In some states such as South Carolina, state income tax refunds will be issued via a prepaid debit card through Bank of America (the worst transgressor as banks go for ripping people off). And state governments around the country are using prepaid cards to issue food stamps and welfare. And next year, even the federal government will be issuing prepaids for Social Security instead of checks.
So, why is this a problem?
There are no regulations as to what fees a bank can charge on prepaid cards. In South Carolina, Bank of America will charge the user (mostly lower income people) a whopping $10 for each teller transaction, and $2.50 for every withdrawal from any non-Bank of America ATM. Since a lot of poor rural families do not live near a BofA ATM, that is going to hurt them big time.
And then there is the problem of how to get the last of your money. ATM's generally pay out only in $20 bills. If a family has $18 left on their card, they cannot get it from an ATM - they must either use it at a store (where a debit fee gets paid to the bank) or they would have to go to the bank and forfeit $10 for the transaction fee.
Listen up, Big Brother Government - if you are going to issue a person's money by a prepaid card, you have an obligation to assure that they can use it without as much as a penny in penalty. Otherwise, government is in bed with the banks who stand to make millions, if not billions from this windfall.
/
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Hershey Proves How Easy It Is To Make Fools Of People
I'm sure you have seen the commercials for the "new" Hershey's Kisses - you know, the ones that are "better" because they are filled with little air pockets. And it amazes me that any human being would ever even dumb enough to allow themselves to be ripped off like that.
In a nutshell - the price of those Kisses is not lower than the price of original Kisses, but they have 25% less chocolate. HERSHEY'S HAS PEOPLE PAYING MONEY TO EAT AIR! How stupid is that? Smart for Hershey's - stupid for the idiots that fall for it.
Most companies are less obtuse with their sneakiness - a "gallon" of ice cream is now only 3/4 a gallon, at the same price as the gallon. But Hershey's has gone much further - they give the same volume, but much of that volume is empty space. Air pockets.
And they market it to fools by claimimg it is somehow "better" because it's "cool".
I have another name for it - FRAUD!
/
In a nutshell - the price of those Kisses is not lower than the price of original Kisses, but they have 25% less chocolate. HERSHEY'S HAS PEOPLE PAYING MONEY TO EAT AIR! How stupid is that? Smart for Hershey's - stupid for the idiots that fall for it.
Most companies are less obtuse with their sneakiness - a "gallon" of ice cream is now only 3/4 a gallon, at the same price as the gallon. But Hershey's has gone much further - they give the same volume, but much of that volume is empty space. Air pockets.
And they market it to fools by claimimg it is somehow "better" because it's "cool".
I have another name for it - FRAUD!
/
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Obama's "College For All" Shows Extreme Ignorance, Arrogance
Obama said that every child in America should go to college. And while that may sound nice, if you think about the unintended consequences (which liberals never do) you will come to realize it is a REALLY bad idea.
Throughout history there has been "room at the top" for about 4% of the population. For every top job there are about 24 lesser jobs.
Most of those 24 "lesser jobs" do not require a college education. In fact, two-thirds of all carreers in America do not require advanced education. We need plimbers, electricians, people to pave our driveways, salespersons, assembly line workers and people to work at McDonald's and 7-11. If those people were to go to college they would waste $100,000 and 4 years of their lives.
And let us not forget the large portion of kids who cannot qualify for college. There are the school drop-outs, and the slackers, as well as those who simply do not have the intellect necessary for college.
And last, but not least, are those who simply do not want to go to college.
Mr. Obama, Santorum was correct - you are a snob. But I will go further - I believe you are an arrogant, ignorant snob with no ability to think anything through. Yes, I know YOU went to college, but college cannot make a man of wisdom out of a man who has no clue.
/
Throughout history there has been "room at the top" for about 4% of the population. For every top job there are about 24 lesser jobs.
Most of those 24 "lesser jobs" do not require a college education. In fact, two-thirds of all carreers in America do not require advanced education. We need plimbers, electricians, people to pave our driveways, salespersons, assembly line workers and people to work at McDonald's and 7-11. If those people were to go to college they would waste $100,000 and 4 years of their lives.
And let us not forget the large portion of kids who cannot qualify for college. There are the school drop-outs, and the slackers, as well as those who simply do not have the intellect necessary for college.
And last, but not least, are those who simply do not want to go to college.
Mr. Obama, Santorum was correct - you are a snob. But I will go further - I believe you are an arrogant, ignorant snob with no ability to think anything through. Yes, I know YOU went to college, but college cannot make a man of wisdom out of a man who has no clue.
/
Thursday, February 23, 2012
How Gas Prices Could Be Cut By $1/gal Instantly - And Why Obama Won't Do It
If there is any one thing that could cut gasoline prices by at least a dollar per gallon overnight - literally - it would be an edict by the Obama administration to eliminate the countless blends that gas companies have to produce to meet local requirements.
Before you say that those blends are necessary, there are over 55 of them, and less than 6 are necessary for reasons of climate, seasonal or altitude differences. All the rest are mandated by states to suit their own environmental agendas.
Now, I'm all for protecting the environment, but many of those local regulations do little or nothing for the environment. But even that is not the point.
The point is simple - if a state, such as California (which requires the most regulations on blends) wants to have specialized blends to suit THEIR state and THEIR agenda, then California should PAY for those blends. As it stands now, most of those additional costs are rolled into the national price, which means people in Maine are paying the price for the foolishness of California. And that is not right.
The government should limit "national" blends to about 6, which are for altitude, seasonal and climate differences, and the national price should reflect ONLY that cost. If a state wants something special, then it should be mandated that ONLY that state will pay the additional costs. If you do that, watch how quickly those states start revoking their idiotic regulations once they discover the other 49 states will not be sharing the cost.
As to how I know Obama will not take this simple step, it is because he is in the pocket of the "greenies". If he were to pass such an edict, the far-left environmentalist loons would eviscerate him. That is why he shot down the Keystone pipeline, shut down drilling in many areas and blew 2 billion taxpayer dollars on risky "green" companies that all went bankrupt and cost the taxpayers dearly. But it pleased the far left. And that's where Obama resides.
/
Before you say that those blends are necessary, there are over 55 of them, and less than 6 are necessary for reasons of climate, seasonal or altitude differences. All the rest are mandated by states to suit their own environmental agendas.
Now, I'm all for protecting the environment, but many of those local regulations do little or nothing for the environment. But even that is not the point.
The point is simple - if a state, such as California (which requires the most regulations on blends) wants to have specialized blends to suit THEIR state and THEIR agenda, then California should PAY for those blends. As it stands now, most of those additional costs are rolled into the national price, which means people in Maine are paying the price for the foolishness of California. And that is not right.
The government should limit "national" blends to about 6, which are for altitude, seasonal and climate differences, and the national price should reflect ONLY that cost. If a state wants something special, then it should be mandated that ONLY that state will pay the additional costs. If you do that, watch how quickly those states start revoking their idiotic regulations once they discover the other 49 states will not be sharing the cost.
As to how I know Obama will not take this simple step, it is because he is in the pocket of the "greenies". If he were to pass such an edict, the far-left environmentalist loons would eviscerate him. That is why he shot down the Keystone pipeline, shut down drilling in many areas and blew 2 billion taxpayer dollars on risky "green" companies that all went bankrupt and cost the taxpayers dearly. But it pleased the far left. And that's where Obama resides.
/
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The "Hidden" Way Gas Prices Hurt Us
We all know how high gas prices hurt our family budget directly. And many of us realize that every other item we purchase will experience price increases due to increased fuel prices for manufacturers and truckers. But there is an even more destructive way that high gas prices hit all of America - HARD!
The average family is spending $10 per week more for gas than just one year ago, and roughly $30 per week more than when President Obama was elected. That may not seem particularly troublesome until you take the time to think about it...
There are 250 million cars on the roads today. At even $10 per week, that means gas consumes $2.5 BILLION a week extra. At $30 each, that robs the economy of $7.5 billion each and every week. That's $390 billion a year that is not available for purchasing other goods and services. $390 billion that will not be used to create demand that results in jobs.
$390 billion is a lot of refrigerators, cars, boats, clothing and a lot of other goods that will not be purchased, resulting in lower demand and further job layoffs.
Nothing - I repeat, NOTHING - does more economic damage than an increase in gas prices.
/
The average family is spending $10 per week more for gas than just one year ago, and roughly $30 per week more than when President Obama was elected. That may not seem particularly troublesome until you take the time to think about it...
There are 250 million cars on the roads today. At even $10 per week, that means gas consumes $2.5 BILLION a week extra. At $30 each, that robs the economy of $7.5 billion each and every week. That's $390 billion a year that is not available for purchasing other goods and services. $390 billion that will not be used to create demand that results in jobs.
$390 billion is a lot of refrigerators, cars, boats, clothing and a lot of other goods that will not be purchased, resulting in lower demand and further job layoffs.
Nothing - I repeat, NOTHING - does more economic damage than an increase in gas prices.
/
Obama's New Proposal Would Finish Us Off
President Obama's newest proposal would tax all overseas income earned by American companies. While this may, at first blush, sound like a good idea, once again, as is always the case with ideological, myopic liberals, he fails to consider the unintended consequences.
If, for example, Intel is taxed on the 85% of their income currently earned and kept overseas (that they already pay taxes on in the country of origin) guess what Intel is going to do? Go ahead - take a guess. If you guessed that they would close up shop in America and open their headquarters in, say, Germany or China, you would be correct. And then Intel would not have to pay ANY American taxes because they would no longer be an American company. Because under King Obama's proposal, companies would get taxed twice - once by the country where the money is earned, and again by America. This could virtually wipe out a company's profits, and they will not tolerate it. There would be a mass exodus of companies from America to foreign shores, like rats deserting a sinking ship.
It's bad enough that liberals have chased American jobs out of the U.S. by having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and the strictest, most expensive regulations. Now they also want to completely close American companies and make them Chinese companies. America would lose more jobs, and would lose any taxes they are now collecting from those businesses.
Either Obama and his liberal cronies have absolutely no clue about how economies work, or they do know, and are purposely trying to destroy the American way of life. I tend to think the latter because Obama has not made any secret about his desire to "redistribute the wealth", and his countless statements that America needs to be taken down a peg or two because we use so much of the world's resources. We're "too rich".
Yes, Obama knows exactly what he is doing, and the liberal media is covering for him by making it appear that he is doing a good thing.
The people need to wake up, get their heads out of the sand and start asking serious questions. They need to stop allowing the mainstream media to brainwash them, and begin seeking the truth. Otherwise, the liberals will succeed, and the America we end up with will not be an America we will like.
/
If, for example, Intel is taxed on the 85% of their income currently earned and kept overseas (that they already pay taxes on in the country of origin) guess what Intel is going to do? Go ahead - take a guess. If you guessed that they would close up shop in America and open their headquarters in, say, Germany or China, you would be correct. And then Intel would not have to pay ANY American taxes because they would no longer be an American company. Because under King Obama's proposal, companies would get taxed twice - once by the country where the money is earned, and again by America. This could virtually wipe out a company's profits, and they will not tolerate it. There would be a mass exodus of companies from America to foreign shores, like rats deserting a sinking ship.
It's bad enough that liberals have chased American jobs out of the U.S. by having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and the strictest, most expensive regulations. Now they also want to completely close American companies and make them Chinese companies. America would lose more jobs, and would lose any taxes they are now collecting from those businesses.
Either Obama and his liberal cronies have absolutely no clue about how economies work, or they do know, and are purposely trying to destroy the American way of life. I tend to think the latter because Obama has not made any secret about his desire to "redistribute the wealth", and his countless statements that America needs to be taken down a peg or two because we use so much of the world's resources. We're "too rich".
Yes, Obama knows exactly what he is doing, and the liberal media is covering for him by making it appear that he is doing a good thing.
