Most people are not even aware of a very serious attack on our Freedom of Religion. Thanks to the far-left loons on the liberal Warren court in the 60's, religion has been kicked out of schools. But guess what? Atheism has not. Atheist Clubs are on the rise in U.S. High Schools.
So there it is - you can learn about atheism in school, but you cannot learn about religion. Pretty one-sided. And that is exactly how liberals force their beliefs on others - by stifling free speech if it does not agree with them.
They do the same thing with Creation vs Evolution - in most schools it is ILLEGAL to teach Creationism, but is mandatory to teach Evolution. Again, they cannot win the argument so they shut down the discussion and make it one-sided. THEIR side.
And they do the same with the so-called "Climate Change", even though most sane scientists no longer subscribe to it.
Now you know why so many liberal school administrators are also working overtime to shut out Christmas, Easter and any other religious holiday.
And they do it with their nanny-state need to regulate everything in life - they ban soda, treats, candy, anything THEY consider junk food, when in fact they have NO right to dictate what choices people make.
They have ONE purpose, and should stick to it - educating our kids, not brainwashing them.
We, the People should stand up and force schools to limit their educational curricula to PROVEN FACTS, and in any instance where the subject is NOT a proven fact (evolution, climate change, atheism etc.) they should be forced to present ALL sides in an UNBIASED manner, so students can make their own informed choices.
If it is not a fact, do not teach it as though it were.
/
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Things We Learned About Democrats Today
A big news day today, and in making the news, the Democrats showed us who and what they really are.
1) For months the Democrats, led by Obama, expressly stated the mandate in ObamaCare was NOT a tax. That was the only way they could get it passed. Come to find out, it IS a tax. The Democrats, led by Obama, perpetrated a fraud on the American people. A HUGE fraud. They lied about it not being a tax so they could pass it, then it suddenly became a tax on the middle class. Yeah, the middle class. Poor people don't pay taxes and will get free insurance, and the wealthy can afford their own care. So guess who is holding the bag for the cost?
2) The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, virtually said "F U" to Brian Terry's family. The Republicans are trying to get justice for Terry's family by holding the Attorney General accountable for his death, or to find out who is responsible. Pelosi and her gang of political misfit hacks simply walked out rather than vote on it. What they did was walk out on Brian Terry and his family, saying, "We don't give a damn that you want to know who is responsible for your son's death at the hands of this government. We're gonna keep it a secret because we refuse to be held accountable to you or anyone else."
The Democrats proved today that they do not care that an American died because of a government screw-up, and they proved they do not care about his family and their need for answers and closure. Partisanism is more important to the Democrats than human life.
/
1) For months the Democrats, led by Obama, expressly stated the mandate in ObamaCare was NOT a tax. That was the only way they could get it passed. Come to find out, it IS a tax. The Democrats, led by Obama, perpetrated a fraud on the American people. A HUGE fraud. They lied about it not being a tax so they could pass it, then it suddenly became a tax on the middle class. Yeah, the middle class. Poor people don't pay taxes and will get free insurance, and the wealthy can afford their own care. So guess who is holding the bag for the cost?
2) The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, virtually said "F U" to Brian Terry's family. The Republicans are trying to get justice for Terry's family by holding the Attorney General accountable for his death, or to find out who is responsible. Pelosi and her gang of political misfit hacks simply walked out rather than vote on it. What they did was walk out on Brian Terry and his family, saying, "We don't give a damn that you want to know who is responsible for your son's death at the hands of this government. We're gonna keep it a secret because we refuse to be held accountable to you or anyone else."
The Democrats proved today that they do not care that an American died because of a government screw-up, and they proved they do not care about his family and their need for answers and closure. Partisanism is more important to the Democrats than human life.
/
Did Justice Roberts Do Republicans A Great Favor?
I am looking a little deeper into the possible intent of Justice Roberts' decision to side with the liberal justices in upholding ObamaCare. I believe it was a calculated, shrewd move on his part to strengthen the Republican party.
By upholding ObamaCare, the court has managed to do what no one else - not even the Tea Party - could do. They have galvanized not only Republicans, but most Independents and Libertarians into a solid block. This one decision by Justice Roberts - who could have swung the decision by himself - will insure that the vast majority of Americans who oppose ObamaCare will vote to elect a Republican President and Congress, so ObamaCare can be repealed.
And many of those people may hold their noses as they vote Republican, but will do so because of Obamacare.
Justice Roberts has lit a fire under a lot of folks who might otherwise have stayed home on election day. Had Roberts voted to kill ObamaCare, a lot of people whose main reason for going to the polls was to repeal ObamaCare would no longer have the motivation to vote, resulting in Republicans losing elections.
Roberts is not dumb. I think he knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He was saying to conservatives throughout the country, "If you don't like it, GET OUT AND VOTE TO CHANGE IT." And that means votes for Republicans.
He also made it a point to call it what it is - a TAX. Obama promised no taxes on the middle class, but this is the biggest middle-class tax hike in history. By allowing it ONLY because it is a tax, Roberts made certain that Obama loses the argument that he has not raised taxes on the middle class.
If anyone doubts this was the intent of Justice Roberts, read his opinion - it ends by expressing exactly that - if you do not like the law, then elect people who will change it.
