OK, folks, it's high time someone tells the truth about "independent voters" and whether or not a candidate has to pander to them.
First, the reason the establishment politicians and pundits keep trying to convince us that we need the independent voters --- establishment currently holds the power, and make the money. They do not want to be kicked out of power, or removed from the flow of big money. So, they NEED to convince the voting public that only a "moderate" can win - a "moderate" being someone who is chosen by the establishment to keep themselves in power. A moderate is someone who basically has no core values - he will spin in whichever direction the wind blows. A moderate can be "played" by the establishment.
But here is the truth you are not likely to hear anywhere else. Candidates do NOT need to cater to independents, no matter how many there may be. It is estimated that 33% of voters say they are Democrats, 21% claim to be Republicans and the remaining 46% claim to be Independents. But here is a statistic the media and establishment are not telling you - more than 70% of all independents lean right. In other words, they are basically conservative, but do not like being called Republican because ESTABLISHMENT Republicans have soiled the name so badly.
Now figure it out - if 70% of independents are basically conservative, then a candidate that is a true conservative (not a moderate) will attract the 21% that is their base PLUS 70% of independents, which comes to a total of 53% of all voters.
And that is more than enough to win an election.
But if the establishment and pundits are able to successfully convince voters that we must vote for a moderate in order to appeal to independents, we will actually lose more of the independent vote, simply because "moderate" is not what any conservative wants, regardless of whether they call themselves "Republican" or "Independent".
We fell for that line of crap in the last election and nominated the moderate McCain. And in an election where a conservative would have won hands down, Republicans lost in a big way. Why? Because McCain was moderate. And a moderate loses the enthusiasm of the conservative base, and loses most of the conservative independents.
Notice that Obama was NOT moderate, but very far left.
This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism. If we nominate another "moderate", we will not only lose the election, but will also lose our country.
/
Monday, January 30, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
How To Win The White House - Candidates Take Note...
If Republicans want to win the White House - AND CONGRESS - this year, they need to stop letting the media distract them from the real issues people care about and focus on those issues. Republican candidates need to stop wasting their time bickering over meaningless drivel like Bain, Freddie Mac, whose father was born in Mexico, tax returns, and who prefers raspberry jello.
Most of the media are liberal, and they intend to keep Republicans focused on foolishness. Have you ever seen a dog fight? Two dogs fight tooth and nail, beating each other up. The winner limps away, tired, weak and scarred. He is NOT stronger for it. Then that "winner" is put into a pit with a fresh, well-rested dog . Who do you think will win?
Well, that is what the liberal media and debate moderators are doing. They get Republicans at each other's throats in the hope they will be too weak to take on Obama.
The candidates need to stop letting the media get away with that. Newt was right - stop fighting amongst yourselves and take on the ISSUES that will beat Obama, regardless of who the eventual nominee is.
Any Republican who focuses on the following 5 issues without allowing the media to distract him will win the nomination and then the White House:
1. Jobs - in spite of minimal gains, there has been a net loss. Most jobs created under Obama are government jobs, which are a net loss because those salaries are paid from taxes, not from producing anything. When you take from Peter to pay Paul, there is no gain - only a transfer. State SPECIFICS on how you will address this - reduce regulations, reduce corporate tax rate, get the Hell outta the way
2. Energy - Keystone, offshore drilling, natural gas. Address the price of gasoline doubling since Obama took office. Energy costs suffocate job growth because all products/services need energy.
3. States' Rights - the government needs to stop suing states as if states were subserviant to the government. Under the 10th Amendment state's rights are even stronger than federal rights. The progression of power was decided by the forefathers to rest first with the people, then the states, and then the government, not vice versa.
4. Debt & deficit - they must be cut with REAL cuts, not just make-believe cuts in projected increases. Exactly how would you accomplish that?
5. ObamaCare - must be repealed and a new, better plan offered. Plan should include increased competition (buy across state lines), tort reform and incentives to live healthier. For example, a tax on unhealthy foods with that money used to reduce the cost of healthier choices. Currently the healthiest foods are the most expensive.
Focus on the real issues, not on the phony issues created by the media and your campaign hacks. It does no good to win the nomination only to lose the general election.
/
Most of the media are liberal, and they intend to keep Republicans focused on foolishness. Have you ever seen a dog fight? Two dogs fight tooth and nail, beating each other up. The winner limps away, tired, weak and scarred. He is NOT stronger for it. Then that "winner" is put into a pit with a fresh, well-rested dog . Who do you think will win?
Well, that is what the liberal media and debate moderators are doing. They get Republicans at each other's throats in the hope they will be too weak to take on Obama.
The candidates need to stop letting the media get away with that. Newt was right - stop fighting amongst yourselves and take on the ISSUES that will beat Obama, regardless of who the eventual nominee is.
Any Republican who focuses on the following 5 issues without allowing the media to distract him will win the nomination and then the White House:
1. Jobs - in spite of minimal gains, there has been a net loss. Most jobs created under Obama are government jobs, which are a net loss because those salaries are paid from taxes, not from producing anything. When you take from Peter to pay Paul, there is no gain - only a transfer. State SPECIFICS on how you will address this - reduce regulations, reduce corporate tax rate, get the Hell outta the way
2. Energy - Keystone, offshore drilling, natural gas. Address the price of gasoline doubling since Obama took office. Energy costs suffocate job growth because all products/services need energy.
3. States' Rights - the government needs to stop suing states as if states were subserviant to the government. Under the 10th Amendment state's rights are even stronger than federal rights. The progression of power was decided by the forefathers to rest first with the people, then the states, and then the government, not vice versa.
4. Debt & deficit - they must be cut with REAL cuts, not just make-believe cuts in projected increases. Exactly how would you accomplish that?
5. ObamaCare - must be repealed and a new, better plan offered. Plan should include increased competition (buy across state lines), tort reform and incentives to live healthier. For example, a tax on unhealthy foods with that money used to reduce the cost of healthier choices. Currently the healthiest foods are the most expensive.
Focus on the real issues, not on the phony issues created by the media and your campaign hacks. It does no good to win the nomination only to lose the general election.
/
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Who is a bigger threat than Iran or China? Find out here...
Lookout, folks - a large corporation is determined to collect and compile every piece of data about you that they can - and it may not be kept private.