The people need to wake up, get their heads out of the sand and start asking serious questions. They need to stop allowing the mainstream media to brainwash them, and begin seeking the truth. Otherwise, the liberals will succeed, and the America we end up with will not be an America we will like.
/
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Yet ANOTHER Plate Of Ridiculous Tripe By Evolutionists...
In the news today at HuffPost/AOL...
Life on Earth first began around 3.7 billion years ago, when chemical compounds in a "primordial soup" somehow sprang to life, scientists claim.
OK. So "scientists" are "claiming" evolution "somehow" created life. This is NOT news - they have been making that claim for 150 years - and still without one iota of actual proof.
"Somehow sprang to life"? How scientific! In other words, scientists still do not have a clue as to how an inanimate, lifeless chemical compound became LIFE. They refuse to believe that a Supreme Power had anything to do with it, but can offer no better idea. They think it is crazy to believe that "some Big Guy in the Sky created life", but do not think it is crazy to believe that NOTHING did.
What turned sterile molecules into living, changing organisms? That's the ultimate mystery, according to the scientists. But religious people have known the answer all along.
Now, if evolutionists can tell me how rocks evolved from nothing when even scientists know that non-living things cannot evolve, or how life evolved from a static non-living thing, I would be more than happy to look over their proof.
/
Life on Earth first began around 3.7 billion years ago, when chemical compounds in a "primordial soup" somehow sprang to life, scientists claim.
OK. So "scientists" are "claiming" evolution "somehow" created life. This is NOT news - they have been making that claim for 150 years - and still without one iota of actual proof.
"Somehow sprang to life"? How scientific! In other words, scientists still do not have a clue as to how an inanimate, lifeless chemical compound became LIFE. They refuse to believe that a Supreme Power had anything to do with it, but can offer no better idea. They think it is crazy to believe that "some Big Guy in the Sky created life", but do not think it is crazy to believe that NOTHING did.
What turned sterile molecules into living, changing organisms? That's the ultimate mystery, according to the scientists. But religious people have known the answer all along.
Now, if evolutionists can tell me how rocks evolved from nothing when even scientists know that non-living things cannot evolve, or how life evolved from a static non-living thing, I would be more than happy to look over their proof.
/
Saturday, February 18, 2012
The Left Wants "Income Equality", So Let's Look At That...
The left, headed by President Obama keeps calling for "income equality" in America. Of course, sane, rational minds know that could never work simply because if Joe is going to get the same as Bob no matter how much effort he puts in, he simply will not put in any effort. But let's look at the hypocrisy of the left...
Income Equality. I guess that means since the average family of four in America earns $67,019 per year, then anything over that should be taken away and given to those who earn less. Therefore, Mr. Obama, since I understand you are a millionaire, you should immediately give away every penny over $67,019/year to those who earn less.
And that goes for every liberal who wants to play the stupid "income equality" tune. Ms Streisand, instead of donating $89,000 to the far left loons at Media Matters, you should immediately divest yourself of all your millions, keeping only $67,019 per year.
But we all know the libs are not going to do that, don't we. That's because they do not think that the rules should apply to them - they are above the rules (kinda like Holder thinking he is above the law). No, they want ME to limit my income, and they want YOU to limit yours, but Heaven forbid they should limit theirs!
And that is why I state emphatically that they are all a bunch of hypocrites. They don't want income equality at all. They just want to take OUR wealth and give it to those who are either too lazy or too uneducated to make their own. That will insure the liberals get more votes than conservatives, because simply put the math shows that there are more ne'er-do-wells in America than there are wealthy people. By stealing from the (few) rich and giving to the (many) poor, they guarantee that liberals will run (or rather, ruin) the country.
/
Income Equality. I guess that means since the average family of four in America earns $67,019 per year, then anything over that should be taken away and given to those who earn less. Therefore, Mr. Obama, since I understand you are a millionaire, you should immediately give away every penny over $67,019/year to those who earn less.
And that goes for every liberal who wants to play the stupid "income equality" tune. Ms Streisand, instead of donating $89,000 to the far left loons at Media Matters, you should immediately divest yourself of all your millions, keeping only $67,019 per year.
But we all know the libs are not going to do that, don't we. That's because they do not think that the rules should apply to them - they are above the rules (kinda like Holder thinking he is above the law). No, they want ME to limit my income, and they want YOU to limit yours, but Heaven forbid they should limit theirs!
And that is why I state emphatically that they are all a bunch of hypocrites. They don't want income equality at all. They just want to take OUR wealth and give it to those who are either too lazy or too uneducated to make their own. That will insure the liberals get more votes than conservatives, because simply put the math shows that there are more ne'er-do-wells in America than there are wealthy people. By stealing from the (few) rich and giving to the (many) poor, they guarantee that liberals will run (or rather, ruin) the country.
/
Friday, February 17, 2012
Administration Again Decides To Not Enforce The Law...
Every politician has to swear in their oath of office to uphold the laws of the land. But President Obama and Eric Holder apparently do not believe they need to do so. They seem to think they can pick and choose which laws to enforce. And that is not only wrong, but is also grounds for impeachment - violation of oath of office.
The Obama Administration will no longer defend legislation in court banning same-sex couples from receiving military and veterans benefits. Although Congress, in a bi-partisan manner passed a law banning benefits to same-sex couples in DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), and a U.S. President signed it into law, the Obama administration is not going to abide by it.
Gee, it must be nice to be above the law, and get to choose which ones you will obey. I learned in school that such is called ANARCHY.
Hey, Holder, here's how Democracy works -- Congress passes laws, the Department of Justice enforces them. If the DOJ thinks they are unconstitutional, you take it to the courts to decide. YOU do not arbitrarily decide.
What is it with these liberal clowns who think they can be King, and bypass Congress, and now bypass the courts?
Just one more reason to throw those corrupt bums out to the curb in November. As if we needed another reason.
/
The Obama Administration will no longer defend legislation in court banning same-sex couples from receiving military and veterans benefits. Although Congress, in a bi-partisan manner passed a law banning benefits to same-sex couples in DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), and a U.S. President signed it into law, the Obama administration is not going to abide by it.
Gee, it must be nice to be above the law, and get to choose which ones you will obey. I learned in school that such is called ANARCHY.
Hey, Holder, here's how Democracy works -- Congress passes laws, the Department of Justice enforces them. If the DOJ thinks they are unconstitutional, you take it to the courts to decide. YOU do not arbitrarily decide.
What is it with these liberal clowns who think they can be King, and bypass Congress, and now bypass the courts?
Just one more reason to throw those corrupt bums out to the curb in November. As if we needed another reason.
/
The First Amendment - And What Many Are Not Comprehending...
To hear the folks on the left talk, you would think the First Amendment applies only to churches. That is the excuse they use for trying to force religious organizations to adopt contraception. Churches exempt, but church organizations are not.
Apparently they do not comprehend simple English, since the First Amendment never even mentions churches. What it does mention is religious freedom without government interference.
You see, many people have forgotten what the Bill of Rights was written for. It was to acknowledge certain God-given rights that each person has. In other words, they are the rights of INDIVUDUALS. Every INDIVIDUAL has each of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
Therefore, when the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law that infringes on religious freedom, that means the religious freedom of each and every individual. Each person has a right to live their conscience without government interference. Not just churches. It applies to the Catholic Church, and it applies to the individual Protestant living next door.
But the progressive liberals want to diminish and eventually destroy the Constitution - Pelosi has even said it does not matter anymore. The Constitution gets in the way of the liberal agenda. And this ploy by the Obama administration is designed to minimize the reach and effect of the first and most important right we have. They are trying to limit the First Amendment only to churches, rather than to the populace and the individual.
What's next - limiting the right to bear arms to only law enforcement and military? Or the right to property being limited only to the wealthy? Or maybe the right to free speech will be limited to only the liberal press.
No, the Bill of Rights are the rights of INDIVDUALS. Every individual. So when the administration forces Joe Blow, an individual Catholic, to provide contraception for his employees, they are violating Joe's First Amendment rights. Joe is not a church. But Joe has the same rights as the church!
If you do not want to see your rights being watered down and taken away by those with a socialist agenda, don't just sit there reading this. Pass it on. Get up and call your Senators and Representatives and remind them that the Bill of Rights are the rights of INDIVIDUALS, not just churches.
DO something to stand and be counted, or suffer the loss of your rights and freedoms. Once gone, they cannot be regained without an armed and violent revolution, because the socialists will never voluntarily give them back.
So, let's not lose them.
/
Apparently they do not comprehend simple English, since the First Amendment never even mentions churches. What it does mention is religious freedom without government interference.
You see, many people have forgotten what the Bill of Rights was written for. It was to acknowledge certain God-given rights that each person has. In other words, they are the rights of INDIVUDUALS. Every INDIVIDUAL has each of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
Therefore, when the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law that infringes on religious freedom, that means the religious freedom of each and every individual. Each person has a right to live their conscience without government interference. Not just churches. It applies to the Catholic Church, and it applies to the individual Protestant living next door.
But the progressive liberals want to diminish and eventually destroy the Constitution - Pelosi has even said it does not matter anymore. The Constitution gets in the way of the liberal agenda. And this ploy by the Obama administration is designed to minimize the reach and effect of the first and most important right we have. They are trying to limit the First Amendment only to churches, rather than to the populace and the individual.
What's next - limiting the right to bear arms to only law enforcement and military? Or the right to property being limited only to the wealthy? Or maybe the right to free speech will be limited to only the liberal press.
No, the Bill of Rights are the rights of INDIVDUALS. Every individual. So when the administration forces Joe Blow, an individual Catholic, to provide contraception for his employees, they are violating Joe's First Amendment rights. Joe is not a church. But Joe has the same rights as the church!
If you do not want to see your rights being watered down and taken away by those with a socialist agenda, don't just sit there reading this. Pass it on. Get up and call your Senators and Representatives and remind them that the Bill of Rights are the rights of INDIVIDUALS, not just churches.
DO something to stand and be counted, or suffer the loss of your rights and freedoms. Once gone, they cannot be regained without an armed and violent revolution, because the socialists will never voluntarily give them back.
So, let's not lose them.
/
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Now HuffPost Avoids The Truth...
Huffington Post is on a roll today. In their latest story about the Westboro Baptist Church picketing Whitney Houston's funeral they write, "...members of the right-wing Christian group, known for its strong anti-gay stance, are planning to stage a protest at the pop diva's private memorial, set for this weekend in her hometown of Newark, N.J."
Here is where HuffPost is once again spinning the truth until it no longer resembles any truth --- no Christian on planet Earth would label any member of the Westboro Baptist Church as Christian.
To be a Christian, one must follow the tenets of Christ (hence the name, HuffPost!). The members of the WBC preach hatred, not love. Their signs say "GOD HATES GAYS", GOD HATES SOLDIERS" etc. All they preach is hatred, and they practice it even more than they preach it. That is the opposite of Christianity.
To call the Westboro Baptist Church a "Christian group" is akin to calling Media Matters a conservative think tank.
But then, we have come to expect lies, distortions and deceit from Huffington Post and AOL.
/
Here is where HuffPost is once again spinning the truth until it no longer resembles any truth --- no Christian on planet Earth would label any member of the Westboro Baptist Church as Christian.
To be a Christian, one must follow the tenets of Christ (hence the name, HuffPost!). The members of the WBC preach hatred, not love. Their signs say "GOD HATES GAYS", GOD HATES SOLDIERS" etc. All they preach is hatred, and they practice it even more than they preach it. That is the opposite of Christianity.
To call the Westboro Baptist Church a "Christian group" is akin to calling Media Matters a conservative think tank.
But then, we have come to expect lies, distortions and deceit from Huffington Post and AOL.
/
HuffPost Upset Over Truth...
Huffington Post seems to be quite upset that Fox Business News personality Eric Bolling said Democrat Representative Maxine Waters, aka "The Nutcase", should "step away from the crack pipe." Bolling went on to say he was kidding, of course.