And it appears to be working - the Romney campaign reports that in just the two hours following the decision, they have received over a million bucks in contributions!
/
By upholding ObamaCare, the court has managed to do what no one else - not even the Tea Party - could do. They have galvanized not only Republicans, but most Independents and Libertarians into a solid block. This one decision by Justice Roberts - who could have swung the decision by himself - will insure that the vast majority of Americans who oppose ObamaCare will vote to elect a Republican President and Congress, so ObamaCare can be repealed.
And many of those people may hold their noses as they vote Republican, but will do so because of Obamacare.
Justice Roberts has lit a fire under a lot of folks who might otherwise have stayed home on election day. Had Roberts voted to kill ObamaCare, a lot of people whose main reason for going to the polls was to repeal ObamaCare would no longer have the motivation to vote, resulting in Republicans losing elections.
Roberts is not dumb. I think he knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He was saying to conservatives throughout the country, "If you don't like it, GET OUT AND VOTE TO CHANGE IT." And that means votes for Republicans.
He also made it a point to call it what it is - a TAX. Obama promised no taxes on the middle class, but this is the biggest middle-class tax hike in history. By allowing it ONLY because it is a tax, Roberts made certain that Obama loses the argument that he has not raised taxes on the middle class.
If anyone doubts this was the intent of Justice Roberts, read his opinion - it ends by expressing exactly that - if you do not like the law, then elect people who will change it.
And it appears to be working - the Romney campaign reports that in just the two hours following the decision, they have received over a million bucks in contributions!
/
Repeal Is Not The Only Answer
Today. SCOTUS mad a terrible mistake by helping the government rob Americans of their freedom to choose their own destiny. And while a Republican Congress and president in January could simply repeal it, that does nothing to fix the problem. The problem is much bigger - that FDR and his liberal court gave far, far too much power within the so-called Commerce Clause.
What we need to do if we are to save what is left of our freedom to choose for ourselves is to pass a Constitutional Amendment that rolls back the Commerce Clause to reasonable and clear boundaries, and forbid any branch of government to further infringe the right of the people to choose how they will live their lives.
Something like, "The right of the people to live their lives freely, as they choose, shall not be infringed, with the provision that their choices do not do direct harm to others, nor prevent others from exercising their rights. Nor shall the government regulate commerce except where said commerce is directly interstate or international, and shall not be construed to include any activity that, itself, is not directly involved in interstate or international commerce."
Or something along those lines, because it is obvious this was the intent of the Founders, and would protect our freedom to live our lives as we choose. And THAT was certainly the intent, and even God's will, when He gave us Free Will.
/
What we need to do if we are to save what is left of our freedom to choose for ourselves is to pass a Constitutional Amendment that rolls back the Commerce Clause to reasonable and clear boundaries, and forbid any branch of government to further infringe the right of the people to choose how they will live their lives.
Something like, "The right of the people to live their lives freely, as they choose, shall not be infringed, with the provision that their choices do not do direct harm to others, nor prevent others from exercising their rights. Nor shall the government regulate commerce except where said commerce is directly interstate or international, and shall not be construed to include any activity that, itself, is not directly involved in interstate or international commerce."
Or something along those lines, because it is obvious this was the intent of the Founders, and would protect our freedom to live our lives as we choose. And THAT was certainly the intent, and even God's will, when He gave us Free Will.
/
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Obama Can't Give Our Money Away Fast Enough
I have been posting for years that the Democrats are intentionally trying to get most Americans addicted to entitlements because the people would then keep voting Democrat in order to keep their freebies - just like what has happened in Greece, and is now happening throughout Europe. And now there is proof.
The Obama administration is using TAXPAYER money to run ads enticing more people to sign up for food stamps. People who need food stamps already know about food stamps.
I never thought I would see the day when people would be so stupid as to think money should be spent trying to give away more money at a time when the country is nearing bankruptcy. It's an outrage!
And it is even more outrageous that Obama is using taxpayer money to buy votes.
But that is what the Democrats have been doing since Johnson's "Great Society" of welfare. They do not give a Horton's Hoot about the poor or minorities other than to toss them bones in order to get their votes. Democrats need to keep the poor in poverty, and the minorities angry. If the poor ever became middle class, they would no longer vote for Democrats who are now giving away THEIR tax money.
That is exactly what happened in Greece. The bureaucrats kept giving the people freebies in order to keep the people under their thumb and secure their votes. And it led to bankruptcy. But hey, at least the bureaucrats keep getting elected!
/
The Obama administration is using TAXPAYER money to run ads enticing more people to sign up for food stamps. People who need food stamps already know about food stamps.
I never thought I would see the day when people would be so stupid as to think money should be spent trying to give away more money at a time when the country is nearing bankruptcy. It's an outrage!
And it is even more outrageous that Obama is using taxpayer money to buy votes.
But that is what the Democrats have been doing since Johnson's "Great Society" of welfare. They do not give a Horton's Hoot about the poor or minorities other than to toss them bones in order to get their votes. Democrats need to keep the poor in poverty, and the minorities angry. If the poor ever became middle class, they would no longer vote for Democrats who are now giving away THEIR tax money.