Google announced changes to its privacy policies that will allow the web giant to merge user data collected across multiple services. And you CANNOT OPT OUT! This includes Google+, Gmail, YouTube, Google search and Google Maps. Every time you use any of their services, they will collect the data, compile it with data collected from your use of other services and use it to profile - and TARGET - you. The more they know about you, the better they can set you up to be targeted by marketers and anyone else who wants to use that info.
The Washington Post's Cecilia Kang notes, "Privacy advocates say Google's changes betray users who are not accustomed to having their information shared across different Web sites. A user of Gmail, for instance, may send messages about a private meeting with a colleague and may not want the location of that meeting to be thrown into Google's massive cauldron of data or used for Google's maps application."
I've said it before on this blog, folks - Google is becoming the biggest threat to the American way of life.
/
Google announced changes to its privacy policies that will allow the web giant to merge user data collected across multiple services. And you CANNOT OPT OUT! This includes Google+, Gmail, YouTube, Google search and Google Maps. Every time you use any of their services, they will collect the data, compile it with data collected from your use of other services and use it to profile - and TARGET - you. The more they know about you, the better they can set you up to be targeted by marketers and anyone else who wants to use that info.
The Washington Post's Cecilia Kang notes, "Privacy advocates say Google's changes betray users who are not accustomed to having their information shared across different Web sites. A user of Gmail, for instance, may send messages about a private meeting with a colleague and may not want the location of that meeting to be thrown into Google's massive cauldron of data or used for Google's maps application."
I've said it before on this blog, folks - Google is becoming the biggest threat to the American way of life.
/
I thought Obama was joking when he compared himself to Truman
Over the last year Obama has compared himself to Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and even Truman. And I laughed uncontrollably at that last one (although all those comparisons were farcical). Here's why...
Truman is famous for putting a plaque on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here".
Obama threw that out. In the last 6 months he has blamed everyone but himself for the mess we are in, including...
President Bush
All & any Republicans
Wall Street
Tea Party
Tsunami
Arab Spring
The Wealthy
Japan's nuclear emergency
Greece
The Euro crisis
Riots in London
Occupy Wall Street
Gulf oil spill
Hurricanes
Fires in Texas
The folks who hold to their guns and Bibles
As you can see, the only ones not to blame are Obama and his liberal cronies.
Not exactly in the mold of Harry Truman.
/
Truman is famous for putting a plaque on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here".
Obama threw that out. In the last 6 months he has blamed everyone but himself for the mess we are in, including...
President Bush
All & any Republicans
Wall Street
Tea Party
Tsunami
Arab Spring
The Wealthy
Japan's nuclear emergency
Greece
The Euro crisis
Riots in London
Occupy Wall Street
Gulf oil spill
Hurricanes
Fires in Texas
The folks who hold to their guns and Bibles
As you can see, the only ones not to blame are Obama and his liberal cronies.
Not exactly in the mold of Harry Truman.
/
Why Obama's "Fair Share" Argument Is Bogus
OK, I don't know about you, but I'm really tired of hearing this "fair share" crap, particularly since the entire concept is based on a fallacy.
I'm not saying Buffet doesn't pay a smaller percentage of taxes than his secretary. But that is the bogus argument being used by the left. Here's why...
Liberals like Obama are trying to convince the public that the rich should pay more because the PERCENTAGE that investors pay in taxes is less than that of working stiffs. And while that is true, it is also a bogus argument.
It's not about percentages, as the liberals claim. It's about DOLLARS. The government does not run on percentage - it runs on dollars. So the real story is that a Buffet who pays 15% vs his secretary paying 28% is, in fact, that a Buffet pays millions while his secretary pays thousands, or maybe even hundreds.
Percentage does not matter - percentages are a liberal lie. What matters is dollars.
Here is an example - 47% of Americans paid zero taxes, while Mitt Romney paid $6.4 million. Now, assuming a middle class secretary earns $100K and pays $28,000, what we have is one person who pays $28,000 and one who pays $6,400,000.
Both use the same roads, airports, schools etc. But while Romney only pays 15% and the secretary pays 28%, the truth of the matter is that Romney is paying 300 times more taxes than the secretary. 300 TIMES MORE!
Romney is paying as much tax as 300 secretaries earning $100,000 each.
But the left says Romney is not paying his "fair share".
Meanwhile, we still have 47% of Americans who pay no tax at all. They use the same roads, schools, hospitals etc. And most of them also get freebies from the government such as food stamps, fuel assistance, WIC etc. (which Romney cannot get).
So tell me - if one person gets as many, if not more benefits than another person, why are they not BOTH paying taxes? Why should half of all Americans carry another person through life (Romney is carrying 300)? Why should one person pay nothing while another person pays his own freight PLUS that of someone else?
I would wager a years' salary that if the tax on the rich were to be doubled, it would not be long before the liberals would again start wailing that the rich are not paying their fair share. I remember when the highest rate was 95% and liberals STILL were not happy.
I've said it before - if anyone in the 99% wants any part of what I have worked so hard to achieve, then let them do what I did. I was born poor. But I worked my butt off to get where I am, and now some lazy SOB who never worked harder than clicking a remote thinks I should also support HIS butt.
And I'm damned tired of it! And I'm damned tired of listening to the likes of Obama injecting class warfare to get people fired up to steal what I have.
/
I'm not saying Buffet doesn't pay a smaller percentage of taxes than his secretary. But that is the bogus argument being used by the left. Here's why...
Liberals like Obama are trying to convince the public that the rich should pay more because the PERCENTAGE that investors pay in taxes is less than that of working stiffs. And while that is true, it is also a bogus argument.
It's not about percentages, as the liberals claim. It's about DOLLARS. The government does not run on percentage - it runs on dollars. So the real story is that a Buffet who pays 15% vs his secretary paying 28% is, in fact, that a Buffet pays millions while his secretary pays thousands, or maybe even hundreds.
Percentage does not matter - percentages are a liberal lie. What matters is dollars.
Here is an example - 47% of Americans paid zero taxes, while Mitt Romney paid $6.4 million. Now, assuming a middle class secretary earns $100K and pays $28,000, what we have is one person who pays $28,000 and one who pays $6,400,000.
Both use the same roads, airports, schools etc. But while Romney only pays 15% and the secretary pays 28%, the truth of the matter is that Romney is paying 300 times more taxes than the secretary. 300 TIMES MORE!