But here's the nub - Bolling made that statement after Waters, on camera and in front of an audience, went on a hateful rant, literally screaming that all "Republicans are Demons" and are unAmerican and should "never be allowed to walk the halls of Congress". Her insane rant went on for several minutes. I have watched insane people act with more aplomb and civility than this nutcase.
It might be worth noting that Waters has found herself on the wrong end of an ethics investigation - by her own party - and has often gone off the deep end in her hateful, bigoted rants against Republicans and white people.
So, while Bolling may have only been kidding, I'm not so sure he didn't hit the nail on the head. If she is not on crack, she certainly acts like it.
In either case, there is no place in Congress for such a hateful, bigoted, and apparently crazy person. Just my opinion. And I am not "kidding."
/
But here's the nub - Bolling made that statement after Waters, on camera and in front of an audience, went on a hateful rant, literally screaming that all "Republicans are Demons" and are unAmerican and should "never be allowed to walk the halls of Congress". Her insane rant went on for several minutes. I have watched insane people act with more aplomb and civility than this nutcase.
It might be worth noting that Waters has found herself on the wrong end of an ethics investigation - by her own party - and has often gone off the deep end in her hateful, bigoted rants against Republicans and white people.
So, while Bolling may have only been kidding, I'm not so sure he didn't hit the nail on the head. If she is not on crack, she certainly acts like it.
In either case, there is no place in Congress for such a hateful, bigoted, and apparently crazy person. Just my opinion. And I am not "kidding."
/
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The Secret To A Happy Life...
I have published this in the past, both here on the blog, and in some of my books. It is perhaps the most important real-life experience I have ever had, and I feel obligated to share it periodically.
Actually, it's not really a secret - it simply goes unnoticed. So, take notice!
The most valuable things in life, such as love, happiness, and respect, are what you might call "enigmas". They are not what they seem. Such things cannot be gathered, chased, or taken. They cannot be held. In order to have such things, you must give them away!
You heard that right. If you want to be loved, you must first give love. If you want happiness, you must first give it away. If you doubt this, consider the following:
I was really in the dumps. A recent divorce and other disasters had me ready to give up. It seemed that happiness was not in the cards. While feeling sorry for myself, I stopped into a coffee shop to drown my sorrow in 100 proof caffeine.
A young girl who could not have been more than 16 waited on me. She was visibly upset, and I could see she had been crying. I asked another waitress what the problem was, and was informed that the girl's boyfriend had broken her young heart. I paid for my coffee and left.
Within 30 minutes, I returned with a single rose, handed it to the girl with the broken heart, smiled, then turned and left. As I reached the door, I turned and saw that she was smiling, and bouncing over to another table where an old man sat, alone. There was a spark of renewed happiness in her, and strangely enough, in spite of all my own troubles, I, too, was feeling happier for having given happiness to another. But my happiness soon faded as I watched her give that rose to that old man. I felt "used".
A few days later I returned to that coffee shop. The girl bounced over to me, all smiles and bubbling over with apparent joy. I told her that I was happy to be able to make some small difference in her mood that day, but was disappointed that she so readily gave away my gift. She smiled sweetly, grabbed my hand gently, and whispered, "Don't you know? You should, because I learned it from you. Happiness spreads when you give it away. You gave me the rose, and with it, happiness. I saw that lonely old man who had lost his wife last fall, and gave the rose to him, so that he, too, might share in the happiness. In giving him the rose, I found happiness a second time that day. And he returned next morning to say he gave the rose to a lady in the complex he lives in, and they are now spending time together. And that made me happy a third time. So, you see, the more happiness you give away, the more you have. I thought you knew!"
Thanks to the wisdom of that little 16 year-old girl, I have not had too many days without finding some happiness. All I have to do is give some away...
It works! And it's easy. Try it.
/
Actually, it's not really a secret - it simply goes unnoticed. So, take notice!
The most valuable things in life, such as love, happiness, and respect, are what you might call "enigmas". They are not what they seem. Such things cannot be gathered, chased, or taken. They cannot be held. In order to have such things, you must give them away!
You heard that right. If you want to be loved, you must first give love. If you want happiness, you must first give it away. If you doubt this, consider the following:
I was really in the dumps. A recent divorce and other disasters had me ready to give up. It seemed that happiness was not in the cards. While feeling sorry for myself, I stopped into a coffee shop to drown my sorrow in 100 proof caffeine.
A young girl who could not have been more than 16 waited on me. She was visibly upset, and I could see she had been crying. I asked another waitress what the problem was, and was informed that the girl's boyfriend had broken her young heart. I paid for my coffee and left.
Within 30 minutes, I returned with a single rose, handed it to the girl with the broken heart, smiled, then turned and left. As I reached the door, I turned and saw that she was smiling, and bouncing over to another table where an old man sat, alone. There was a spark of renewed happiness in her, and strangely enough, in spite of all my own troubles, I, too, was feeling happier for having given happiness to another. But my happiness soon faded as I watched her give that rose to that old man. I felt "used".
A few days later I returned to that coffee shop. The girl bounced over to me, all smiles and bubbling over with apparent joy. I told her that I was happy to be able to make some small difference in her mood that day, but was disappointed that she so readily gave away my gift. She smiled sweetly, grabbed my hand gently, and whispered, "Don't you know? You should, because I learned it from you. Happiness spreads when you give it away. You gave me the rose, and with it, happiness. I saw that lonely old man who had lost his wife last fall, and gave the rose to him, so that he, too, might share in the happiness. In giving him the rose, I found happiness a second time that day. And he returned next morning to say he gave the rose to a lady in the complex he lives in, and they are now spending time together. And that made me happy a third time. So, you see, the more happiness you give away, the more you have. I thought you knew!"
Thanks to the wisdom of that little 16 year-old girl, I have not had too many days without finding some happiness. All I have to do is give some away...
It works! And it's easy. Try it.
/
The REAL Reason The Left Insists On Increasing The Debt & Deficit
The administration keeps trying to convince us that we must spend more in order to fix the economy. Anyone who made it through pre-school knows you cannot borrow and spend your way to prosperity. So let's brush all the BS and liberal hype aside and try to determine the real reason they insist so strongly on spending us into oblivion, where Obama had added over $5 TRILLION in debt in just his first term (and, hopefully, his last).
In order to understand many things, it is necessary to start at the end rather than the beginning. It's like planning a vacation. First you determine WHERE you want to end up, and work backward from there. For instance, let's say you live in New York and want to be in San Diego in 6 days, driving there. So you start from the destination, San Diego. Assuming you know the approximate number of miles you can drive in a day, you then figure out where you have to be on Day 5 in order to reach San Diego on Day 6. Then you must figure where you must be on Day 4 in order to be in the Day 5 location on Day 5. And so on.
Understanding what the liberals are doing is similar - you must start from where they want to be, then move backward to understand why they do what they do. By and large, liberals - and especially progressives - want to end up with a socialist form of government in which the government has the power to rule its citizens (which is the opposite of what America was founded to be). And they understand the best way to accomplish that is to make the majority of citizens DEPENDENT upon government, much like a drug addict depends upon his dealer.
This means liberals want to create a state of dependency. But that cannot be accomplished unless and until the government can provide the entitlements the citizens would be addicted to. This means they must create entitlements, which also means they must have the money to pay for them.
Where to get that money? From those who have money - tax the rich. This is the mantra you constantly hear from those on the left, and now you know why - they need the money to create and pay for entitlements that will addict the populace so that they can be easily manipulated and controlled. Are you getting the picture?
But all of this, from start to finish, requires heavy taxation. But people oppose higher taxes. What to do?
Well, briefly put, liberals spend every dime, then borrow more and more until we are so far in debt that the only course of action is to increase taxes. The people will accept higher taxes in order to pay the debt because their entitlements are threatened if the debt is not paid - see what is going on in Greece to see how that works. If the Greek government were to tell the rioters that they can keep their entitlements but will have to force "the rich" pay more taxes, the riots would cease. But it would not stop at taxing the rich, because even the rich do not have that much money.
In order for progressivee liberals like Obama, Reid & Pelosi to establish the socialist state in America, they must first bankrupt the capitalist state, to "prove" that capitalism does not work. That's like breaking a marathon runner's leg in order to prove he can't win a marathon. He COULD have if he had not been sabotaged.
Obama is sabotaging capitalism, to prove it does not work. People will lose a lot, and will clamor for the government to "fix" things. And then the government will say, "OK, we can fix this, but you will have to relinquish your own power and give it to government. Only then can we "protect" you. And socialism will rule the day in America.
That is how it was done during the French revolution. And the Russian revolution. And in every nation that subjugated its citizens with socialism.
And in every case, socialism failed because it simply cannot work. You can re-read my alternate ending to the parable of The Little Red Hen, published on this blog just the other day.
So, progressive liberals insist on increasing spending and debt because they need to break the back of capitalism. They need to bankrupt America in order to, as Obama once said, "fundamentally transform America."
If unsure what he meant, look up the definition of "fundamental". That will tell you everything you need to know about him.
/
In order to understand many things, it is necessary to start at the end rather than the beginning. It's like planning a vacation. First you determine WHERE you want to end up, and work backward from there. For instance, let's say you live in New York and want to be in San Diego in 6 days, driving there. So you start from the destination, San Diego. Assuming you know the approximate number of miles you can drive in a day, you then figure out where you have to be on Day 5 in order to reach San Diego on Day 6. Then you must figure where you must be on Day 4 in order to be in the Day 5 location on Day 5. And so on.
Understanding what the liberals are doing is similar - you must start from where they want to be, then move backward to understand why they do what they do. By and large, liberals - and especially progressives - want to end up with a socialist form of government in which the government has the power to rule its citizens (which is the opposite of what America was founded to be). And they understand the best way to accomplish that is to make the majority of citizens DEPENDENT upon government, much like a drug addict depends upon his dealer.
This means liberals want to create a state of dependency. But that cannot be accomplished unless and until the government can provide the entitlements the citizens would be addicted to. This means they must create entitlements, which also means they must have the money to pay for them.
Where to get that money? From those who have money - tax the rich. This is the mantra you constantly hear from those on the left, and now you know why - they need the money to create and pay for entitlements that will addict the populace so that they can be easily manipulated and controlled. Are you getting the picture?
But all of this, from start to finish, requires heavy taxation. But people oppose higher taxes. What to do?
Well, briefly put, liberals spend every dime, then borrow more and more until we are so far in debt that the only course of action is to increase taxes. The people will accept higher taxes in order to pay the debt because their entitlements are threatened if the debt is not paid - see what is going on in Greece to see how that works. If the Greek government were to tell the rioters that they can keep their entitlements but will have to force "the rich" pay more taxes, the riots would cease. But it would not stop at taxing the rich, because even the rich do not have that much money.
In order for progressivee liberals like Obama, Reid & Pelosi to establish the socialist state in America, they must first bankrupt the capitalist state, to "prove" that capitalism does not work. That's like breaking a marathon runner's leg in order to prove he can't win a marathon. He COULD have if he had not been sabotaged.
Obama is sabotaging capitalism, to prove it does not work. People will lose a lot, and will clamor for the government to "fix" things. And then the government will say, "OK, we can fix this, but you will have to relinquish your own power and give it to government. Only then can we "protect" you. And socialism will rule the day in America.
That is how it was done during the French revolution. And the Russian revolution. And in every nation that subjugated its citizens with socialism.
And in every case, socialism failed because it simply cannot work. You can re-read my alternate ending to the parable of The Little Red Hen, published on this blog just the other day.
So, progressive liberals insist on increasing spending and debt because they need to break the back of capitalism. They need to bankrupt America in order to, as Obama once said, "fundamentally transform America."
If unsure what he meant, look up the definition of "fundamental". That will tell you everything you need to know about him.
/
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Uh-Oh...Another Bad Idea Made Worse...