That is exactly what happened in Greece. The bureaucrats kept giving the people freebies in order to keep the people under their thumb and secure their votes. And it led to bankruptcy. But hey, at least the bureaucrats keep getting elected!
/
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
The REAL Disenfranchised Voters
Did you know that almost half of all votes cast for President will not count? That's because the popular vote does not elect presidents - the Electoral College does.
Most states are rigged so that the winner of the popular vote (where all votes do count) will take ALL the Electoral College votes for that state. If you vote for the loser in your state, your vote is tossed.
As an example, let's say 40% of the voters in New Hampshire vote for "X", while 60% vote for "Y". All four of New Hampshire's electoral votes would go to "Y", as if every voter had voted for that person. If you voted for "X", you vote does not count - it is effectively erased. By giving all electoral votes to only the winner of the popular vote, the state says that YOU voted for "Y", even though you actually voted for "X".
In recent times, there have been two instances where the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of this rigging.
It was not intended to work that way. Specifically, if "X" gets 40% of the popular vote, then "X" should get 40% of the electoral votes in that state. That is the only way that every vote counts.
So there you have it - if you live in a state that has an "all or nothing" method of electoral votes, your vote will not count if you are not among the majority. And that is wrong - EVERY vote should count.
Talk about disenfranchised voters! But don't expect Holder to look into THAT any time soon, because it's not about race!
/
Most states are rigged so that the winner of the popular vote (where all votes do count) will take ALL the Electoral College votes for that state. If you vote for the loser in your state, your vote is tossed.
As an example, let's say 40% of the voters in New Hampshire vote for "X", while 60% vote for "Y". All four of New Hampshire's electoral votes would go to "Y", as if every voter had voted for that person. If you voted for "X", you vote does not count - it is effectively erased. By giving all electoral votes to only the winner of the popular vote, the state says that YOU voted for "Y", even though you actually voted for "X".
In recent times, there have been two instances where the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of this rigging.
It was not intended to work that way. Specifically, if "X" gets 40% of the popular vote, then "X" should get 40% of the electoral votes in that state. That is the only way that every vote counts.
So there you have it - if you live in a state that has an "all or nothing" method of electoral votes, your vote will not count if you are not among the majority. And that is wrong - EVERY vote should count.
Talk about disenfranchised voters! But don't expect Holder to look into THAT any time soon, because it's not about race!
/
Drone Killings vs Due Process
I would be among the first to want our enemies - those who want to kill us - to be dispatched.
That said, I cannot help but be concerned that our President has declared war against the Constitution he swore an oath to uphold.
To be precise, the 5th Amendment states, and I quote, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The only exception made is for those in "actual service in time of War." Congress has NOT declared war on the people on Obama's "Kill List."
Note that it does not say "No American", or "No citizen." It clearly says NO PERSON.
I am not opposed to killing the enemy. But I strongly believe we should be following the Constitution.
According to the Constitution, President Obama appears to be committing murder.
This, in addition to all the other times he has trumped the Constitution by by-passing Congress, making his own laws by edict (his illegal Dream Act), and his refusal to enforce the laws that the Constitution says he MUST enforce (such as Defense of Marriage Act).
/
That said, I cannot help but be concerned that our President has declared war against the Constitution he swore an oath to uphold.
To be precise, the 5th Amendment states, and I quote, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The only exception made is for those in "actual service in time of War." Congress has NOT declared war on the people on Obama's "Kill List."
Note that it does not say "No American", or "No citizen." It clearly says NO PERSON.
I am not opposed to killing the enemy. But I strongly believe we should be following the Constitution.
According to the Constitution, President Obama appears to be committing murder.
This, in addition to all the other times he has trumped the Constitution by by-passing Congress, making his own laws by edict (his illegal Dream Act), and his refusal to enforce the laws that the Constitution says he MUST enforce (such as Defense of Marriage Act).
/
Are U.S. Circuit Courts Manned By Morons?
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the first-ever regulations by the EPA aimed at reducing the gases blamed for global warming.
This came because SCOTUS, in its ignorance of actual science, had earlier ruled that CO2 is a "pollutant". It is not - it is one of the normal gases in the atmosphere. For the record, all plant life BREATHES CO2. Without CO2, plant life dies - and so do we.
More to the point in this new ruling, the court "found" that the EPA could regulate "greenhouse gases" including CO2 because they "harm human life and welfare." Of course, try as they might, that has never been proved. So, the courts in their moronic folly have granted a non-elected organization the right to regulate gases based on unproven theories in ways that will be detrimental to all of us - less fuel available, at much higher cost. WOW! Just how stupid ARE these people, anyway?
And how stupid are the voters who keep electing the idiots that make it all possible? Doncha think it's about time we started taking more responsibility for becoming more informed before voting, and holding elected officials' feet to the fire?
I've said it many times before - if you want to reduce CO2 emissions, it's as simple as having all liberals stop breathing. They're the ones who want it reduced - let them be the ones to suffer for it.
/
This came because SCOTUS, in its ignorance of actual science, had earlier ruled that CO2 is a "pollutant". It is not - it is one of the normal gases in the atmosphere. For the record, all plant life BREATHES CO2. Without CO2, plant life dies - and so do we.
