak.
Finally, as a real estate investor I learned the biggest secrets to
successful negotiations. One of those secrets is to be willing to give
up nickels for dimes. Be willing to give up something little in exchange
for something bigger. I would offer to pay an extra $2,000 for a home
if the seller agrees to pay half the closing costs.
Choose your battles wisely, and do not let the liberals draw you into battles on small issues.
So there you have it - the secret to winning any election. It's called COMMUNICATION. And talking is not communication unless the audience is listening, and can easily understand your message.
/
Going Forward - What Conservatives Must Do
The 2012 election pointed out some serious flaws in our system that has resulted in choices that are, at the very least, dubious. Though we are a center-right nation, we have twice elected a far-left liberal to the Oval Office, and far-left lunatics like Elizabeth Warren to the Senate. It becomes obvious that there is a disconnect with the electorate when so many far-left people are given power in a center-right country. In fact, even today as I write this 64% of Americans say we are on the wrong track - so HOW and WHY did those who put us there get re-elected?
This post, I hope, will be a wake-up call to us all, because it will take all of us, not just a Romney or a Reagan, to fix what is wrong.
Listen up! ONE example: A full 42% of voters polled said Hurricane Sandy affected their vote, as they saw Obama being patted on the back by Republican Governor Christie. It does not matter that Obama has DONE NOTHING for Sandy victims - all that seemed to count was the PERCEPTION that was presented by that one photo op that Christie was dumb enough to provide.
This shows that many people are so ignorant of what is really going on that even a simple, misleading statement or photo can sway their vote. In other words, they are UNINFORMED, ignorant, foolish and can easily be led like lemmings.
If conservatives want to win elections and put this country back on track (assuming it is not too late), ALL conservatives need to do their part. Here are some things we must begin doing:
1) If there is one thing I learned selling real estate, it's that people do not buy FEATURES. They buy BENEFITS. They could care less if a house is near schools. What they care about is that Mom can sleep late because they live near the schools. Get it?
We need to advertise the benefits, not the features, for electing conservatives. We need to create PICTURES for the small-minded electorate, not just words. Conservatives are good at offering great ideas and plans, but liberals are good at drawing SIMPLE PICTURES designed to appeal to EMOTIONS, not intellect (which 38% of people lack in any quantity). The uninformed do not pay attention to grand ideas, but they will always be attracted to a pretty picture. Bear in mind - a whopping 38% of the electorate have no clue what is going on, and they make choices based not on reality, but on the pictures they have in their minds. To them, a photo-op is not just perception - it is reality. Hence, conservatives need to start presenting their ideas with simple pictures that appeal to a person's emotions.
Case in point: which do you think is more effective - a thoughtful discussion on a plan to save Medicare, or a visual of Republicans pushing Granny over a cliff?
2) Conservatives need to build a synopsis of their goals, in order of importance. Some would call this a PLATFORM. Then we need to choose our fights - do not waste time and resources fighting for the minor points that are not all that important, or those that are not shared by a majority of the people. Concentrate on how we are ALIKE, not how we are different.
Again, as a real estate investor I learned the biggest secrets to successful negotiations. One of those secrets is to be willing to give up nickels for dimes. Be willing to give up something little in exchange for something bigger. I would offer to pay an extra $3,000 for a home if the seller agrees to pay half the closing costs.
Choose your battles wisely, and do not let the liberals draw you into battles on small issues.
3) Conservatives need to learn how to make the other guy THINK he has won something worthwhile. Seek out things that are important to liberals, but not all that important to conservatives, and let them win on those points as long as you win on your bigger point.
4) Of great importance, conservatives should never forget that liberals hold conservatives to a MUCH higher standard than they do other liberals, so we need to deeply vet our candidates, to reduce the chance that a scandal will cost us the seat.
5) Conservative politicians need to shut up on issues that are not important to the platform - do not stick your foot in your mouth with personal beliefs, as did Akin and Mourdock. Liberals can get away with that (their lower standards), but conservatives cannot, and must control what comes out of their mouths.
6) Conservatives need to present themselves and their ideas in a way that gets them into the national liberal media. The media strives to subdue anything that is pro-conservative, so we need to approach the media differently. One thing conservatives could do is create YouTube videos that are fun and entertaining (granny over the cliff), so that they go viral. When that happens, the media cannot ignore it, and even if they do, millions still see the video and learn something of value.
Jesus was the perfect example - he understood that most people shut off their ears and brains when you preach to them, but they listen - and learn - intently when you tell them an entertaining story. Jesus won people over with his parables. Aesop taught life's lessons through his fables. Conservatives need to do the same.
If conservatives want to take back our country, we ALL need to start teaching others the truth, not by preaching, but by entertaining, memorable stories and mind-pictures. People react more to emotion than to intellect, and you cannot teach anyone anything if you cannot get them to listen.
Stop selling features - sell BENEFITS. Stop talking about great plans and start presenting the folks with IMAGES they can hold onto that also get your ideas across. And be more entertaining in how you present your ideas - use parables, fables, YouTube, cartoons...