Romney is paying as much tax as 300 secretaries earning $100,000 each.
But the left says Romney is not paying his "fair share".
Meanwhile, we still have 47% of Americans who pay no tax at all. They use the same roads, schools, hospitals etc. And most of them also get freebies from the government such as food stamps, fuel assistance, WIC etc. (which Romney cannot get).
So tell me - if one person gets as many, if not more benefits than another person, why are they not BOTH paying taxes? Why should half of all Americans carry another person through life (Romney is carrying 300)? Why should one person pay nothing while another person pays his own freight PLUS that of someone else?
I would wager a years' salary that if the tax on the rich were to be doubled, it would not be long before the liberals would again start wailing that the rich are not paying their fair share. I remember when the highest rate was 95% and liberals STILL were not happy.
I've said it before - if anyone in the 99% wants any part of what I have worked so hard to achieve, then let them do what I did. I was born poor. But I worked my butt off to get where I am, and now some lazy SOB who never worked harder than clicking a remote thinks I should also support HIS butt.
And I'm damned tired of it! And I'm damned tired of listening to the likes of Obama injecting class warfare to get people fired up to steal what I have.
/
Monday, January 23, 2012
If Gingrich Is An "Insider", Why Is He So Popular? Here's Why...
Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (and most talking head pundits) are at a loss as to why Newt Gingrich is doing so well when he is considered to be the quintessential "Washington Insider", having served in Congress for many years, and having been Speaker of the House. Actually, for those who stop and think about it, the reason is quite clear...
While Gingrich is an insider, he is also ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT. And THAT is what the people are clamoring for.
Almost every establishment politician is against Gingrich because he stands for everything they hate. The establishment politicians, both Democrat and Republican, do not want things to change in Washington. They want to hold onto their own power, even if they must do so at the detriment of the nation.
Gingrich is enough of an insider to pose a real threat to the establishment - he knows his way around. He knows where the bodies are buried. If anyone can upset the establishment apple cart, it's Gingrich. And the folks "get it", even if the pundits do not.
Look at it this way - what chance would someone have of retooling Washington if they don't even know what they are up against?
While Gingrich may not be an ideal candidate under normal circumstances, we are not living under normal circumstances. We need someone who is smart, powerful, passionate, knowledgeable, and hated by those already in power.
And the only candidate that fits that description is Gingrich.
It's not unlike a wild Old West town without law and order. The townsfolk hold their noses while they elect a gunslinger to bring law and order. Then, once the job is done, you get rid of the gunny and hire a more "civilized" lawman.
Well, Gingrich is a gunslinger. And that is what is needed to clean house. Once clean, THEN perhaps a "softer", more "civilized" person to take the reigns. You know - a Romney or Santorum.
/
While Gingrich is an insider, he is also ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT. And THAT is what the people are clamoring for.
Almost every establishment politician is against Gingrich because he stands for everything they hate. The establishment politicians, both Democrat and Republican, do not want things to change in Washington. They want to hold onto their own power, even if they must do so at the detriment of the nation.
Gingrich is enough of an insider to pose a real threat to the establishment - he knows his way around. He knows where the bodies are buried. If anyone can upset the establishment apple cart, it's Gingrich. And the folks "get it", even if the pundits do not.
Look at it this way - what chance would someone have of retooling Washington if they don't even know what they are up against?
While Gingrich may not be an ideal candidate under normal circumstances, we are not living under normal circumstances. We need someone who is smart, powerful, passionate, knowledgeable, and hated by those already in power.
And the only candidate that fits that description is Gingrich.
It's not unlike a wild Old West town without law and order. The townsfolk hold their noses while they elect a gunslinger to bring law and order. Then, once the job is done, you get rid of the gunny and hire a more "civilized" lawman.
Well, Gingrich is a gunslinger. And that is what is needed to clean house. Once clean, THEN perhaps a "softer", more "civilized" person to take the reigns. You know - a Romney or Santorum.
/
Obama Openly Attacks Religion And The Constitution In This Move...
The White House, supported by the Department of Health & Human Services will now REQUIRE religious institutions to provide free contraceptives, sterilization and abortions to its employees, in direct violation of religious liberty. For Obama, "separation of church and state" is a one-way street - he insists on keeping religion out of government, but then injects government into religion.
Obama claims to be a "constitutional professor", but he certainly does not appear to have any respect for the Constitution. Or maybe he simply forgot that the First Amendment states - and this is a quote - "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Everyone knows and understands that one of the most recognized tenets of the Catholic and other churches is that contraception, abortion and sterilization are sins.
Mr. President, forcing religious institutions to actively violate their religious beliefs does, without question, interfere with the free exercise of religion.
You have shown your true colors, Barak Obama, and frankly, they stink! Though you claim to be a Christian, I suspect that is not unlike the guy who claims to be from planet Zor - sayin' it don't make it so.
Obama has shown disdain for religious freedom
Obama has shown disdain for the Constitution
Obama has shown disdain for free enterprise and capitalism
Obama has shown disdain for both the other "equal branches" of government
Obama has shown disdain for states' rights
Obama has shown disdain for individuals' rights
You claim to love this country yet you violate its principles at every opportunity.
Mr. President, you are a pretender. And you need to go.
/
Obama claims to be a "constitutional professor", but he certainly does not appear to have any respect for the Constitution. Or maybe he simply forgot that the First Amendment states - and this is a quote - "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Everyone knows and understands that one of the most recognized tenets of the Catholic and other churches is that contraception, abortion and sterilization are sins.
Mr. President, forcing religious institutions to actively violate their religious beliefs does, without question, interfere with the free exercise of religion.
You have shown your true colors, Barak Obama, and frankly, they stink! Though you claim to be a Christian, I suspect that is not unlike the guy who claims to be from planet Zor - sayin' it don't make it so.
Obama has shown disdain for religious freedom
Obama has shown disdain for the Constitution
Obama has shown disdain for free enterprise and capitalism
Obama has shown disdain for both the other "equal branches" of government
Obama has shown disdain for states' rights
Obama has shown disdain for individuals' rights
You claim to love this country yet you violate its principles at every opportunity.
Mr. President, you are a pretender. And you need to go.
/
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Divine Intervention Part II - A Pic Of The Miracle Bunny
For the many who have requested a picture of "Soren", the miracle bunny, here is one I took today.