More to the point in this new ruling, the court "found" that the EPA could regulate "greenhouse gases" including CO2 because they "harm human life and welfare." Of course, try as they might, that has never been proved. So, the courts in their moronic folly have granted a non-elected organization the right to regulate gases based on unproven theories in ways that will be detrimental to all of us - less fuel available, at much higher cost. WOW! Just how stupid ARE these people, anyway?
And how stupid are the voters who keep electing the idiots that make it all possible? Doncha think it's about time we started taking more responsibility for becoming more informed before voting, and holding elected officials' feet to the fire?
I've said it many times before - if you want to reduce CO2 emissions, it's as simple as having all liberals stop breathing. They're the ones who want it reduced - let them be the ones to suffer for it.
/
Outsourcer-in-chief?
The Obama campaign, true to their ability to spin, is calling Mitt Romney the "Outsourcer-in-Chief" because during his time with Bain Capital, he created jobs not only here, but also overseas.
Yes, that is true - he did outsource jobs. But here is what the disingenuous Obama campaign fails to point out: it was Romney's JOB to create maximum profits for the people who invested in Bain. And outsourcing created greater profits. In other words, Romney knew what his job was, and did it VERY well. It was NOT his job to create jobs for Americans.
But if Obama wants to talk about outsourcing jobs, perhaps he can explain why his close advisor, Jeffrey Immelt of GE, outsourced thousands of American jobs to overseas locations. Or why Obama gave stimulus money to overseas companies to hire overseas workers (like Fiskars). Unlike Romney, it is NOT Obama's job to outsource jobs. Unlike Romney, it appears Obama does NOT know his job, and does NOT do it well.
Frankly, I like the idea of electing a person to the White House who KNOWS his job, DOES his job, and does it WELL. That is the opposite of what we have now.
Anyone who OBJECTIVELY looks at Romney's life will notice that whatever job he is tasked with, he focuses on it and gets it done. Even when a company was broken up and people laid off, it was what was necessary to maximize profits. It was his job. If elected president, I do not doubt he will focus on that job as president and do the job that needs to be done, and do it well.
What a refreshing change that would be.
/
Yes, that is true - he did outsource jobs. But here is what the disingenuous Obama campaign fails to point out: it was Romney's JOB to create maximum profits for the people who invested in Bain. And outsourcing created greater profits. In other words, Romney knew what his job was, and did it VERY well. It was NOT his job to create jobs for Americans.
But if Obama wants to talk about outsourcing jobs, perhaps he can explain why his close advisor, Jeffrey Immelt of GE, outsourced thousands of American jobs to overseas locations. Or why Obama gave stimulus money to overseas companies to hire overseas workers (like Fiskars). Unlike Romney, it is NOT Obama's job to outsource jobs. Unlike Romney, it appears Obama does NOT know his job, and does NOT do it well.
Frankly, I like the idea of electing a person to the White House who KNOWS his job, DOES his job, and does it WELL. That is the opposite of what we have now.
Anyone who OBJECTIVELY looks at Romney's life will notice that whatever job he is tasked with, he focuses on it and gets it done. Even when a company was broken up and people laid off, it was what was necessary to maximize profits. It was his job. If elected president, I do not doubt he will focus on that job as president and do the job that needs to be done, and do it well.
What a refreshing change that would be.
/
Monday, June 25, 2012
Are African-Americans REALLY Unrepresented?
All day long I have been hearing liberals whining about how African-Americans are not adequately represented in positions of power. They refer to that stupid, divisive commercial that some loons on the left have put out, touting how white people get special treatment.
I looked into it.
Seems that blacks represent about 12% of the population. And they hold 43 of the 535 seats of Congress. Pretty close, really, considering we don't elect people using affirmative action - we elect the people we think will do the job best.
I also notice that we currently have an black president and black Attorney General, who surrounds himself with blacks. And two of the last three Secretaries of State were black.
I'm having trouble seeing how African Americans are "powerless" in a "white" America.
Especially since the Census Bureau just told us that whites are now a minority in America...
Hey, there, whiny libs - cut the crap, grow a set and stop trying to twist the facts to suit your stupid agenda. We're not buying it.
/
I looked into it.
Seems that blacks represent about 12% of the population. And they hold 43 of the 535 seats of Congress. Pretty close, really, considering we don't elect people using affirmative action - we elect the people we think will do the job best.
I also notice that we currently have an black president and black Attorney General, who surrounds himself with blacks. And two of the last three Secretaries of State were black.
I'm having trouble seeing how African Americans are "powerless" in a "white" America.
Especially since the Census Bureau just told us that whites are now a minority in America...
Hey, there, whiny libs - cut the crap, grow a set and stop trying to twist the facts to suit your stupid agenda. We're not buying it.
/
Where SCOTUS Went Wrong On AZ Immigration Law
Today SCOTUS struck down a state's right to defend itself from invasion from illegal immigrants. They did uphold the state's right to check immigration status, which is good. But states cannot do anything to protect themselves if the government fails to.
That is so very wrong. That is like telling someone that, if their life is threatened, to wait for the police to show up. If they fail to protect you, then you simply must roll over and die, because you have no right to defend yourself. That is the job of your local law enforcement, and if they cannot or will not do their job, then you must surrender your life.
That's BS.