From AOL News: "UnitedHealth Group's Optum business is launching a service that allows doctors to share information about patients over the Internet, as health care companies continue their push to improve care with better coordination.
"The system, known as cloud computing, involves storing information and software applications on remote servers that are accessed through a secure Internet connection."
As everyone who does not live on the moon knows, there is not a single server on planet Earth that cannot be hacked. Even the Pentagon's servers have been hacked, as well as those of the CIA.
Yet, these morons want us to belief our medical records are secure. Not by a long shot.
If a person's medical history is made available, it could cost them their job, their health insurance, their life insurance - and Lord only knows what else.
They say it will improve health care, but that's a lie. First, the only thing it improves is "convenience" for doctors. It has no effect on a person's actual health care. Second, it will actually degrade health care, as hundreds of thousands of people who are afraid their records will not remain private and secure may very well stop seeking medical care.
The real problem lies in the simple fact that this is a part of ObamaCare - forcing everyone by 2014 to make their medical records available for a national database.
Can anyone say "Big Brother"? Or maybe "catastrophe".
/
"The system, known as cloud computing, involves storing information and software applications on remote servers that are accessed through a secure Internet connection."
As everyone who does not live on the moon knows, there is not a single server on planet Earth that cannot be hacked. Even the Pentagon's servers have been hacked, as well as those of the CIA.
Yet, these morons want us to belief our medical records are secure. Not by a long shot.
If a person's medical history is made available, it could cost them their job, their health insurance, their life insurance - and Lord only knows what else.
They say it will improve health care, but that's a lie. First, the only thing it improves is "convenience" for doctors. It has no effect on a person's actual health care. Second, it will actually degrade health care, as hundreds of thousands of people who are afraid their records will not remain private and secure may very well stop seeking medical care.
The real problem lies in the simple fact that this is a part of ObamaCare - forcing everyone by 2014 to make their medical records available for a national database.
Can anyone say "Big Brother"? Or maybe "catastrophe".
/
It's Always A Bad Idea To Give Credit To Wrong Person, So...
It seems our erstwhile president is taking credit for a lot of things he had little or nothing to do with. Here is but one example:
Let's be clear on this -- Obama did NOT kill Bin Laden. An American sailor, who Obama, just a few weeks ago was debating on whether or not to pay, did. In fact, if you remember a little less than two years ago, his administration actually charged and attempted to court-martial 3 Navy Seals from Seal Team Six, when a terrorist suspect they captured had complained they had punched him during the take down and bloodied his nose. His administration further commented how brutal they were. The left were calling them Nazi's and Baby Killers. Now all of a sudden, the very brave men they vilified are now heroes when they make his administration look good in the eyes of the public. Obama just happened to be the one in office when the CIA finally found the bastard and our sailors took him out. Essentially, Obama only gave an answer. Yes or No, to him being taken out. This is NOT an Obama victory, but an AMERICAN victory!!
OBAMA'S OWN WORDS TRAP HIM:
2008: "Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney's private assassination team."
2011: "I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden."
2008: "Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a fair trial."
2011: "I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden."
2008: " Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated."
2011: "Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden."
Pass this post on to people who care about the truth.
/
Let's be clear on this -- Obama did NOT kill Bin Laden. An American sailor, who Obama, just a few weeks ago was debating on whether or not to pay, did. In fact, if you remember a little less than two years ago, his administration actually charged and attempted to court-martial 3 Navy Seals from Seal Team Six, when a terrorist suspect they captured had complained they had punched him during the take down and bloodied his nose. His administration further commented how brutal they were. The left were calling them Nazi's and Baby Killers. Now all of a sudden, the very brave men they vilified are now heroes when they make his administration look good in the eyes of the public. Obama just happened to be the one in office when the CIA finally found the bastard and our sailors took him out. Essentially, Obama only gave an answer. Yes or No, to him being taken out. This is NOT an Obama victory, but an AMERICAN victory!!
OBAMA'S OWN WORDS TRAP HIM:
2008: "Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney's private assassination team."
2011: "I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden."
2008: "Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a fair trial."
2011: "I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden."
2008: " Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated."
2011: "Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden."
Pass this post on to people who care about the truth.
/
Obama Again Tries Robbing Peter to Pay Paul
Anyone with an I.Q. that exceeds a single digit understands there is no gain when you take money out of one person's pocket and put it into someone else's. That is a transfer, a redistribution. It is not a creation of wealth. In fact, not only is it not a gain, it is actually a net loss since the person you took the money from is now angry with having been robbed, and may begin "hiding" his wealth better - like overseas - so it cannot be stolen so easily.
But here goes Obama again, and again it is with the so-called "green" crap. Already the government is stealing $7,500 from taxpayers for every Chevy Volt sold - taxpayers are helping pay for someone else's car. But that did not work - no one wants that piece of crap, not even when someone else is paying for it. So what does Obama try to do?
In his new budget he wants Congress to INCREASE the taxpayer subsidy to $10,000 per vehicle. If Obama gets his way, you, the taxpayer, will be paying even more to buy someone else a car.
To put this in perspective, what do you think would happen if someone in your community that you do not even know or like were to come up to you and say, "I wanna buy a new car. So I'm gonna take $10 from you and from every other person in town to help me pay for it."
Go ahead - tell me what would happen to that guy. And what would happen to him if he actually DID take that money from everyone.
Yes, he would be spending time in the Gray Bar Hotel pounding out license plates for YOUR car.
Yet, Obama and his liberal friends think it is perfectly OK to do that sort of thing, and they abuse their power of office to make it "legal". They call iit "social justice", when in fact it is nothing more than theft.
Legal or not, wrong is wrong. If it is wrong for you and me to do it, then it is wrong for Obama to do it.
'Nuff said.
/
But here goes Obama again, and again it is with the so-called "green" crap. Already the government is stealing $7,500 from taxpayers for every Chevy Volt sold - taxpayers are helping pay for someone else's car. But that did not work - no one wants that piece of crap, not even when someone else is paying for it. So what does Obama try to do?
In his new budget he wants Congress to INCREASE the taxpayer subsidy to $10,000 per vehicle. If Obama gets his way, you, the taxpayer, will be paying even more to buy someone else a car.
To put this in perspective, what do you think would happen if someone in your community that you do not even know or like were to come up to you and say, "I wanna buy a new car. So I'm gonna take $10 from you and from every other person in town to help me pay for it."
Go ahead - tell me what would happen to that guy. And what would happen to him if he actually DID take that money from everyone.
Yes, he would be spending time in the Gray Bar Hotel pounding out license plates for YOUR car.
Yet, Obama and his liberal friends think it is perfectly OK to do that sort of thing, and they abuse their power of office to make it "legal". They call iit "social justice", when in fact it is nothing more than theft.
Legal or not, wrong is wrong. If it is wrong for you and me to do it, then it is wrong for Obama to do it.
'Nuff said.
/
Monday, February 13, 2012
"Big Brother" Government Has Arrived
Today Congress passed a law that orders the FAA to prepare a plan to allow drones to fly in American airspace by 2015. But here is the nub - it is to allow a whopping 30,000 of them, spying on every square inch of America. That's one drone for every 10,000 people. While that sounds like a lot of people, consider that the average SMALL American town has nearly that many residents.
The government will be able to track your every move, every day.
As far as the government is concerned, no one is entitled to any privacy. It is scary to consider how all that information could be used to our detriment. Imagine if Hitler had that capability and knew in advance where they could find every living person of Jewish descent..
1984 is here...
/
The government will be able to track your every move, every day.
As far as the government is concerned, no one is entitled to any privacy. It is scary to consider how all that information could be used to our detriment. Imagine if Hitler had that capability and knew in advance where they could find every living person of Jewish descent..
1984 is here...
/
Since We Now Know Obama Is Not A Christian - What IS He?
President Obama keeps claiming he is a Christian. But as the Bible says, "ye shall know them by their deeds", not their words.
Obama spent the first few formative years of life learning Islam. He then "converted" to Christianity. However, for 20 years he attended - and swore by - Reverend Wright's Church of Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism. And, since he became president, it is rare indeed that he sets foot in a church.
Meanwhile, his administration has often attacked religion. The latest and most egregious attack is his insistence that people of faith must violate their faith in order to comply with King Barak's edict to provide abortion pills, sterilization and contraception.
To further indicate Obama does not have a Christian bone in his body are his repeated misuse of certain Biblical passages taken out of context and used to further a socialist agenda.
Although "social justice" has been shown to be diametrically opposed to Christianity, Obama insists the two are one in the same. He ignores all the passages about personal responsibility, and that it is the individual who must offer justice, voluntarily, in order for it to please God.
Obama has often claimed that Christianity requires some sort of "collective" redemption, even though the Bible explicitly states that redemption is a personal thing that each of us must seek for ourselves.
When you are FORCED to do something, it has no meaning, and therefore no value. If someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to say, "I love you", how much value is in that? None.
So, Obama has done many things to prove he is not really a Christian, and has done nothing to lead us to believe he is. If he is not a Christian, I think he owes it to us to tell us exactly what he DOES believe in.
And if the truth be known, the answer would likely be "socialism". The two are not very compatible.
/
Obama spent the first few formative years of life learning Islam. He then "converted" to Christianity. However, for 20 years he attended - and swore by - Reverend Wright's Church of Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism. And, since he became president, it is rare indeed that he sets foot in a church.
Meanwhile, his administration has often attacked religion. The latest and most egregious attack is his insistence that people of faith must violate their faith in order to comply with King Barak's edict to provide abortion pills, sterilization and contraception.
To further indicate Obama does not have a Christian bone in his body are his repeated misuse of certain Biblical passages taken out of context and used to further a socialist agenda.
Although "social justice" has been shown to be diametrically opposed to Christianity, Obama insists the two are one in the same. He ignores all the passages about personal responsibility, and that it is the individual who must offer justice, voluntarily, in order for it to please God.
Obama has often claimed that Christianity requires some sort of "collective" redemption, even though the Bible explicitly states that redemption is a personal thing that each of us must seek for ourselves.
When you are FORCED to do something, it has no meaning, and therefore no value. If someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to say, "I love you", how much value is in that? None.
So, Obama has done many things to prove he is not really a Christian, and has done nothing to lead us to believe he is. If he is not a Christian, I think he owes it to us to tell us exactly what he DOES believe in.
And if the truth be known, the answer would likely be "socialism". The two are not very compatible.
/
Again The Bears Are Biting The Hand That Fed Them
In state and national parks across the country the sign says, "DO NOT FEED THE BEARS." For good reason. When you feed bears, they start to assume that you are a food source. They get used to it. Soon, they demand it.
When I was in Yellowstone in '64, a man in the car ahead of us made that mistake. When he put his empty hand out to show the bear he had no more food to give, the bear clamped down on his hand and ripped it apart.
When you feed bears, and then stop feeding them when you run out of food, they get angry and attack you. They want more, and if you do not give them more, they will eat YOU!
People are no different. When you give them stuff, then stop, they get angry. We see it every time we run out of stuff to give our kids, or ask them to start earning their own way after a lifetime of giving them everything they wanted. And we see it today in places like Greece, where just this morning the "entitled" set fires to buildings and rioted in the streets because their government can no longer afford to hand out all the free goodies the citizens have come to expect. And we see it with unions that demand more and more while providing less and less.
The bears are attacking. In Greece. In Belgium. In France. In Spain. In England. And even here in America with the Occupy Wall Street mob.
The answer is not more entitlements. The answer is to stop adding entitlements as the current administration is doing and begin to wean people OFF the entitlements we now offer. If an entitlement cannot be self-sustaining and pay for itself, it should not exist. If an entitlement is anything more than a temporary aid, it should not exist.
/
When I was in Yellowstone in '64, a man in the car ahead of us made that mistake. When he put his empty hand out to show the bear he had no more food to give, the bear clamped down on his hand and ripped it apart.
When you feed bears, and then stop feeding them when you run out of food, they get angry and attack you. They want more, and if you do not give them more, they will eat YOU!