My daughter named him Soren because it means "miracle" in Romanian. (No, we are not Romanian - my daughter just likes to delve into languages).
/
My daughter named him Soren because it means "miracle" in Romanian. (No, we are not Romanian - my daughter just likes to delve into languages).
/
Friday, January 20, 2012
Something to think about this election cycle...
Two of the biggest concerns for American voters is jobs and the deficit and debt. So before you go to the polls, just know this...
In the entire history of this country the budget was never balanced for two consecutive years until Gingrich took control of the house and the budget. During his tenure, he balanced America's budget for FOUR consecutive years. A first in the history of the nation, and the only reason President Clinton could lay claim to a surplus.
Know, too, that since Gingrich left office the budget has not been balanced even once.
And then add this factoid - as of today, the deficit has surpassed 100% of GDP - a first in the history of this nation. In other words, we spend more than we even produce as an entirety.
So, if our financial future - which includes jobs - is important to you, think about that. Of course, if you are a liberal you would probably prefer to think about his personal issues. As for me, I want the country to be made well again, and if I have to vote for a cad to get that done, then so be it.
/
In the entire history of this country the budget was never balanced for two consecutive years until Gingrich took control of the house and the budget. During his tenure, he balanced America's budget for FOUR consecutive years. A first in the history of the nation, and the only reason President Clinton could lay claim to a surplus.
Know, too, that since Gingrich left office the budget has not been balanced even once.
And then add this factoid - as of today, the deficit has surpassed 100% of GDP - a first in the history of this nation. In other words, we spend more than we even produce as an entirety.
So, if our financial future - which includes jobs - is important to you, think about that. Of course, if you are a liberal you would probably prefer to think about his personal issues. As for me, I want the country to be made well again, and if I have to vote for a cad to get that done, then so be it.
/
Another Example Of Liberal Political Correctness Run Amok...
Science has taught us that liberal thought tends to be illogical and irrational. And this latest example proves that beyond any doubt.
In the American west (and even in the early days of the east), there has been a large predatory cat. It carries the name of COUGAR. Also known as a mountain lion, or even a puma.
It has been a cougar for centuries.
But a liberal school board in Utah has rejected the name of "cougars" for its school mascot, calling it "offensive to women."
It seems that women in mid-life crisis are recently known as "cougars". Big deal. The point is, calling a woman a "cougar" is what is offensive, not calling a big cat a cougar.
If liberals think "cougar" belittles women, then perhaps they should stop calling women cougars. But even if they insist on doing so, liberal PC-ers should take note - for women, it is only a degrading nickname of recent descent. Long before that, and even to this day, it is the REAL name of a proud predatory big cat.
If anyone is guilty of offending women, it is not the school kids who want the cougar (big cat) as a mascot. No, the ones who are insulting women are those who call women "cougars" in an attempt to show them as "hungry predators", and those who think the first thing we should think of when we hear "cougar" is a hot-to-trot middle aged women seeking her lost youth by preying on young men.
/.
In the American west (and even in the early days of the east), there has been a large predatory cat. It carries the name of COUGAR. Also known as a mountain lion, or even a puma.
It has been a cougar for centuries.
But a liberal school board in Utah has rejected the name of "cougars" for its school mascot, calling it "offensive to women."
It seems that women in mid-life crisis are recently known as "cougars". Big deal. The point is, calling a woman a "cougar" is what is offensive, not calling a big cat a cougar.
If liberals think "cougar" belittles women, then perhaps they should stop calling women cougars. But even if they insist on doing so, liberal PC-ers should take note - for women, it is only a degrading nickname of recent descent. Long before that, and even to this day, it is the REAL name of a proud predatory big cat.
If anyone is guilty of offending women, it is not the school kids who want the cougar (big cat) as a mascot. No, the ones who are insulting women are those who call women "cougars" in an attempt to show them as "hungry predators", and those who think the first thing we should think of when we hear "cougar" is a hot-to-trot middle aged women seeking her lost youth by preying on young men.
/.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Divine Intervention? Bunny Dies, Then Resuscitated
As most of you know, I believe in being as prepared as possible for just about any bad news that might come down the pike. To that end, I raise rabbits.
12 days ago one of the does gave birth to 8 glorious little ones.
When I checked on the buns first thing in the morning as I always do, I noticed a small fluff of white in the corner of the cage. I reached in and removed a frozen baby bunny. Last night, the coldest of the year (below zero), he had managed to leave the warm, heated nest box and he froze to death.
As I held him in my palm, I could feel how cold he was - cold and stiff. I was ready to dispose of him when a voice inside said, "No."
I brought him into the house, held him near the woodstove for heat and poking his chest to try and get his little heart beating. After nearly an hour of this, I was ready to give up. He was dead. But as I headed for the door to dispose of him, one tiny paw moved almost imperceptibly. I could not believe it.
I kept him warm, and kept poking his chest. He was still ice cold, but gradually began to move. After almost another hour, he seemed almost normal, and was even squeaking as baby rabbits often do. I think he was saying, "Hey, buddy, stop poking me." I then put a spot on his head with a red Sharpie so I could monitor him.
I placed him back with his siblings, and checked on him throughout the day, and I am pleased to tell you he is doing well. Truly a miracle bunny.
And to think the only thing between life and death was a little voice that said, "No." Divine intervention?
/
12 days ago one of the does gave birth to 8 glorious little ones.
When I checked on the buns first thing in the morning as I always do, I noticed a small fluff of white in the corner of the cage. I reached in and removed a frozen baby bunny. Last night, the coldest of the year (below zero), he had managed to leave the warm, heated nest box and he froze to death.
As I held him in my palm, I could feel how cold he was - cold and stiff. I was ready to dispose of him when a voice inside said, "No."
I brought him into the house, held him near the woodstove for heat and poking his chest to try and get his little heart beating. After nearly an hour of this, I was ready to give up. He was dead. But as I headed for the door to dispose of him, one tiny paw moved almost imperceptibly. I could not believe it.
I kept him warm, and kept poking his chest. He was still ice cold, but gradually began to move. After almost another hour, he seemed almost normal, and was even squeaking as baby rabbits often do. I think he was saying, "Hey, buddy, stop poking me." I then put a spot on his head with a red Sharpie so I could monitor him.
I placed him back with his siblings, and checked on him throughout the day, and I am pleased to tell you he is doing well. Truly a miracle bunny.