If the federal government wants to be the ONLY authority in immigration, then they must assume the responsibility to act accordingly. And if SCOTUS is to deem that states cannot protect themselves, then they should have simultaneously ordered the federal government to enforce current immigration laws. If the state is to be deprived of the right of self defense, then the government must take the responsibility of defending the state.
/
That is so very wrong. That is like telling someone that, if their life is threatened, to wait for the police to show up. If they fail to protect you, then you simply must roll over and die, because you have no right to defend yourself. That is the job of your local law enforcement, and if they cannot or will not do their job, then you must surrender your life.
That's BS.
If the federal government wants to be the ONLY authority in immigration, then they must assume the responsibility to act accordingly. And if SCOTUS is to deem that states cannot protect themselves, then they should have simultaneously ordered the federal government to enforce current immigration laws. If the state is to be deprived of the right of self defense, then the government must take the responsibility of defending the state.
/
Now Obama Wants Your Wedding Gifts
This is sick - REALLY sick!
The Obama campaign has a "wedding registry" page that asks newlyweds to have their guests, in lieu of a wedding gift to the bride and groom, to instead give the cash to the Obama campaign in your name.
How sick is that? I can see it now - the young woman, about to embark on the greatest day of her life decides, "Hey, I think I will turn my wedding into a political statement. Not only that, but I will start my new marriage off by alienating any Republicans or Independents that may be in our families. Yeah, that sounds like fun! Okay, everybody - instead of getting us something we need for starting a marriage, please give your money to that multi-millionaire in the White House to help him get re-elected."
What's next? "Hey kiddies, when you make out your Christmas list to Santa, ask him to just donate all your gifts to ME, because I am SO great and wonderful, and deserve everything. And when you have your Easter egg hunt, don't forget to drop your goodies off at the White House. Oh, and let's not forget Hallowe'en!"
Obama and his cohorts in corruption are sick, and need to go.
/
The Obama campaign has a "wedding registry" page that asks newlyweds to have their guests, in lieu of a wedding gift to the bride and groom, to instead give the cash to the Obama campaign in your name.
How sick is that? I can see it now - the young woman, about to embark on the greatest day of her life decides, "Hey, I think I will turn my wedding into a political statement. Not only that, but I will start my new marriage off by alienating any Republicans or Independents that may be in our families. Yeah, that sounds like fun! Okay, everybody - instead of getting us something we need for starting a marriage, please give your money to that multi-millionaire in the White House to help him get re-elected."
What's next? "Hey kiddies, when you make out your Christmas list to Santa, ask him to just donate all your gifts to ME, because I am SO great and wonderful, and deserve everything. And when you have your Easter egg hunt, don't forget to drop your goodies off at the White House. Oh, and let's not forget Hallowe'en!"
Obama and his cohorts in corruption are sick, and need to go.
/
Common Sense For Health Care - Free Choice
How would you feel if the government were to dictate what groceries you would buy, based on what some people need? For example, some people may like - even need - broccoli, so you would be forced to buy broccoli even if you do not want it, in order to reduce the cost of broccoli for everyone. Because EVERYONE must buy it, the price goes down. So, your grocery list is pre-wriiten for you and you are forced to buy what is on that list, all in the name of "fairness" - you need to help others to afford the things THEY want.
I'm sure you would not like that. But that is exactly what the health care law does. In order to reduce the cost of some things, the government - and insurance companies - force you to pay for things you will never use. For example, mammograms. Virtually every insurance policy includes mammogram coverage. But what if you are a single male and will never use that coverage? It's your "broccoli".
And that is one reason why your insurance is so expensive - you are forced to include things you neither want nor need.
Insurance should be more like grocery shopping - you should be able to write your own shoipping list of the coverage you want and need, and shop for those individual parts just as you would shop for groceries. Get your prescription coverage over here at this "store", where the price is lowest, then get your major medical over there at that store. And when you get all the coverage you want, it gets packaged up in a co-op that puts it all together in one policy for you. And THAT would be the government's only role - to form co-ops based on policy types and package them up for convenience so you do not have to fill out forms for 10 different piece-meal policies. You simply turn your individual policy coverages over to the government and they package it into a single policy for you, and you pay one premium.
Yes, mammogram coverage would be more expensive because only those who need it would get the coverage. But then, that is THEIR responsibility. As much as it would be "nice" to help them pay for their mammograms - or contraceptives, for example - it simply is not our responsibility to support other people. And the ability to "shop around" for coverage will create competition which would likely reduce ALL costs of insurance, anyway, which would probably make up any difference.
But the grocery scenario still applies - if the Supreme Court allows ObamaCare to stand, then they are taking the position that citizens can be forced to buy whatever the government deems would make things "more fair" or "less expensive" for others. They could force you to pay for certain groceries, even if you never buy them or eat them. And certain cars. And hey - people with large properties need expensive lawn tractors - TOO expensive. So, to reduce costs, the government could force EVERYONE to pay a "lawn tractor fee" to build a pool to help big property owners to pay for their lawn tractors. YOU don't have a blade of grass, but you still have to pay for those who have 100 acres. And what about those terribly expensive private jets - maybe everyone should be forced to pay a "Jet Fee" so those poor elitists don't have to pay so much for their jets. It's only "fair".