People are no different. When you give them stuff, then stop, they get angry. We see it every time we run out of stuff to give our kids, or ask them to start earning their own way after a lifetime of giving them everything they wanted. And we see it today in places like Greece, where just this morning the "entitled" set fires to buildings and rioted in the streets because their government can no longer afford to hand out all the free goodies the citizens have come to expect. And we see it with unions that demand more and more while providing less and less.
The bears are attacking. In Greece. In Belgium. In France. In Spain. In England. And even here in America with the Occupy Wall Street mob.
The answer is not more entitlements. The answer is to stop adding entitlements as the current administration is doing and begin to wean people OFF the entitlements we now offer. If an entitlement cannot be self-sustaining and pay for itself, it should not exist. If an entitlement is anything more than a temporary aid, it should not exist.
/
Little Red Hen - Back By Popular Demand
[The first part of this post is the original parable. The second part is how it would have been written by a liberal in La-La land].
For thousands of years we have taught our children valuable life lessons through stories. Even Jesus did it with His parables. And one of the most important stories that has been passed down for generations is "The Little Red Hen." It is important because it teaches our children how things work in real life. Unfortunately, few children are now taught this story in our liberal schools. If you have children, please make sure you teach them this most important story.
After the story, I have written an alternate ending that reflects the liberal view...
One day as the Little Red Hen was scratching in a field, she found a grain of wheat.
"This wheat should be planted," she said. "Who will plant this grain of wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.
Soon the wheat grew to be tall and yellow.
"The wheat is ripe," said the Little Red Hen. "Who will cut the wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.
When the wheat was cut, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will thresh the wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.
When the wheat was threshed, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will take this wheat to the mill?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.
She took the wheat to the mill and had it ground into flour. Then she said, "Who will make this flour into bread?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.
"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.
She made and baked the bread. Then she said, "Who will eat this bread?"
"Oh! I will," said the Duck.
"And I will," said the Cat.
"And I will," said the Dog.
"No, No!" said the Little Red Hen. "I will do that." And she did
In today's socialist view held by liberals, the story would end like this:
Farmer Brown comes out and takes the bread, and divides it equally among everyone, depriving the hen of what she earned, and giving it to those who chose not to do anything to help her.
The next spring, the little red hen found more seed. She pondered spending months planting, harvesting, threshing, milling and baking so she would have bread, knowing that no one would help her.
Then she remembered that farmer Brown would simply take it from her, and she made her choice ...
She ate the seed. And the Duck, Cat and Dog all went hungry. And in their hunger and desperation, they turned on farmer Brown, and ate HIM.
Jobs, and strong economies, are created by the industrious ones, the ones who work harder, invest their money, and take the risks. If you take away their incentive to do so by taking away their profits, they will no longer choose to do so. If you take away the profits from which they would expand, create more jobs, buy more inventory and produce more products, you destroy the engine that moves the economy.
The poor do not create jobs, or pay salaries. They do not buy investory, or pay shippers to move their products. They do not advertise, and in so doing provide jobs for those in the media. Only the rich can do those things. If you milk the rich so they can no longer do those things, everything stops. No matter HOW
Farmer Brown should take note.
Now, I don't think it would be wrong to give everyone an equal share of a harvest, PROVIDED they put IN an equal share of the effort, investment and risk, or the person is incapable - through no fault of their own - to help in the effort. But that is not what happens in a redistribution of wealth under liberals - they think everyone should get an equal share regardless; that the HARVEST should be divided equally, but not the EFFORT. That the lazy fool that watches soap operas and smokes pot all day should share in the profits of those who busted their butts all day working. That the person who works at 7-11 because he was too lazy to get an education should share in the rewards of those who spent years and tens of thousands on a college degree. That the spendthrift who invests nothing, and takes no risks should receive the benefits of those who risked everything to be an entrepreneur. And that is wrong!
NO ONE should be able to take more out than they put in, unless they are deemed physically or mentally incapable of taking care of themselves. Imagine trying to take more out of the bank than you put in! You would go to prison.
If Joe Blow wants an equal share, fine. He needs to put in an equal effort and risk.
In a nutshell, conservatives and liberals both believe in "give and take". A conservative believes each individual should give, and thereby is entitled to take. A liberal believes some people should give, while others take.
/
Friday, February 10, 2012
Obama's Shell Game - Money Laundering From The White House
Today the president appeared to back off his decision to usurp religious freedom. He said he would "accommodate" the Catholic Church.
Coupla things. First, religious freedom is a Constitutional right - not to be "accommodated." It is a guaranteed right. Period. But what really shows what the president and his cronies are all about is how he "accommodates."
Instead of the religious institutions being forced to pay for insurance that provides free contraception, religious institutions would be forced to pay for insurance that provides free contraception. So what is the "accommodation"? According to Obama it is simply that he now mandates (again, our elected Congress is not consulted - King Barak has spoken) that the insurance company would provide that service at THEIR cost.
The liberals just are not bright enough to understand. First, it's not just about who pays. It's about the freedom to say NO to something that violates your religious beliefs. To say NO to having to pay for insurance that provides contraception, no matter who pays for the contraception. It is no different from forcing a religious hospital to perform abortions, but having someone else pay for it. The religious hospital is still being forced to provide something that violates their beliefs.
Liberals miss the point entirely. They also seem to think freedom of religion applies only to churches, but the Constitution is clear - the freedoms and rights pertain to each and every indivuidual - you and I have the same right to freedom of religion as does the Cardinal. So giving some sort of bogus waiver to the church does nothing to preserve MY right to religious freedom. Obama shows his disdain for our rights almost daily, and a disrespect for the Constitution. They get in his way to be dictator, as does Congress.
But even if it were about who pays - ultimately, the policy holder pays, anyway. Until King Barak plants a money tree in the front yard of insurance companies, the only way they can pay for it is if they get the money from policy holders. So the church STILL pays for the contraception.
It's a classic shell game and money laundering scheme, typical of the Chicago mob tactics we have come to expect from this administration. If they were to do any of these things in the private sector they would be sharing a cell with their criminal Chicago pals.
/
Coupla things. First, religious freedom is a Constitutional right - not to be "accommodated." It is a guaranteed right. Period. But what really shows what the president and his cronies are all about is how he "accommodates."
Instead of the religious institutions being forced to pay for insurance that provides free contraception, religious institutions would be forced to pay for insurance that provides free contraception. So what is the "accommodation"? According to Obama it is simply that he now mandates (again, our elected Congress is not consulted - King Barak has spoken) that the insurance company would provide that service at THEIR cost.
The liberals just are not bright enough to understand. First, it's not just about who pays. It's about the freedom to say NO to something that violates your religious beliefs. To say NO to having to pay for insurance that provides contraception, no matter who pays for the contraception. It is no different from forcing a religious hospital to perform abortions, but having someone else pay for it. The religious hospital is still being forced to provide something that violates their beliefs.
Liberals miss the point entirely. They also seem to think freedom of religion applies only to churches, but the Constitution is clear - the freedoms and rights pertain to each and every indivuidual - you and I have the same right to freedom of religion as does the Cardinal. So giving some sort of bogus waiver to the church does nothing to preserve MY right to religious freedom. Obama shows his disdain for our rights almost daily, and a disrespect for the Constitution. They get in his way to be dictator, as does Congress.
But even if it were about who pays - ultimately, the policy holder pays, anyway. Until King Barak plants a money tree in the front yard of insurance companies, the only way they can pay for it is if they get the money from policy holders. So the church STILL pays for the contraception.
It's a classic shell game and money laundering scheme, typical of the Chicago mob tactics we have come to expect from this administration. If they were to do any of these things in the private sector they would be sharing a cell with their criminal Chicago pals.
/
The Left Has Shown Their Disdain For The Constitution
Over the last few years we have seen numerous assualts on the Constitution. The president by-passes Congress several times and passes laws, which violates the separation of powers clause. The administration forces citizens to buy certain products. The Justice Department refuses to enforce laws they do not like. And now the administrationj wants to place limitations on freedom of religion, although the First Amendment clearly states that freedom of religion may NOT be infringed.
But now a liberal has finally put it into words, point blank. On Fox this morning, one of the debaters concerning the contraception issue was liberal Sally Colmes. And Sally said that we "must not allow religious freedom to trump democratically passed laws." According to this liberal mindset, the Constitution is subject to Congressional lawmaking. And that is contrary to the law of the land.
The Constitution IS the law of the land. And any laws passed by Congress MUST be in keeping with the limitations in the Constitution as stated under the Limited Powers clause. Congress does not have the power to pass any law that is contrary to the Constitution.
Here's a newsflash for Ms Colmes and her anti-Constitutional loons on the left - The Constitution trumps ALL laws that are contrary to the Constitution. Period. Any law that is contrary to the Constitution is not a legal, enforceable law.
And the Constitution states in no uncertain terms that Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion or the FREE practice thereof. And no law passed by Congress, or mandated by King Barak can trump that.
/
But now a liberal has finally put it into words, point blank. On Fox this morning, one of the debaters concerning the contraception issue was liberal Sally Colmes. And Sally said that we "must not allow religious freedom to trump democratically passed laws." According to this liberal mindset, the Constitution is subject to Congressional lawmaking. And that is contrary to the law of the land.
The Constitution IS the law of the land. And any laws passed by Congress MUST be in keeping with the limitations in the Constitution as stated under the Limited Powers clause. Congress does not have the power to pass any law that is contrary to the Constitution.
Here's a newsflash for Ms Colmes and her anti-Constitutional loons on the left - The Constitution trumps ALL laws that are contrary to the Constitution. Period. Any law that is contrary to the Constitution is not a legal, enforceable law.
And the Constitution states in no uncertain terms that Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion or the FREE practice thereof. And no law passed by Congress, or mandated by King Barak can trump that.
/
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Women's Rights vs Religious Rights
As you probably are aware, the administration has arbitrarily decided, through an ObamaCare mandate, to force religious institutions to set aside their religious beliefs in favor of paying for contraceptives, abortion pills and sterilization procedures to their employees. Anyone who knows squat about the Constitution knows that is in direct violation of the First Amendment, which states emphatically that Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.
Liberals, however, like Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer are saying that women's rights should trump Constitutional Rights.
Let's get this straight - religious rights are in the Constitution, and are the ultimate law of the land. The rights in the Constitution are stated to be GOD given, not granted by the government, and therefore cannot be infringed or abridged. Women's rights, on the other hand, are not in the Constitution, and are only provided by government, not God. Moreover, women's "rights" are not true rights - a true right applies to every person, not just a specific group.
But here is the real kicker - the REASON liberals are trying to destroy our religious freedom, and it has nothing to do with women's rights - that is just a red herring...
Any woman who wants contraceptives, sterilization or abortion pills can get them from any number of non-religious clinics and hospitals. So the fact remains that allowing religious institutions a waiver would in no way prevent any woman from getting what she wants. Just go to a more secular clinic. Simple. Planned Parenthood gets millions each year to distribute contraceptives and abortion pills - women can go there if that is what they are seeking.
Since that is a fact, this obviously has nothing to do with women's rights. Liberals just use that to fire up support for their effort to weaken the power of religion in America. In fact, liberals would like nothing better than to completely destroy Christianity because it is the tenets of Christianity that hamper their agenda. Liberals want gay marriage - Christianity gets in the way. Liberals want drugs made legal - Christianity gets in the way. In fact, the lion's share of the liberal/progressive agenda is anti-Christian, including their so-called "social justice", which is actually the opposite of justice.
To further the liberal/progressive/socialist agenda, Christianity needs to be marginalized, if not completely destroyed. That is why the liberal "Warren Court" of the 60's and 70's ruled against God every chance they got - prayer in school, abortion etc. And it is why liberals ever since have done everything possible to get Christianity out of public view. To put this in a historical light, the first thing that the socialist French Revolution banned was religion EXCEPT that which suited their agenda. Hitler banned much religion, as did communist Russia. Religion gets in the way of socialist tyranny, so socialist tyrants must destroy it.