And to think the only thing between life and death was a little voice that said, "No." Divine intervention?
/
The "Liberal Filter" - Why Liberals Spin So Much...
Most non-liberals are painfully aware that liberals spin - a LOT! But is it intentional, or is it just the way they view the world?
Science has already proven there is a vast difference in the thought processes of people who primarily use the right side of the brain and those who use the left side. Conservatives are left-brain thinkers, while liberals use the right side primarily. Left side is analytical, while right side is more creative. So, artsy folks are more apt to be liberal (think Greenwich Village or Hollywood) while people like farmers who need to be more analytical are most apt to be conservative.
But science has also proven that those who use the right brain are also less rational and are less logical. A couple of great reasons not to let them work on budgets or foreign affairs too much.
The right brain seems to give liberals a sort of "filter" through which they view the world, and it is this filter that causes them to spin (although sometimes it is just dishonesty for idealogical reasons, as it is with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz). As an example, when someone says, "Jesus walked on water", a liberal might very well hear, "Jesus could not swim." What they hear and see must fit into their preconceived perceptions. If it does not, they need to try and understand it by spinning it into something that does fit their perception.
When Gingrich says "poor familes", liberals hear "black people", or "minorities", because that is what they perceive - when a liberal thinks of poverty, they think of minority ghettos. It's their preconception. So, when Gingrich said "poor families", liberals like Juan Williams thought it to be a slam against minorities. They see racism, because that is what their filter makes them see.
When Gingrich says, "Let poor kids work to earn money to be less poor,", liberals hear, "Gingrich wants to repeal child labor laws and enslave our children."
And when Gingrich mentioned Obama as "the food stamp president", he simply meant (and said) that Obama presided over the largest consumption of food stamps in history. But the liberal filter makes liberals believe he was "belittling" those on food stamps, and belittling minorities. They simply cannot see that 40% of food stamp users are white, or that it is not a slam to the poor - it is a slam to the policies that MADE people poor.
So, the next time your liberal friend says something irrational that is not exactly factual, just smile and chalk it up to the liberal filter. Because no matter what you do or say, they will never see the reality - the filter will not let them.
/
Science has already proven there is a vast difference in the thought processes of people who primarily use the right side of the brain and those who use the left side. Conservatives are left-brain thinkers, while liberals use the right side primarily. Left side is analytical, while right side is more creative. So, artsy folks are more apt to be liberal (think Greenwich Village or Hollywood) while people like farmers who need to be more analytical are most apt to be conservative.
But science has also proven that those who use the right brain are also less rational and are less logical. A couple of great reasons not to let them work on budgets or foreign affairs too much.
The right brain seems to give liberals a sort of "filter" through which they view the world, and it is this filter that causes them to spin (although sometimes it is just dishonesty for idealogical reasons, as it is with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz). As an example, when someone says, "Jesus walked on water", a liberal might very well hear, "Jesus could not swim." What they hear and see must fit into their preconceived perceptions. If it does not, they need to try and understand it by spinning it into something that does fit their perception.
When Gingrich says "poor familes", liberals hear "black people", or "minorities", because that is what they perceive - when a liberal thinks of poverty, they think of minority ghettos. It's their preconception. So, when Gingrich said "poor families", liberals like Juan Williams thought it to be a slam against minorities. They see racism, because that is what their filter makes them see.
When Gingrich says, "Let poor kids work to earn money to be less poor,", liberals hear, "Gingrich wants to repeal child labor laws and enslave our children."
And when Gingrich mentioned Obama as "the food stamp president", he simply meant (and said) that Obama presided over the largest consumption of food stamps in history. But the liberal filter makes liberals believe he was "belittling" those on food stamps, and belittling minorities. They simply cannot see that 40% of food stamp users are white, or that it is not a slam to the poor - it is a slam to the policies that MADE people poor.
So, the next time your liberal friend says something irrational that is not exactly factual, just smile and chalk it up to the liberal filter. Because no matter what you do or say, they will never see the reality - the filter will not let them.
/
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Is Juan Williams A Closet Racist?
Over the years I have given Juan Williams, Fox New analyst, a fair amount of respect. But over the last several months I have been noticing that Mr. Williams keeps sneaking race into issues that are not about race at all.
I have said this many times, and it holds true - the first person to bring race into an issue is the racist (no, I am not injecting race - this blog is being written because Williams did).
As an example, Newt Gingrich proposed that children from poor families be allowed to work and earn money, and to develop a work ethic. Mr. Williams immediately brings race into it, saying Gingrich has introduced race. He did not. He never mentioned race. He mentioned POOR PEOPLE. And there are poor whites as well as poor blacks - a point that seems to escape Williams. Williams also accused Gingrich of saying such people were lazy, but Mr. Gingrich said no such thing. He simply said these children need to DEVELOP a work ethic. But that is true of ALL children, as no one is born with a work ethic. Most children live in families where they can learn a work ethic. But that is less true in poor families, where work is less than consistent (which is why they are poor). And again, it is about POVERTY. But williams makes it about race.
Mr. Gingrich goes on to say Obama is the food stamp president. And Mr Williams immediately infers Gingrich is again slamming minorities, and introducing race. But what again escapes Mr Williams is that 40% of families who use food stamps are white. So again, it is about POVERTY, not race.
But Mr Williams and his liberal friends insist on claiming it is about race. That is because THEY are the true racists - injecting race where it does not belong.
Either they know it is not about race, and are trying to paint the candidates as racists, or they do not know it and therefore have no business commenting on it in the first place.
/
I have said this many times, and it holds true - the first person to bring race into an issue is the racist (no, I am not injecting race - this blog is being written because Williams did).
As an example, Newt Gingrich proposed that children from poor families be allowed to work and earn money, and to develop a work ethic. Mr. Williams immediately brings race into it, saying Gingrich has introduced race. He did not. He never mentioned race. He mentioned POOR PEOPLE. And there are poor whites as well as poor blacks - a point that seems to escape Williams. Williams also accused Gingrich of saying such people were lazy, but Mr. Gingrich said no such thing. He simply said these children need to DEVELOP a work ethic. But that is true of ALL children, as no one is born with a work ethic. Most children live in families where they can learn a work ethic. But that is less true in poor families, where work is less than consistent (which is why they are poor). And again, it is about POVERTY. But williams makes it about race.