Get it?
Regardless of which way the court leans on ObamaCare, don't forget to vote in November, because we do not want people to remain in office if they THINK and ACT socialist. Anyone who voted for ObamaCare needs to be kicked to the curb. If they stay in office, they will look for new ways to impose their beliefs on the rest of us, "for our own good". And we'll no longer be allowed to buy a large soda, use salt in a restaurant, or buy an occasional Twinkie. Oops! The liberals are already outlawing all those things....
Whatever happened to the "free choice" that liberals like to whine about when it comes to killing babies? Does free choice not apply to the rest of us, in our choices?
/
I'm sure you would not like that. But that is exactly what the health care law does. In order to reduce the cost of some things, the government - and insurance companies - force you to pay for things you will never use. For example, mammograms. Virtually every insurance policy includes mammogram coverage. But what if you are a single male and will never use that coverage? It's your "broccoli".
And that is one reason why your insurance is so expensive - you are forced to include things you neither want nor need.
Insurance should be more like grocery shopping - you should be able to write your own shoipping list of the coverage you want and need, and shop for those individual parts just as you would shop for groceries. Get your prescription coverage over here at this "store", where the price is lowest, then get your major medical over there at that store. And when you get all the coverage you want, it gets packaged up in a co-op that puts it all together in one policy for you. And THAT would be the government's only role - to form co-ops based on policy types and package them up for convenience so you do not have to fill out forms for 10 different piece-meal policies. You simply turn your individual policy coverages over to the government and they package it into a single policy for you, and you pay one premium.
Yes, mammogram coverage would be more expensive because only those who need it would get the coverage. But then, that is THEIR responsibility. As much as it would be "nice" to help them pay for their mammograms - or contraceptives, for example - it simply is not our responsibility to support other people. And the ability to "shop around" for coverage will create competition which would likely reduce ALL costs of insurance, anyway, which would probably make up any difference.
But the grocery scenario still applies - if the Supreme Court allows ObamaCare to stand, then they are taking the position that citizens can be forced to buy whatever the government deems would make things "more fair" or "less expensive" for others. They could force you to pay for certain groceries, even if you never buy them or eat them. And certain cars. And hey - people with large properties need expensive lawn tractors - TOO expensive. So, to reduce costs, the government could force EVERYONE to pay a "lawn tractor fee" to build a pool to help big property owners to pay for their lawn tractors. YOU don't have a blade of grass, but you still have to pay for those who have 100 acres. And what about those terribly expensive private jets - maybe everyone should be forced to pay a "Jet Fee" so those poor elitists don't have to pay so much for their jets. It's only "fair".
Get it?
Regardless of which way the court leans on ObamaCare, don't forget to vote in November, because we do not want people to remain in office if they THINK and ACT socialist. Anyone who voted for ObamaCare needs to be kicked to the curb. If they stay in office, they will look for new ways to impose their beliefs on the rest of us, "for our own good". And we'll no longer be allowed to buy a large soda, use salt in a restaurant, or buy an occasional Twinkie. Oops! The liberals are already outlawing all those things....
Whatever happened to the "free choice" that liberals like to whine about when it comes to killing babies? Does free choice not apply to the rest of us, in our choices?
/
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Why The President Should Not Make Law
Recently the president decided to AGAIN by-pass Congress and legitimize many illegal immigrants and give them work permits. But because the president did not bother to research anything, and did not consider the consequences, chaos will ensue. Here's why...
First, immigration is too complex for one person to deal with, or even fully understand. To make law based on either the insufficient or faulty reasoning of ONE PERSON based on nothing more than "it's fair" is just asking for disaster.
Let's take a brief look --- Obama says any illegal between 16 and 30 who came as a child will have immunity and can get work permits. Sounds good. But tell us, Mr. President - how do we know WHICH 30 year old immigrants came here as a child? WHO will decide that? WHAT expensive bureaucracy will be needed to iron this out? None. Nada. So now, ANY illegal immigrant between 16 and 30 - that's most of the illegals - will have immunity. Instead of 800,000 it will be closer to 7 million.
The government's own statistics show that jobs are more scarce now than at any time in two generations. But now millions of illegals will be able to take what few jobs there are - and they will get them, too, because they will work for less than American workers.
There is a lot more that is wrong with Obama's ill-thought-out "Dream Act Lite." And that is why it is always wrong for one person to DICTATE law. And it is why our Founding Fathers chose a representative form of government, where ONLY THE LEGISTIVE BODY can make law, and the EXECUTIVE BODY is limited to ENFORCING the laws Congress passes.
But not King Obama. He has often said he does not care about Congress, or the laws it passes, and has chosen more than once to ignore laws he does not like, and replace them with his own one-man edicts.
It would not be so bad if it were not for his being such an incompetent amateur, and so far over his head that he's taking us all down with him.
/
First, immigration is too complex for one person to deal with, or even fully understand. To make law based on either the insufficient or faulty reasoning of ONE PERSON based on nothing more than "it's fair" is just asking for disaster.