And now Obama is making a direct frontal assault on Christianity by violating the First Amendment.
If the liberals can force religious institutions to support and pay for abortion pills and contraceptives, what stops them from deciding white meat is healthier than red meat, and dictate by law that all religious institutions put pork on the menu? That would violate the religious beliefs of both Muslims and Jews. But if government can do the one, it can do the other. Here's hoping major pig farmers are not big Obama supporters.
Never in the history of this great nation has the government ever had the audacity, let alone the power, to dictate so much to the "free" citizens. But this administration forces us to buy health insurance. It forces religious institutions to violate their core beliefs. It forces taxpayers to bail out industry. It forces taxpayers to blow almost $2 billion on "green" energy that goes bankrupt. It is even forcing states to bow to the government via a multitude of lawsuits. I guess Obama forgot that states have rights that supercede the government.
Getting back to the issue that started this post, if you are a reader of this blog I am sure you are smart enough to see through what the liberals are doing. They are destroying religion, and using bogus smokescreens like "women's rights" to fool ignorant people into supporting them.
/
Liberals, however, like Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer are saying that women's rights should trump Constitutional Rights.
Let's get this straight - religious rights are in the Constitution, and are the ultimate law of the land. The rights in the Constitution are stated to be GOD given, not granted by the government, and therefore cannot be infringed or abridged. Women's rights, on the other hand, are not in the Constitution, and are only provided by government, not God. Moreover, women's "rights" are not true rights - a true right applies to every person, not just a specific group.
But here is the real kicker - the REASON liberals are trying to destroy our religious freedom, and it has nothing to do with women's rights - that is just a red herring...
Any woman who wants contraceptives, sterilization or abortion pills can get them from any number of non-religious clinics and hospitals. So the fact remains that allowing religious institutions a waiver would in no way prevent any woman from getting what she wants. Just go to a more secular clinic. Simple. Planned Parenthood gets millions each year to distribute contraceptives and abortion pills - women can go there if that is what they are seeking.
Since that is a fact, this obviously has nothing to do with women's rights. Liberals just use that to fire up support for their effort to weaken the power of religion in America. In fact, liberals would like nothing better than to completely destroy Christianity because it is the tenets of Christianity that hamper their agenda. Liberals want gay marriage - Christianity gets in the way. Liberals want drugs made legal - Christianity gets in the way. In fact, the lion's share of the liberal/progressive agenda is anti-Christian, including their so-called "social justice", which is actually the opposite of justice.
To further the liberal/progressive/socialist agenda, Christianity needs to be marginalized, if not completely destroyed. That is why the liberal "Warren Court" of the 60's and 70's ruled against God every chance they got - prayer in school, abortion etc. And it is why liberals ever since have done everything possible to get Christianity out of public view. To put this in a historical light, the first thing that the socialist French Revolution banned was religion EXCEPT that which suited their agenda. Hitler banned much religion, as did communist Russia. Religion gets in the way of socialist tyranny, so socialist tyrants must destroy it.
And now Obama is making a direct frontal assault on Christianity by violating the First Amendment.
If the liberals can force religious institutions to support and pay for abortion pills and contraceptives, what stops them from deciding white meat is healthier than red meat, and dictate by law that all religious institutions put pork on the menu? That would violate the religious beliefs of both Muslims and Jews. But if government can do the one, it can do the other. Here's hoping major pig farmers are not big Obama supporters.
Never in the history of this great nation has the government ever had the audacity, let alone the power, to dictate so much to the "free" citizens. But this administration forces us to buy health insurance. It forces religious institutions to violate their core beliefs. It forces taxpayers to bail out industry. It forces taxpayers to blow almost $2 billion on "green" energy that goes bankrupt. It is even forcing states to bow to the government via a multitude of lawsuits. I guess Obama forgot that states have rights that supercede the government.
Getting back to the issue that started this post, if you are a reader of this blog I am sure you are smart enough to see through what the liberals are doing. They are destroying religion, and using bogus smokescreens like "women's rights" to fool ignorant people into supporting them.
/
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
What Would We Do If Someone Commits Genocide In America?
What do you suppose we would do to any person or group responsible for genocide in America? More specifically, if we discover they were complicit in the deaths of 35 million people of color? What would you expect we should do if a group were to do this right here in America?
According to the Guttman Institute (which tracks this) the total number of babies aborted since 1973 is 52,008,665. Sixty-seven percent were among black women. This means abortions have claimed 34,845,805 black babies since Roe vs Wade. Note that Roe vs Wade was decided by a liberal Supreme Court (the infamous Warren Court, which also beat up on God). Since 1973, it is liberals, like the Senator who was a ranking KKK member, who have pushed hard to protect abortion "rights". If I did not know better, I might think liberals are actively trying to depopulate blacks in America. I am certain they are aware the majority of abortions are among minorities.
If those 35 million had been allowed to live, it would have resulted in another 50 million black children and millions more of grandchildren being born from them by 2025.
Imagine - 100 million black people that will never breathe their first breath, or contribute to society.
I'll state it clearly - liberals are directly responsible for the deaths of 35 million blacks in America and their future generations. They call it "reproductive rights." I call it genocide. And I find it ironic that most black people keep voting for liberals.
/
According to the Guttman Institute (which tracks this) the total number of babies aborted since 1973 is 52,008,665. Sixty-seven percent were among black women. This means abortions have claimed 34,845,805 black babies since Roe vs Wade. Note that Roe vs Wade was decided by a liberal Supreme Court (the infamous Warren Court, which also beat up on God). Since 1973, it is liberals, like the Senator who was a ranking KKK member, who have pushed hard to protect abortion "rights". If I did not know better, I might think liberals are actively trying to depopulate blacks in America. I am certain they are aware the majority of abortions are among minorities.
If those 35 million had been allowed to live, it would have resulted in another 50 million black children and millions more of grandchildren being born from them by 2025.
Imagine - 100 million black people that will never breathe their first breath, or contribute to society.
I'll state it clearly - liberals are directly responsible for the deaths of 35 million blacks in America and their future generations. They call it "reproductive rights." I call it genocide. And I find it ironic that most black people keep voting for liberals.
/
Why It Is Unconstitutional To Use Union Dues To Fund Political Campaigns
It's no secret the unions in America use millions each election cycle to get liberal democrats elected. In 2008, unions donated $400 million to the Obama campaign. But here is why it is unconstitutional and Congress should solidify that fact by specifying it to be illegal...
Most union members are forced to pay dues - they have no choice. But many are not liberal Democrats. Why should money be taken FROM them, and then used AGAINST them to further liberal ideals the dues payer is opposed to? It is morally wrong to force someone to do something that is designed to do him harm. But that is the least of it.
A majority of Americans think abortion is wrong, so it stands to reason that a majority of union members feel that way. When they are forced to pay for advocating abortion, the courts have already ruled that is unconsttutional, particularly if the person objects to abortion on religious grounds. A person cannot be forced to violate his religion. Yet, unions pay out millions in union dues to elect people who will advocate for abortion, and many other issues that violate some peoples' core beliefs. That is in direct opposition to our rights.
Here is the short take -- this is exactly the same as if the government were to impose a tax on Christians to be used to destroy Christianity.
At the very least Congress should pass a law that states each union member may choose to disallow any portion of his or her dues to be used to fund any political campaign or agenda.
I will tell you, if I were in a union by force, and forced to pay dues, I would sue the unions for violating my First Amendment rights. The Constitution is clear - a person's religious beliefs are sacred and must not be infringed.
/
Most union members are forced to pay dues - they have no choice. But many are not liberal Democrats. Why should money be taken FROM them, and then used AGAINST them to further liberal ideals the dues payer is opposed to? It is morally wrong to force someone to do something that is designed to do him harm. But that is the least of it.
A majority of Americans think abortion is wrong, so it stands to reason that a majority of union members feel that way. When they are forced to pay for advocating abortion, the courts have already ruled that is unconsttutional, particularly if the person objects to abortion on religious grounds. A person cannot be forced to violate his religion. Yet, unions pay out millions in union dues to elect people who will advocate for abortion, and many other issues that violate some peoples' core beliefs. That is in direct opposition to our rights.
Here is the short take -- this is exactly the same as if the government were to impose a tax on Christians to be used to destroy Christianity.
At the very least Congress should pass a law that states each union member may choose to disallow any portion of his or her dues to be used to fund any political campaign or agenda.
I will tell you, if I were in a union by force, and forced to pay dues, I would sue the unions for violating my First Amendment rights. The Constitution is clear - a person's religious beliefs are sacred and must not be infringed.
/
How Did Santorum Sweep All Three States Yesterday? Here's How...
In a surprise to all the pundits - and even more so to Romney - Rick Santorum won all three caucuses yesterday, and won them by very wide margins. How could that be?
Simple.
Those states are in the "heartland" of America, where people still believe in hard work and live by common sense and logic. They still have traditional America values. They may or may not be "country bumpkins", but they are not fooled by city slickers with smooth tongues.
So, they could not vote for Romney, whom they see as a not-so-conservative moderate who does not even know their values, let alone share them. And they can't quite get behind Gingrich because they see through the pandering, and dislike the "I'm smarter" attitude. And Ron Paul - well, the heartland strongly believes in military might to keep the wolves away, and Mr Paul is not big on military.
So that left Santorum. And while it took most pundits by surprise, I'm not the least bit surprised. I can't see how it could have gone any other way.
Perhaps if more of the pundits lived in the heartland....
/
Simple.
Those states are in the "heartland" of America, where people still believe in hard work and live by common sense and logic. They still have traditional America values. They may or may not be "country bumpkins", but they are not fooled by city slickers with smooth tongues.
So, they could not vote for Romney, whom they see as a not-so-conservative moderate who does not even know their values, let alone share them. And they can't quite get behind Gingrich because they see through the pandering, and dislike the "I'm smarter" attitude. And Ron Paul - well, the heartland strongly believes in military might to keep the wolves away, and Mr Paul is not big on military.
So that left Santorum. And while it took most pundits by surprise, I'm not the least bit surprised. I can't see how it could have gone any other way.
Perhaps if more of the pundits lived in the heartland....
/
The Epitome Of Hypocrisy....
Here's a scenario for you, followed by a question...
Joe Blow is a Wall Street Occupier. He hates capitalism. He tells everyone that capitalism is wrong. He says we should "take down" capitalists, and take away what they have. You get the picture. (I'm not saying all OWS folks are like that, but THIS guy is, OK?)
But here's the reality behind Joe Blow - he buys an iPod because everyone else has one. He buys a car because all his neighbors have a car. He even buys a house because everyone else in his neighborhood has one. But he says he only buys those things because "I have to keep up with the Joneses. I can't compete with them otherwise". But isn't competition the defining factor in capitalism? Why would he WANT to compete if he is anti-capitalist? He still says he is anti-capitalism, but is only going along with it because everyone else is.
Here's the question - is there a bigger hypocrite than Joe? If anti-capitalism is his belief, shouldn't he be living according to those beliefs? The definition of "hypocrite" is anyone who is not true to their own beliefs.
Now here's the real kicker...
Barack Obama has stated many times that "super pacs" are bad, and even unAmerican. He even scolded the Supreme Court for allowing them (although it is a little thing called the Constitution that allows them.) But now he is endorsing his own super pacs, and his reason is the same as Joe Blow's - he has to compete with the Joneses. He says he must use super pacs because the Republicans are using them.
Whatever happened to being true to your beliefs? Your principles? Are super pacs any less "unAmerican" because he is simply trying to keep up with the Joneses?
Using Obama's logic, it would be OK for America to compromise their principles, as long as they are only doing what everyone else does. If China cheats on the value of their currency, then we can cheat on ours. And if Iran tortures our people, then we can torture theirs.