Mr. Gingrich goes on to say Obama is the food stamp president. And Mr Williams immediately infers Gingrich is again slamming minorities, and introducing race. But what again escapes Mr Williams is that 40% of families who use food stamps are white. So again, it is about POVERTY, not race.
But Mr Williams and his liberal friends insist on claiming it is about race. That is because THEY are the true racists - injecting race where it does not belong.
Either they know it is not about race, and are trying to paint the candidates as racists, or they do not know it and therefore have no business commenting on it in the first place.
/
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Guess What The Liberal Univ. of San Francisco Study On Pot Says...
The headline on HuffPost/AOL today says, "GOOD NEWS FOR MARIJUANA USERS - Marijuana And Lungs: Study Finds Drug Doesn't Do Same Kind Of Damage As Tobacco"
Gee, go figure! But actually, that headline is dishonest, and is not what the study shows.The city that has been rooting for the legalization of pot for years is where this great study comes from. Who would have guessed? And the far-left, drug-crazy HuffPost/AOL misleads with their headline - again.
The story starts out, "Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study that bolsters evidence that marijuana doesn't do the kind of damage tobacco does." Again, no surprize that these "researchers" make their point based on someone who only smokes one joint a week as opposed to the normal smoker who smokes 300 cigarettes a week. But hey, what's an extra 200-400 doses per week?
But the article later says, almost as if apologetically, "The results, from one of the largest and longest studies on the health effects of marijuana, are hazier for heavy users – those who smoke two or more joints daily for several years. The data suggest that using marijuana that often might cause a decline in lung function".
But even here there is a bug in their study - there own words state that there may be no difference between 40 cigarettes a day and pot smokers who only smoke "two or more" joints daily. Perhaps their study, if it were honest, would compare 40 joints a day to 40 cigarettes a day and report on the effects. Let's compare apples to apples, shall we?
Now, any educated person can infer from this study that one joint a week is less dangerous than 300 cigarettes a week. Go figure! And that two joints per day might be as dangerous as 40 cigarettes a day.
Those are the words of the researchers, not mine. The only difference is that I am not adding the liberal spin. Their own study indicates that, on a one-to-one basis, pot is either just as harmful, or more so, than tobacco.
/
Gee, go figure! But actually, that headline is dishonest, and is not what the study shows.The city that has been rooting for the legalization of pot for years is where this great study comes from. Who would have guessed? And the far-left, drug-crazy HuffPost/AOL misleads with their headline - again.
The story starts out, "Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study that bolsters evidence that marijuana doesn't do the kind of damage tobacco does." Again, no surprize that these "researchers" make their point based on someone who only smokes one joint a week as opposed to the normal smoker who smokes 300 cigarettes a week. But hey, what's an extra 200-400 doses per week?
But the article later says, almost as if apologetically, "The results, from one of the largest and longest studies on the health effects of marijuana, are hazier for heavy users – those who smoke two or more joints daily for several years. The data suggest that using marijuana that often might cause a decline in lung function".
But even here there is a bug in their study - there own words state that there may be no difference between 40 cigarettes a day and pot smokers who only smoke "two or more" joints daily. Perhaps their study, if it were honest, would compare 40 joints a day to 40 cigarettes a day and report on the effects. Let's compare apples to apples, shall we?
Now, any educated person can infer from this study that one joint a week is less dangerous than 300 cigarettes a week. Go figure! And that two joints per day might be as dangerous as 40 cigarettes a day.
Those are the words of the researchers, not mine. The only difference is that I am not adding the liberal spin. Their own study indicates that, on a one-to-one basis, pot is either just as harmful, or more so, than tobacco.
/
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Big Lie - "Obama Ended The War In Iraq..."
The liberal media, following their marching orders from the White House keeps touting how Obama ended the war in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It was the SURGE, authorized by Bush, that ended the war in Iraq. You might recall that Obama OPPOSED the Surge, along with other liberals. Despite objections from the left, Bush instituted the Surge. It worked. It brought the war pretty much to an end.
The only thing Obama did was call the troops home. That did not end the war. The Surge did that. In fact, the early withdrawal of troops may very well result in a resurgence of violence in Iraq.
So once again Obama takes credit for something he had no hand in. And he refuses to ttake credit for those things that do have his fingerprints - Solyndra, Fiskar, the Chevy Volt fiasco, illegal recess appointments while the Senate was not in recess, the high unemployment rate... the list is nearly endless.
/
It was the SURGE, authorized by Bush, that ended the war in Iraq. You might recall that Obama OPPOSED the Surge, along with other liberals. Despite objections from the left, Bush instituted the Surge. It worked. It brought the war pretty much to an end.
The only thing Obama did was call the troops home. That did not end the war. The Surge did that. In fact, the early withdrawal of troops may very well result in a resurgence of violence in Iraq.
So once again Obama takes credit for something he had no hand in. And he refuses to ttake credit for those things that do have his fingerprints - Solyndra, Fiskar, the Chevy Volt fiasco, illegal recess appointments while the Senate was not in recess, the high unemployment rate... the list is nearly endless.
/
Monday, January 9, 2012
Debbie Wasserman-Smith: More Dishonest By The Day...
In an interview with Chris Wallace, Debbie Wasserman-Smith (chairperson of the DNC) said there was no comparison between Mitt Romney as CEO of Bain Capital and Barack Obama's hand in the bankruptcy of Solyndra. Let's break it down...
Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain Capital - Barack Obama is CEO of America
Mitt Romney invested in companies that went bankrupt - Obama invested taxpayer money in Solyndra, which went bankrupt
Seems about the same to me - both acted as venture capitalists, and both invested in companies that went belly up and people got laid off. Yet Wasserman-Smith, as dishonest as ever, claims that Romney is responsible for putting people out of work, but Obama is not.
She is either ignorant or dishonest. In either case, she certainly should not be in any position of power.
/
Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain Capital - Barack Obama is CEO of America
Mitt Romney invested in companies that went bankrupt - Obama invested taxpayer money in Solyndra, which went bankrupt
Seems about the same to me - both acted as venture capitalists, and both invested in companies that went belly up and people got laid off. Yet Wasserman-Smith, as dishonest as ever, claims that Romney is responsible for putting people out of work, but Obama is not.
She is either ignorant or dishonest. In either case, she certainly should not be in any position of power.