Let's take a brief look --- Obama says any illegal between 16 and 30 who came as a child will have immunity and can get work permits. Sounds good. But tell us, Mr. President - how do we know WHICH 30 year old immigrants came here as a child? WHO will decide that? WHAT expensive bureaucracy will be needed to iron this out? None. Nada. So now, ANY illegal immigrant between 16 and 30 - that's most of the illegals - will have immunity. Instead of 800,000 it will be closer to 7 million.
The government's own statistics show that jobs are more scarce now than at any time in two generations. But now millions of illegals will be able to take what few jobs there are - and they will get them, too, because they will work for less than American workers.
There is a lot more that is wrong with Obama's ill-thought-out "Dream Act Lite." And that is why it is always wrong for one person to DICTATE law. And it is why our Founding Fathers chose a representative form of government, where ONLY THE LEGISTIVE BODY can make law, and the EXECUTIVE BODY is limited to ENFORCING the laws Congress passes.
But not King Obama. He has often said he does not care about Congress, or the laws it passes, and has chosen more than once to ignore laws he does not like, and replace them with his own one-man edicts.
It would not be so bad if it were not for his being such an incompetent amateur, and so far over his head that he's taking us all down with him.
/
Response to "Repack Rider"
Someone using the handle "Repack Rider" sent a rather uninformed comment to my blog on Romney's horses being used for therapy for his wife's MS. Normally I would not even bother taking on a clown like this, but he deserves a response.
He wrote, "How do you "prescribe" dressage for someone without a horse? Can you get a dressage horse at a pharmacy?"
{REPLY] Not all prescriptions are filled in a pharmacy. Doctors often prescribe non-drugs, such as saunas, swimming, physical therapy and yes, even dressage. Let's see YOU get physical therapy at a pharmacy, Repack Rider. People without swimming pools go to a YMCA or YWCA. And there are therapy stables all over the country - there is on right here in the tiny town of Dayton, Maine. You (and other liberal naysayers) would have shown more cred - and intelligence - if you had simply gone to Google and typed in HORSES AS THERAPY before coming here and spouting your ignornance.
He then wrote, "Please identify ANY medical condition in which dressage is the standard course of treatment. See if you can find a reference in a medical journal to "dressage therapy" and its applications."
[REPLY] Why not just ask a doctor? It does not have to be a "standard" course of treatment. Are you so myopic that you think everything must fit into a standard design just to suit you? Why not just ask a doctor? In fact, just yesterday Dr. Marc Seigel, a rather famous doctor, was on television stating that dressage is often used as therapy, and that it works. Since he is a famous doctor, and you are not, I think I'll take his word over yours any day.
And then, to show how disconnected this jerk is, he added something that has nothing at all to do with anything, stating, "Disclaimer. I am a US Army veteran (E-5), and I'll bet you never served your country for a minute."
[REPLY] Wrong again, pal. I served two tours in Viet Nam (Da Nang) and returned home with a Purple Heart, only to be sneered at by liberal morons who have no respect for anyone or anything that does not walk in lockstep with themselves. And before me, my Dad served in the Marines in WWI, served in the Navy between the Great Wars, then signed up and served in the Army in WWII. My older brother never returned from Korea, and my kid brother was 22 year career Army. I come from a long line of military, dating back to the Battle of Lexington on the Concord Green in 1776, where 14 of my family stood against the British.
My family are fighters, "Repack". That's why I write this blog - it's another way I can fight for my country, rather than just sit back and complain, like you seem to do.
Now, "Repack Rider", feel free to explain how a person would go about filling a prescription for physical therapy at the local Walgreen's, since you think all prescriptions must be filled at a pharmacy. In the meantime, you may want to consider getting informed before telling the world how ignorant you are.
And to ALL who read my blogs - if I write something, and state it as a fact, you can take it to the bank that it has been thoroughly researched. Sometimes I will post my opinion, and it is clearly opinion. But my FACTS are always 100%. Anyone who has an issue with indiputable facts has issues that cannot be addressed by any blog.
/
He wrote, "How do you "prescribe" dressage for someone without a horse? Can you get a dressage horse at a pharmacy?"
{REPLY] Not all prescriptions are filled in a pharmacy. Doctors often prescribe non-drugs, such as saunas, swimming, physical therapy and yes, even dressage. Let's see YOU get physical therapy at a pharmacy, Repack Rider. People without swimming pools go to a YMCA or YWCA. And there are therapy stables all over the country - there is on right here in the tiny town of Dayton, Maine. You (and other liberal naysayers) would have shown more cred - and intelligence - if you had simply gone to Google and typed in HORSES AS THERAPY before coming here and spouting your ignornance.
He then wrote, "Please identify ANY medical condition in which dressage is the standard course of treatment. See if you can find a reference in a medical journal to "dressage therapy" and its applications."
[REPLY] Why not just ask a doctor? It does not have to be a "standard" course of treatment. Are you so myopic that you think everything must fit into a standard design just to suit you? Why not just ask a doctor? In fact, just yesterday Dr. Marc Seigel, a rather famous doctor, was on television stating that dressage is often used as therapy, and that it works. Since he is a famous doctor, and you are not, I think I'll take his word over yours any day.
And then, to show how disconnected this jerk is, he added something that has nothing at all to do with anything, stating, "Disclaimer. I am a US Army veteran (E-5), and I'll bet you never served your country for a minute."