Here's the point - principles should never be compromised. Never. You can compromise on how you go about them, but not on the principles, themselves.
Obama ia apparently a two-faced hypocrite of the highest order. It should come as no surprise that he has no respect for the religious beliefs of Catholics when he can't even show respect to his own beliefs. To Obama, anything can be sold down the river or thrown under the bus in order to stay in power.
Kinda sounds like Assad, doesn't it?
/
Joe Blow is a Wall Street Occupier. He hates capitalism. He tells everyone that capitalism is wrong. He says we should "take down" capitalists, and take away what they have. You get the picture. (I'm not saying all OWS folks are like that, but THIS guy is, OK?)
But here's the reality behind Joe Blow - he buys an iPod because everyone else has one. He buys a car because all his neighbors have a car. He even buys a house because everyone else in his neighborhood has one. But he says he only buys those things because "I have to keep up with the Joneses. I can't compete with them otherwise". But isn't competition the defining factor in capitalism? Why would he WANT to compete if he is anti-capitalist? He still says he is anti-capitalism, but is only going along with it because everyone else is.
Here's the question - is there a bigger hypocrite than Joe? If anti-capitalism is his belief, shouldn't he be living according to those beliefs? The definition of "hypocrite" is anyone who is not true to their own beliefs.
Now here's the real kicker...
Barack Obama has stated many times that "super pacs" are bad, and even unAmerican. He even scolded the Supreme Court for allowing them (although it is a little thing called the Constitution that allows them.) But now he is endorsing his own super pacs, and his reason is the same as Joe Blow's - he has to compete with the Joneses. He says he must use super pacs because the Republicans are using them.
Whatever happened to being true to your beliefs? Your principles? Are super pacs any less "unAmerican" because he is simply trying to keep up with the Joneses?
Using Obama's logic, it would be OK for America to compromise their principles, as long as they are only doing what everyone else does. If China cheats on the value of their currency, then we can cheat on ours. And if Iran tortures our people, then we can torture theirs.
Here's the point - principles should never be compromised. Never. You can compromise on how you go about them, but not on the principles, themselves.
Obama ia apparently a two-faced hypocrite of the highest order. It should come as no surprise that he has no respect for the religious beliefs of Catholics when he can't even show respect to his own beliefs. To Obama, anything can be sold down the river or thrown under the bus in order to stay in power.
Kinda sounds like Assad, doesn't it?
/
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Did You Know - A Deadly Part Of ObamaCare...
Not many people are aware of the many, many bad things lurking within ObamaCare. But there is one in particular that will result in the untimely deaths of many seniors.
Starting in just 8 months - October 2012 - hospitals will be penalized if they spend more on the care of seniors than the Department of Health & Human Services likes. Hospitals that reduce those costs will be rewarded.
Now tell me - what hospital is going to risk penalties? How many seniors will be kicked out a day (too) early, or be deprived of necessary tests? Studies have already shown that the death rate is substantially higher among those who leave the hospital even a day earlier than they should.
Of course, there are hundreds of other vicious little things in ObamaCare. For example, if you sell a house or other asset (like stocks) you will be taxed an ADDITIONAL 3.8% on the proceeds, over and above any capital gains taxes. So, if you bought a home when young, paid off the mortgage over 30 years and now your home is worth $100,000 more than what you paid, you will have to pay (currently) $15,000 in cap gains PLUS another $3,800 in taxes. And anyone - especially the elderly - who sells off stocks and bonds to supplement their income will lose an additional 3.8% of their net gains, over and above cap gains taxes.
And DHHS can dictate to hospitals and doctors that they will not pay for certain tests, medications or services if it is determined to be too costly for the "return on investment." In other words, if you are too old to offer much to society, you may not be able to get expensive treatment. As far as I am concerned, that truly is a "death panel" of sorts. In fact, the FDA has already rejected two very expensive cancer treatments that had already been approved. They rejected them because of their cost - and Medicare does not want to cover those costs. If the FDA does not approve a medicine or procedure, Medicare won't pay for it. Get it?
We need to get rid of ObamaCare. And we need to replace it with something more effective, easier, less expensive, and does not infringe on our liberties or choices.
/
Starting in just 8 months - October 2012 - hospitals will be penalized if they spend more on the care of seniors than the Department of Health & Human Services likes. Hospitals that reduce those costs will be rewarded.
Now tell me - what hospital is going to risk penalties? How many seniors will be kicked out a day (too) early, or be deprived of necessary tests? Studies have already shown that the death rate is substantially higher among those who leave the hospital even a day earlier than they should.
Of course, there are hundreds of other vicious little things in ObamaCare. For example, if you sell a house or other asset (like stocks) you will be taxed an ADDITIONAL 3.8% on the proceeds, over and above any capital gains taxes. So, if you bought a home when young, paid off the mortgage over 30 years and now your home is worth $100,000 more than what you paid, you will have to pay (currently) $15,000 in cap gains PLUS another $3,800 in taxes. And anyone - especially the elderly - who sells off stocks and bonds to supplement their income will lose an additional 3.8% of their net gains, over and above cap gains taxes.
And DHHS can dictate to hospitals and doctors that they will not pay for certain tests, medications or services if it is determined to be too costly for the "return on investment." In other words, if you are too old to offer much to society, you may not be able to get expensive treatment. As far as I am concerned, that truly is a "death panel" of sorts. In fact, the FDA has already rejected two very expensive cancer treatments that had already been approved. They rejected them because of their cost - and Medicare does not want to cover those costs. If the FDA does not approve a medicine or procedure, Medicare won't pay for it. Get it?
We need to get rid of ObamaCare. And we need to replace it with something more effective, easier, less expensive, and does not infringe on our liberties or choices.
/
Forcing States To Act - Then Suing Because They Do...
The Justice Department has sued Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah over laws that crack down on illegal immigrants, saying they interfere with the federal government's control over immigration.
I have some issues with this. Not the least of which is the absolute fact that the federal government has NO control over immigration, which is obvious to anyone who can count to 12 million.
But more to the point, state laws that prohibit, say, distribution of welfare to illegals do not interefere with anyone's control over immigration. Just because it AFFECTS illegal immigrants does not make it an immigration control issue.
If a state limits welfare to citizens, that in no way interferes with the government to control the actual immigration of those people. It only affects people the government FAILED to control. But the laws, themselves, do not interfere with any government attempt to control immigration.
Ergo, the (in)Justice Department really should keep their noses out of state affairs. Every state, like every individual, has not only a right but an obligation to defend itself. And if the government won't do their job, then the states are forced to.
/
I have some issues with this. Not the least of which is the absolute fact that the federal government has NO control over immigration, which is obvious to anyone who can count to 12 million.
But more to the point, state laws that prohibit, say, distribution of welfare to illegals do not interefere with anyone's control over immigration. Just because it AFFECTS illegal immigrants does not make it an immigration control issue.
If a state limits welfare to citizens, that in no way interferes with the government to control the actual immigration of those people. It only affects people the government FAILED to control. But the laws, themselves, do not interfere with any government attempt to control immigration.
Ergo, the (in)Justice Department really should keep their noses out of state affairs. Every state, like every individual, has not only a right but an obligation to defend itself. And if the government won't do their job, then the states are forced to.
/
Monday, February 6, 2012
Once More - What Happens When You Tax The Rich...
OK, so a lot of uninformed Americans think we should tax the rich some more. They simply fail to understand that they are shooting themselves in the foot. Here is what really happens that the liberals do not want you to figure out...
Bill Gates says to Obama, "Sure thing, raise my taxes. That's a good thing, and I can afford it."
So Obama raises his taxes.
Gates did not get rich by being dumb, or by wasting money. So he tells his CEO to increase the cost of Microsoft products enough to cover those extra taxes. In this way, he gets to say he is a big-time taxpayer, but in reality he pays nothing - his customers do. The taxes he pays comes from money garnered from his customers. Taxes are a cost of doing business, and are factored into the prices consumers pay.
So, every time you buy a product or pay for a service, you, the consumer, end up paying all those taxes on the rich in the form of higher prices.
Because prices have risen, you must get a "cost of living" raise from your employer. You are now passing all those taxes onto your employer. But since your employer does not have a money tree out back, he must raise the prices of his products & services in order to cover his employee's raises.
Now the consumer pays even more for goods and services.
If your employer makes Ramen soup, the cost of Ramen - a staple among the poor - goes up. The poor become poorer because now THEY are paying all those taxes.
Taxes flow downhill. Always. Everyone passes them down to those below them. The only ones who cannot are the poor, because there is no one below them to pass them off to.
Bill Gates shows how he is paying the majority of taxes, and he is lauded as a hero. Meanwhile, the consumer gets hit with higher prices. And the poor become ever poorer.
The poverty rate in 1965 when LBJ began the war on poverty and boosted welfare was a whopping 15.1%. After 45 years and $16 trillion spent on welfare, the poverty rate remains at 15.1%.
We blew $16 trillion, and in the process all of that spending required an additional $16 trillion in taxes that resulted in raising prices for everything we buy. That's because that tax money must come from somewhere. The government cannot spend $16 trillion without taking that $16 trillion from the taxpayers.
In other words, exactly nothing was accomplished. Nothing, that is, except making things more expensive and creating a widening gap between rich and poor.
Liberals blame the "wealth gap" on Republicans, but the fact remains it is caused largely by our tax system - a system put into place, and constantly being raised, by Democrats.
/
Bill Gates says to Obama, "Sure thing, raise my taxes. That's a good thing, and I can afford it."
So Obama raises his taxes.
Gates did not get rich by being dumb, or by wasting money. So he tells his CEO to increase the cost of Microsoft products enough to cover those extra taxes. In this way, he gets to say he is a big-time taxpayer, but in reality he pays nothing - his customers do. The taxes he pays comes from money garnered from his customers. Taxes are a cost of doing business, and are factored into the prices consumers pay.
So, every time you buy a product or pay for a service, you, the consumer, end up paying all those taxes on the rich in the form of higher prices.
Because prices have risen, you must get a "cost of living" raise from your employer. You are now passing all those taxes onto your employer. But since your employer does not have a money tree out back, he must raise the prices of his products & services in order to cover his employee's raises.
Now the consumer pays even more for goods and services.
If your employer makes Ramen soup, the cost of Ramen - a staple among the poor - goes up. The poor become poorer because now THEY are paying all those taxes.
Taxes flow downhill. Always. Everyone passes them down to those below them. The only ones who cannot are the poor, because there is no one below them to pass them off to.
Bill Gates shows how he is paying the majority of taxes, and he is lauded as a hero. Meanwhile, the consumer gets hit with higher prices. And the poor become ever poorer.
The poverty rate in 1965 when LBJ began the war on poverty and boosted welfare was a whopping 15.1%. After 45 years and $16 trillion spent on welfare, the poverty rate remains at 15.1%.
We blew $16 trillion, and in the process all of that spending required an additional $16 trillion in taxes that resulted in raising prices for everything we buy. That's because that tax money must come from somewhere. The government cannot spend $16 trillion without taking that $16 trillion from the taxpayers.
In other words, exactly nothing was accomplished. Nothing, that is, except making things more expensive and creating a widening gap between rich and poor.
Liberals blame the "wealth gap" on Republicans, but the fact remains it is caused largely by our tax system - a system put into place, and constantly being raised, by Democrats.
/
Saturday, February 4, 2012
No Wonder Why Justice Ginsberg Doesn't Follow The Constitution...
In an interview, SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg said the Constitution of the United States is not a good model for Democracy. I assume this is why she and other liberals choose to ignore it so often.
Here's a newsflash for Justice Ginsberg, who obviously needs to go back and take 7th Grade Civics 101 - America is not a Democracy. In fact, the founders specifically rejected a democracy as our form of government, and chose instead a REPUBLIC, which is far different from a Democracy.