/
The Myth That Republicans "Need" The Independent Vote...
All the talking heads keep saying that Republicans need to be "more moderate" in order to attract the "independent" vote and win elections.
Bull!
Sure, 40% of voters claim to be independents, while 31% claim to be Democrats and 27% claim to be Republicans. Based on those dumb stats, it would appear Republicans need independents.
But here is what those stats do not show - 40% of all voters claim to be CONSERVATIVE (as opposed to "republican"). Meanwhile, only 18% claim to be liberals. So, conservatives outnumber liberals by a wide margin.
So here is the untold truth - Republicans do not need independents. They need CONSERVATIVES. If the Republican party decides to actually stand for conservative values, they will have the support of the Republicans AND the conservative portion of the independents. And that would give them a majority, since most "independents" lean to the right (remember - conservatives outnumber liberals by more than 2 to 1).
In 2008 Republicans ran a moderate RiNO Republican in the hope of attracting independents, and Republicans lost - McCain was not conservative enough, and conservative independents just stayed home on election day.
No, Republicans do not need to compromise their values in order to court independents. On the contrary - they need to be conservative enough to get the conservative majority fired up!
/
Bull!
Sure, 40% of voters claim to be independents, while 31% claim to be Democrats and 27% claim to be Republicans. Based on those dumb stats, it would appear Republicans need independents.
But here is what those stats do not show - 40% of all voters claim to be CONSERVATIVE (as opposed to "republican"). Meanwhile, only 18% claim to be liberals. So, conservatives outnumber liberals by a wide margin.
So here is the untold truth - Republicans do not need independents. They need CONSERVATIVES. If the Republican party decides to actually stand for conservative values, they will have the support of the Republicans AND the conservative portion of the independents. And that would give them a majority, since most "independents" lean to the right (remember - conservatives outnumber liberals by more than 2 to 1).
In 2008 Republicans ran a moderate RiNO Republican in the hope of attracting independents, and Republicans lost - McCain was not conservative enough, and conservative independents just stayed home on election day.
No, Republicans do not need to compromise their values in order to court independents. On the contrary - they need to be conservative enough to get the conservative majority fired up!
/
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Are People Killed or Tortured Because Of religion? The Answer May Surprise You...
The biggest reason Atheists have for degrading religion is their false assumption that religion is responsible for the "torture and death of millions." They then cite the Inquisition and the Crusades as examples. But that is where they show their utter ignorance.
People do not kill for religion - that is only the excuse they use for doing what they would have done, anyway. People need excuses for the killing they do - some such excuses are "self defense", "Glory of God" or even "The Devil Made Me Do It." People kill and torture for reasons of their own, and in EVERY case it is because of one or more of the "7 Cardinal Sins", which are...
Pride - excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity. (Bill Maher?)
Envy - the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation. (Occupy Wall Streeters?)
Gluttony - an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires. (Imelda Marcos?)
Lust - an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body. (John Edwards, Bill Clinton?)
Anger - manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath. (Terrorists, idealogues)
Greed - the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness. (Madoff?)
Sloth - the avoidance of physical or spiritual work. (perpetual welfare people)
Certainly, people may be killed or wars started in the NAME of religion (excuse), but never for the SAKE of religion (reason). Religion is not to blame for things that mere mortals choose to do.
So, Bill Maher et all, if you decide to stop flaunting your absolute ignorance, try facing the truth for a change. You do not hate religion because of any deaths. You hate religion because it holds people accountable for their actions, and imposes moral values you would rather ignore. Like most atheists, you are like the ostrich that hides its head in the sand - you think if you cannot see the danger then it cannot harm you.
Wrong.
/
People do not kill for religion - that is only the excuse they use for doing what they would have done, anyway. People need excuses for the killing they do - some such excuses are "self defense", "Glory of God" or even "The Devil Made Me Do It." People kill and torture for reasons of their own, and in EVERY case it is because of one or more of the "7 Cardinal Sins", which are...
Pride - excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity. (Bill Maher?)
Envy - the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation. (Occupy Wall Streeters?)
Gluttony - an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires. (Imelda Marcos?)
Lust - an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body. (John Edwards, Bill Clinton?)
Anger - manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath. (Terrorists, idealogues)
Greed - the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness. (Madoff?)
Sloth - the avoidance of physical or spiritual work. (perpetual welfare people)
Certainly, people may be killed or wars started in the NAME of religion (excuse), but never for the SAKE of religion (reason). Religion is not to blame for things that mere mortals choose to do.
So, Bill Maher et all, if you decide to stop flaunting your absolute ignorance, try facing the truth for a change. You do not hate religion because of any deaths. You hate religion because it holds people accountable for their actions, and imposes moral values you would rather ignore. Like most atheists, you are like the ostrich that hides its head in the sand - you think if you cannot see the danger then it cannot harm you.
Wrong.
/
Friday, January 6, 2012
Remember The Ant & The Grasshopper? Have You Heard The New Version?
The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE OLD STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'
ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the SEIU group singing, “We Shall Overcome".
Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake, while he damns ants.
President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the “Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act” retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.
The entire Nation collapses, bringing the rest of the free world with it.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2012.
Make sure that you share this with other ants. Don't bother sending it on to any grasshoppers because they wouldn't understand it anyway !
/
OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE OLD STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'
ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the SEIU group singing, “We Shall Overcome".
Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake, while he damns ants.
President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the “Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act” retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.
The entire Nation collapses, bringing the rest of the free world with it.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2012.
Make sure that you share this with other ants. Don't bother sending it on to any grasshoppers because they wouldn't understand it anyway !
/
Recess Appointments - Why The Constitution Should Be Amended...
Lately, Presidents of both parties have abused the "recess appointments" clause in Article 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate..." President Obama does more that abuse it - he perverts it.
Here is why this particular clause needs to be amended. First, it clearly states "vacancies that may happen during the recess...". In almost every case, the recess appointments being made are not for vacancies that occur DURING the recess, but have occured long before the recess. But aside from that overlooked technicality, there is a more important aspect to consider.
At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, it took most Senators days, even weeks to get to Congress. They traveled by horseback or carriage. No planes. No highways. So the clause was necessary for national security, as an "emergency session" of congress could take a long time to arrange, leaving America without the necessary leadership.