Reagan was entertaining. He was funny. He used stories to teach us. He used imagery. After all, he was an actor, and that was his strength. That is how Reagan won 49 states, and why he was called "the great communicator". He talked to people, and taught them, by appealing to them on their own level, not on his own level.
Winning has never been easy, but it becomes easier when we understand the audience we are playing to.
/
This post, I hope, will be a wake-up call to us all, because it will take all of us, not just a Romney or a Reagan, to fix what is wrong.
Listen up! ONE example: A full 42% of voters polled said Hurricane Sandy affected their vote, as they saw Obama being patted on the back by Republican Governor Christie. It does not matter that Obama has DONE NOTHING for Sandy victims - all that seemed to count was the PERCEPTION that was presented by that one photo op that Christie was dumb enough to provide.
This shows that many people are so ignorant of what is really going on that even a simple, misleading statement or photo can sway their vote. In other words, they are UNINFORMED, ignorant, foolish and can easily be led like lemmings.
If conservatives want to win elections and put this country back on track (assuming it is not too late), ALL conservatives need to do their part. Here are some things we must begin doing:
1) If there is one thing I learned selling real estate, it's that people do not buy FEATURES. They buy BENEFITS. They could care less if a house is near schools. What they care about is that Mom can sleep late because they live near the schools. Get it?
We need to advertise the benefits, not the features, for electing conservatives. We need to create PICTURES for the small-minded electorate, not just words. Conservatives are good at offering great ideas and plans, but liberals are good at drawing SIMPLE PICTURES designed to appeal to EMOTIONS, not intellect (which 38% of people lack in any quantity). The uninformed do not pay attention to grand ideas, but they will always be attracted to a pretty picture. Bear in mind - a whopping 38% of the electorate have no clue what is going on, and they make choices based not on reality, but on the pictures they have in their minds. To them, a photo-op is not just perception - it is reality. Hence, conservatives need to start presenting their ideas with simple pictures that appeal to a person's emotions.
Case in point: which do you think is more effective - a thoughtful discussion on a plan to save Medicare, or a visual of Republicans pushing Granny over a cliff?
2) Conservatives need to build a synopsis of their goals, in order of importance. Some would call this a PLATFORM. Then we need to choose our fights - do not waste time and resources fighting for the minor points that are not all that important, or those that are not shared by a majority of the people. Concentrate on how we are ALIKE, not how we are different.
Again, as a real estate investor I learned the biggest secrets to successful negotiations. One of those secrets is to be willing to give up nickels for dimes. Be willing to give up something little in exchange for something bigger. I would offer to pay an extra $3,000 for a home if the seller agrees to pay half the closing costs.
Choose your battles wisely, and do not let the liberals draw you into battles on small issues.
3) Conservatives need to learn how to make the other guy THINK he has won something worthwhile. Seek out things that are important to liberals, but not all that important to conservatives, and let them win on those points as long as you win on your bigger point.
4) Of great importance, conservatives should never forget that liberals hold conservatives to a MUCH higher standard than they do other liberals, so we need to deeply vet our candidates, to reduce the chance that a scandal will cost us the seat.
5) Conservative politicians need to shut up on issues that are not important to the platform - do not stick your foot in your mouth with personal beliefs, as did Akin and Mourdock. Liberals can get away with that (their lower standards), but conservatives cannot, and must control what comes out of their mouths.
6) Conservatives need to present themselves and their ideas in a way that gets them into the national liberal media. The media strives to subdue anything that is pro-conservative, so we need to approach the media differently. One thing conservatives could do is create YouTube videos that are fun and entertaining (granny over the cliff), so that they go viral. When that happens, the media cannot ignore it, and even if they do, millions still see the video and learn something of value.
Jesus was the perfect example - he understood that most people shut off their ears and brains when you preach to them, but they listen - and learn - intently when you tell them an entertaining story. Jesus won people over with his parables. Aesop taught life's lessons through his fables. Conservatives need to do the same.
If conservatives want to take back our country, we ALL need to start teaching others the truth, not by preaching, but by entertaining, memorable stories and mind-pictures. People react more to emotion than to intellect, and you cannot teach anyone anything if you cannot get them to listen.
Stop selling features - sell BENEFITS. Stop talking about great plans and start presenting the folks with IMAGES they can hold onto that also get your ideas across. And be more entertaining in how you present your ideas - use parables, fables, YouTube, cartoons...
Reagan was entertaining. He was funny. He used stories to teach us. He used imagery. After all, he was an actor, and that was his strength. That is how Reagan won 49 states, and why he was called "the great communicator". He talked to people, and taught them, by appealing to them on their own level, not on his own level.
Winning has never been easy, but it becomes easier when we understand the audience we are playing to.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I would ask anyone who sides with Hamas just two questions:
1) When was the last time Israel beheaded people, or shot unarmed people in the back of the head, then drag their bodies around from speeding vehicles? (Hamas are barbarians, Israeli's are civilized)
2) Just how many missiles hitting targets on American soil would be enough to get you to want America to fight back, and would you think we were the aggressors if we did?