And therein lies the basis for most of the trouble in America - altogether too many people are unaware of that simple fact. Even our Congressmen and presidents seem to think America is supposed to be a Democracy. It is not. Worse yet, some think a Republic is a democracy. It is not.
Until FDR, every school child knew America was a Republic and not a democracy. Then FDR started calling it a democracy, and the liberal editors of school textbooks changed the reference from a Republic to a Democracy. Entire texts were devoted to convincing Americans that we live in a democracy.
Why did FDR initiate such a change? Because liberalism cannot survive in a Republic, but thrives in a democracy. To understand this, one should first understand the difference.
In a Republic, every individual is equal in rights and powers as every other. No person - or group of persons - can take away the rights of anyone. But in a Democracy. the majority rules. If a majority of the people decide on something, everyone is forced to go along, which robs those in the minority of their rights under a Republic. You could say that the only political party that has it right is the Libertarian party.
In a country where the majority rules, liberals can gain power and, using majority rule, build a nanny state of dependent citizens and work toward a socialist state. That could not happen in a Republic. Which is precisely why the founders specifically decided America would be a Republic.
If you doubt the intentions of the founders on this issue, read Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, where it states, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."
The founders understood - as did FDR and the progressive liberals that followed - that a democracy always devolves into socialism, simply because once the people discover they can use majority rule to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others, they will do so. So the founders chose a Republic. Liberals chose a democracy.
It would be a very good thing if, before allowing anyone to sit on the Supreme Court that we insist they swear allegiance to the REPUBLIC of the United States, and understand that America is NOT a Democracy, nor should it be. If they do not understand that simple concept upon which the Constitution was written, they should not be passing judgement on any issues.
Before I sign off, remember...
It is the "Battle Hymn of the Republic", not "Battle Hymn of the Democracy"
And it is "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..." It is not "and to the Democracy for which it stands".
We, the people are losing our rights, power and control over our destiny simply because we choose to remain ignorant of what our rights are, and how to protect them.
"A primary object...should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a Republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing...than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country." GEORGE WASHINGTON
/
Here's a newsflash for Justice Ginsberg, who obviously needs to go back and take 7th Grade Civics 101 - America is not a Democracy. In fact, the founders specifically rejected a democracy as our form of government, and chose instead a REPUBLIC, which is far different from a Democracy.
And therein lies the basis for most of the trouble in America - altogether too many people are unaware of that simple fact. Even our Congressmen and presidents seem to think America is supposed to be a Democracy. It is not. Worse yet, some think a Republic is a democracy. It is not.
Until FDR, every school child knew America was a Republic and not a democracy. Then FDR started calling it a democracy, and the liberal editors of school textbooks changed the reference from a Republic to a Democracy. Entire texts were devoted to convincing Americans that we live in a democracy.
Why did FDR initiate such a change? Because liberalism cannot survive in a Republic, but thrives in a democracy. To understand this, one should first understand the difference.
In a Republic, every individual is equal in rights and powers as every other. No person - or group of persons - can take away the rights of anyone. But in a Democracy. the majority rules. If a majority of the people decide on something, everyone is forced to go along, which robs those in the minority of their rights under a Republic. You could say that the only political party that has it right is the Libertarian party.
In a country where the majority rules, liberals can gain power and, using majority rule, build a nanny state of dependent citizens and work toward a socialist state. That could not happen in a Republic. Which is precisely why the founders specifically decided America would be a Republic.
If you doubt the intentions of the founders on this issue, read Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, where it states, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."
The founders understood - as did FDR and the progressive liberals that followed - that a democracy always devolves into socialism, simply because once the people discover they can use majority rule to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others, they will do so. So the founders chose a Republic. Liberals chose a democracy.
It would be a very good thing if, before allowing anyone to sit on the Supreme Court that we insist they swear allegiance to the REPUBLIC of the United States, and understand that America is NOT a Democracy, nor should it be. If they do not understand that simple concept upon which the Constitution was written, they should not be passing judgement on any issues.
Before I sign off, remember...
It is the "Battle Hymn of the Republic", not "Battle Hymn of the Democracy"
And it is "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..." It is not "and to the Democracy for which it stands".
We, the people are losing our rights, power and control over our destiny simply because we choose to remain ignorant of what our rights are, and how to protect them.
"A primary object...should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a Republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing...than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country." GEORGE WASHINGTON
/
STUDY: Obesity May Be Contagious...
A recent study indicates that obesity may be contagious. It appears that alterations in gut microbes may increase the susceptibility to obesity and fatty liver disease and also make it possible to spread these diseases.
To cut the technical stuff, our intestines support "good" microbes - bacteria that helps keep us healthy in a symbiotic relationship. When those good microbes are decimated, "bad" microbes flourish, causing a whole lot of problems - even vision difficulties. You name it - if it is screwing up your health, there's a fair chance it is because of a shortage of good microbes. And the things that cause obesity can be triggered, as well.
There are several things that can decimate the population of good flora in the gut, but the biggest offender is antibiotics. Doctors prescibe antibiotics indiscriminately, but never get around to telling you that once your prescription is used up, you really need to replenish the good flora - antibiotics kill ALL the bacteria - the good and the bad. After a regimen of antibiotics, you should always pop probiotics for several days. Or, down a bunch of live culture yogurt for a week or two.
But that is not the only problem. Many of today's meat animals are fed antibiotics to keep them healthy in cramped conditions. The meat is infused with antibiotics, so unless you only eat naturally raised grass fed meat, you still need to boost the good flora regularly.
I'm not saying that probiotics will prevent obesity caused by over eating or eating bad choices. But there is evidence it will help prevent any obesity caused by contagion.
In choosing a probiotic, understand that stomach acids will kill most of the good flora before it can get to the gut, so you need to take them regularly. But the ones that do survive will multiply and populate your intestines.
/
To cut the technical stuff, our intestines support "good" microbes - bacteria that helps keep us healthy in a symbiotic relationship. When those good microbes are decimated, "bad" microbes flourish, causing a whole lot of problems - even vision difficulties. You name it - if it is screwing up your health, there's a fair chance it is because of a shortage of good microbes. And the things that cause obesity can be triggered, as well.
There are several things that can decimate the population of good flora in the gut, but the biggest offender is antibiotics. Doctors prescibe antibiotics indiscriminately, but never get around to telling you that once your prescription is used up, you really need to replenish the good flora - antibiotics kill ALL the bacteria - the good and the bad. After a regimen of antibiotics, you should always pop probiotics for several days. Or, down a bunch of live culture yogurt for a week or two.
But that is not the only problem. Many of today's meat animals are fed antibiotics to keep them healthy in cramped conditions. The meat is infused with antibiotics, so unless you only eat naturally raised grass fed meat, you still need to boost the good flora regularly.
I'm not saying that probiotics will prevent obesity caused by over eating or eating bad choices. But there is evidence it will help prevent any obesity caused by contagion.
In choosing a probiotic, understand that stomach acids will kill most of the good flora before it can get to the gut, so you need to take them regularly. But the ones that do survive will multiply and populate your intestines.
/
Friday, February 3, 2012
Obama Claims God Wants The Rich To Pay More - But Does He?...
President Obama says God wants the rich to pay more taxes, and he refers to luke 14:28 where it says, "From those who have much, much is demanded."
But before anyone jumps to the conclusion that the verse proves God approves of socialism or social justice through taxation, consider the value of someone saying "I love you" with a gun pointed at their head and being forced to say it. Just how much meaning would it have? How much value?
Throughout the Bible the Lord indicates that He wants us to CHOOSE to do the right thing, because the use of force negates its value. We know this because the very first thing God gave us in Genesis after giving us life is the gift of FREE WILL. And from that point on, He makes it clear that He wants us to be righteous by choice, not by force. Because force eliminates the righteousness of the act.
We also know this is true because God has the power to force us all to do whatever He wants. But we do not see Him doing that, do we? If He, Himself will not force us to give more or do more, why would anyone believe that force is the way to accomplish goodness?
I fully agree that God wants us all to do whatever we can to make this a better world, each according to his or her ability. But I also know that unless we CHOOSE to do it, voluntarily, then the entire purpose is usurped.
God is testing each of us. In order to know which of us is at least trying to be righteous, our actions must be voluntary. We win no points by being forced into doing good.
/
But before anyone jumps to the conclusion that the verse proves God approves of socialism or social justice through taxation, consider the value of someone saying "I love you" with a gun pointed at their head and being forced to say it. Just how much meaning would it have? How much value?
Throughout the Bible the Lord indicates that He wants us to CHOOSE to do the right thing, because the use of force negates its value. We know this because the very first thing God gave us in Genesis after giving us life is the gift of FREE WILL. And from that point on, He makes it clear that He wants us to be righteous by choice, not by force. Because force eliminates the righteousness of the act.
We also know this is true because God has the power to force us all to do whatever He wants. But we do not see Him doing that, do we? If He, Himself will not force us to give more or do more, why would anyone believe that force is the way to accomplish goodness?
I fully agree that God wants us all to do whatever we can to make this a better world, each according to his or her ability. But I also know that unless we CHOOSE to do it, voluntarily, then the entire purpose is usurped.
God is testing each of us. In order to know which of us is at least trying to be righteous, our actions must be voluntary. We win no points by being forced into doing good.
/
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Komen Foundation vs Planned Parenthood
It seems the abortion folks are out in force today with their "spin". The Susan Komen Foundation ceased their grants to Planned Parenthood because they have a policy that they cannot fund any organizatioin that is under investigation. Planned Parenthood is under a Congressional investigation.
But the baby-killing crowd spin it as if the grant money was used for "cancer screenings" for underpriviledged women. In fact, the far-left loons at HuffPost went so far as to say, "...Planned Parenthood, primarily a women's health and family planning organization, over the fact that some of its clinics offer abortions."
The truth is really quite different - studies indicate that most of the funds received by Planned Parenthood go toward abortions, which are, by far, more expensive than screenings. But the left won't admit to that. And it is precisely why Planned Parenthood is under Congressional investigation.
The left also claim that the "underpriviledged women" they serve will have nowhere else to turn for "cancer screenings". That is a bold-faced lie. Underpriviledged women generally get welfare, medicaid etc. and can get cancer screenings almost anywhere. What they CANNOT get from Medicaid or Medicare is an abortion. So, despite the BS from Planned Parenthood and the left, this is about paying for abortions, not cancer screenings.
Here is a simple solution to the entire problem of whether or not funding goes toward abortion or not - Planned Parenthood could simply separate the two functions. Each kept separate, with separate bank accounts. One org would be strictly for abortions, and the other would be strictly for other women's services. In this way they could easily prove what funds are going for what.
But they have repeatedly refused to do so. Why do you suppose that is? Anyone with an I.Q. of at least two digits knows why.
/
But the baby-killing crowd spin it as if the grant money was used for "cancer screenings" for underpriviledged women. In fact, the far-left loons at HuffPost went so far as to say, "...Planned Parenthood, primarily a women's health and family planning organization, over the fact that some of its clinics offer abortions."
The truth is really quite different - studies indicate that most of the funds received by Planned Parenthood go toward abortions, which are, by far, more expensive than screenings. But the left won't admit to that. And it is precisely why Planned Parenthood is under Congressional investigation.
The left also claim that the "underpriviledged women" they serve will have nowhere else to turn for "cancer screenings". That is a bold-faced lie. Underpriviledged women generally get welfare, medicaid etc. and can get cancer screenings almost anywhere. What they CANNOT get from Medicaid or Medicare is an abortion. So, despite the BS from Planned Parenthood and the left, this is about paying for abortions, not cancer screenings.
Here is a simple solution to the entire problem of whether or not funding goes toward abortion or not - Planned Parenthood could simply separate the two functions. Each kept separate, with separate bank accounts. One org would be strictly for abortions, and the other would be strictly for other women's services. In this way they could easily prove what funds are going for what.
But they have repeatedly refused to do so. Why do you suppose that is? Anyone with an I.Q. of at least two digits knows why.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)