Today, that just cannot happen. In an emergency, Congress can be called into session within hours if necessary. And if it is not an emergency, then there is no legitimate need for recess appointments.
So, I would suggest that clause be reworded to state something like, "In the event of a national emergency or for purposes of national security, the President may fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, provided the Senate cannot be convened within three days."
This would stop the abuse - and the perversion - of recess appointments.
/
Here is why this particular clause needs to be amended. First, it clearly states "vacancies that may happen during the recess...". In almost every case, the recess appointments being made are not for vacancies that occur DURING the recess, but have occured long before the recess. But aside from that overlooked technicality, there is a more important aspect to consider.
At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, it took most Senators days, even weeks to get to Congress. They traveled by horseback or carriage. No planes. No highways. So the clause was necessary for national security, as an "emergency session" of congress could take a long time to arrange, leaving America without the necessary leadership.
Today, that just cannot happen. In an emergency, Congress can be called into session within hours if necessary. And if it is not an emergency, then there is no legitimate need for recess appointments.
So, I would suggest that clause be reworded to state something like, "In the event of a national emergency or for purposes of national security, the President may fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, provided the Senate cannot be convened within three days."
This would stop the abuse - and the perversion - of recess appointments.
/
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Now The Liberal Media Is Making Fun Of Romney's Real Name...
It's Willard.
Big deal.
I am not a Romney fan by any means. But it galls me that the very same liberal media (like the Huffington Post and AOL, to name just two) who castigated people for calling Obama by HIS real name - Barack Hussein Obama - are now trying to make a big deal out of Romney's real name. Such hypocrisy is expected from the left, but it only proves how desperate - and dumb - they are, and to what lengths they will go to change the subject from the abysmal economy and the over-regulation and high unemployment for which Barack Hussein Obama is responsible - he is, after all, the Captain of the ship.
A note to the libs who think it somehow lifts them to a higher level in the conversation to make fun of anyone's name - it doesn't. It only makes you look even more foolish than we already know you are. You do not need to keep proving it over and over again.
/
Big deal.
I am not a Romney fan by any means. But it galls me that the very same liberal media (like the Huffington Post and AOL, to name just two) who castigated people for calling Obama by HIS real name - Barack Hussein Obama - are now trying to make a big deal out of Romney's real name. Such hypocrisy is expected from the left, but it only proves how desperate - and dumb - they are, and to what lengths they will go to change the subject from the abysmal economy and the over-regulation and high unemployment for which Barack Hussein Obama is responsible - he is, after all, the Captain of the ship.
A note to the libs who think it somehow lifts them to a higher level in the conversation to make fun of anyone's name - it doesn't. It only makes you look even more foolish than we already know you are. You do not need to keep proving it over and over again.
/
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Who Will Be The Non-Romney?...
At the moment, it looks like the top 4 in Iowa are Paul, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. But I believe there will be a surprise.
Paul will go nowhere after Iowa because the Republican Party will not nominate someone who would abandon Israel and ignore Iran. So the real top 4 are Romney, Santorun, Gingrich and Perry.
Romney will take New Hampshire - that's a given. Santorum does not have a strong organization, nor the financing to go much further. So, going into the all-important South Carolina, we'll have Romney, Gingrich and Perry.
Perry has the money. But Gingrich has the popularity in SC, so it's a toss-up right now. But I am predicting that the nomination will be between Romney and either Gingrich or Perry, depending upon which one has the strongest showing in South Carolina.
My bet is on Gingrich, because between now and SC, there will be debates. And Gingrich will clean Perry's clock in those. And he'll probably beat up Romney, too.
I think it will shake out as Romney vs Gingrich, unless a powerhouse Dark Horse like Palin enters. Then all bets are off.
/
Paul will go nowhere after Iowa because the Republican Party will not nominate someone who would abandon Israel and ignore Iran. So the real top 4 are Romney, Santorun, Gingrich and Perry.
Romney will take New Hampshire - that's a given. Santorum does not have a strong organization, nor the financing to go much further. So, going into the all-important South Carolina, we'll have Romney, Gingrich and Perry.
Perry has the money. But Gingrich has the popularity in SC, so it's a toss-up right now. But I am predicting that the nomination will be between Romney and either Gingrich or Perry, depending upon which one has the strongest showing in South Carolina.
My bet is on Gingrich, because between now and SC, there will be debates. And Gingrich will clean Perry's clock in those. And he'll probably beat up Romney, too.
I think it will shake out as Romney vs Gingrich, unless a powerhouse Dark Horse like Palin enters. Then all bets are off.
/
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Things That Need To Happen In 2012 Hollywood ...
This was a statement made by Huffington Post. Of course, THEIR idea of needed changes have to do with the making of more left-leaning movies. I have a different take (who would have guessed?)
Some changes I would like to see in Hollywood this year:
1) Talent
2) Script writers who really are script writers. You know, with a little imagination, and some old-fashioned class
3) Movies and shows that entertain, instead of brainwash with a liberal agenda
4) Movies that teach solid values - and maybe even have a PLOT.
Most of all I would like to see fewer brain-dead celebrities spouting off on topics they know nothing about.
And for cryin' out loud, Hollywood needs to stop patting themselves on the back. I'm rather tired of hearing about the "upcoming blockbuster" )"Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" - how ridiculous is that?) or the "Award Nominee" for movies that have not even hit the theaters yet ("War Horse"). Hey, HuffPost, for the record - a blockbuster is a movie that has already performed exceedingly well, and has brought in many millions. So, there is no such thing as an "upcoming blockbuster."
/
Some changes I would like to see in Hollywood this year:
1) Talent
2) Script writers who really are script writers. You know, with a little imagination, and some old-fashioned class
3) Movies and shows that entertain, instead of brainwash with a liberal agenda
4) Movies that teach solid values - and maybe even have a PLOT.
Most of all I would like to see fewer brain-dead celebrities spouting off on topics they know nothing about.
And for cryin' out loud, Hollywood needs to stop patting themselves on the back. I'm rather tired of hearing about the "upcoming blockbuster" )"Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" - how ridiculous is that?) or the "Award Nominee" for movies that have not even hit the theaters yet ("War Horse"). Hey, HuffPost, for the record - a blockbuster is a movie that has already performed exceedingly well, and has brought in many millions. So, there is no such thing as an "upcoming blockbuster."
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)