[REPLY] Wrong again, pal. I served two tours in Viet Nam (Da Nang) and returned home with a Purple Heart, only to be sneered at by liberal morons who have no respect for anyone or anything that does not walk in lockstep with themselves. And before me, my Dad served in the Marines in WWI, served in the Navy between the Great Wars, then signed up and served in the Army in WWII. My older brother never returned from Korea, and my kid brother was 22 year career Army. I come from a long line of military, dating back to the Battle of Lexington on the Concord Green in 1776, where 14 of my family stood against the British.
My family are fighters, "Repack". That's why I write this blog - it's another way I can fight for my country, rather than just sit back and complain, like you seem to do.
Now, "Repack Rider", feel free to explain how a person would go about filling a prescription for physical therapy at the local Walgreen's, since you think all prescriptions must be filled at a pharmacy. In the meantime, you may want to consider getting informed before telling the world how ignorant you are.
And to ALL who read my blogs - if I write something, and state it as a fact, you can take it to the bank that it has been thoroughly researched. Sometimes I will post my opinion, and it is clearly opinion. But my FACTS are always 100%. Anyone who has an issue with indiputable facts has issues that cannot be addressed by any blog.
/
Thursday, June 21, 2012
There Is Only ONE WAY To Improve The Economy
I am going to shovel away all the crap being spewed out by politicians, pundits and hacks and make one, clear point: the ONLY way to grow an economy is by CREATING more wealth. And wealth is only created by producing more products and services that add to the GDP.
NOTHING else can grow an economy. Consider the word "grow". In order to grow, the size must be increased.
I hope even liberals can grasp that simple concept. It makes the rest a lot easier to comprehend.
When you add jobs that create products and services, the economy grows. But if you add jobs that do NOT create anything new, then those jobs do not help the economy because the GDP is not growing.
But it gets worse. If the non-producing jobs are public service, then it not only does not grow the economy, but actuallys harms it.
Mr Obama's "jobs bill" would use taxpayer money to hire a million more public service workers who will not create anything new. Moreover, every dollar we put into a public servants pocket is a dollar that first had to be TAKEN out of the economy from someone who DOES create product. In other words, we would simply be taking money out of Peter's pocket and putting it in Paul's pocket, without ever creating anything new that adds to the GDP.
Sure, we need teachers, cops, firemen. But a recession is NOT the time to expand on those jobs, because it only makes things worse. If the guy making products can keep his money, he will use it to buy other products, which induces growth. But if you take his money away and use it to pay a public servant, that does not induce growth.
Certainly, that public servant will spend some of that money on goods and services, also. But much LESS, because the IRS will take back a chunk of the public servant's income.
Consider - you take $50,000 out of the economy by taxation in order to pay a teacher's salary. That's $50,000 that the taxpayer could have spent on goods, but now cannot. Then you pay it to the teacher, and the teacher has to pay the IRS $15,000 in income and FICA taxes. So the teacher only has $35,000 to spend on goods and services. The net result in just this one, small example shows that $15,000 has disappeared from the economy. In addition, the $50,000 the teacher was paid did not result in growth because no products were created.
When liberal hacks try to convince you that a "jobs bill" will help the economy, and those jobs are public service jobs, you know they are full of crap. The only jobs that will grow the economy are jobs that create wealth by creating products.
/
NOTHING else can grow an economy. Consider the word "grow". In order to grow, the size must be increased.
I hope even liberals can grasp that simple concept. It makes the rest a lot easier to comprehend.
When you add jobs that create products and services, the economy grows. But if you add jobs that do NOT create anything new, then those jobs do not help the economy because the GDP is not growing.
But it gets worse. If the non-producing jobs are public service, then it not only does not grow the economy, but actuallys harms it.
Mr Obama's "jobs bill" would use taxpayer money to hire a million more public service workers who will not create anything new. Moreover, every dollar we put into a public servants pocket is a dollar that first had to be TAKEN out of the economy from someone who DOES create product. In other words, we would simply be taking money out of Peter's pocket and putting it in Paul's pocket, without ever creating anything new that adds to the GDP.
Sure, we need teachers, cops, firemen. But a recession is NOT the time to expand on those jobs, because it only makes things worse. If the guy making products can keep his money, he will use it to buy other products, which induces growth. But if you take his money away and use it to pay a public servant, that does not induce growth.
Certainly, that public servant will spend some of that money on goods and services, also. But much LESS, because the IRS will take back a chunk of the public servant's income.
Consider - you take $50,000 out of the economy by taxation in order to pay a teacher's salary. That's $50,000 that the taxpayer could have spent on goods, but now cannot. Then you pay it to the teacher, and the teacher has to pay the IRS $15,000 in income and FICA taxes. So the teacher only has $35,000 to spend on goods and services. The net result in just this one, small example shows that $15,000 has disappeared from the economy. In addition, the $50,000 the teacher was paid did not result in growth because no products were created.
When liberal hacks try to convince you that a "jobs bill" will help the economy, and those jobs are public service jobs, you know they are full of crap. The only jobs that will grow the economy are jobs that create wealth by creating products.
/
Instead Of Voter I.D. Laws...
I have been briefly recapping the first term of the current administration. And it amazes me that some people are not as bright as a single LED, whereas they will once again vote for the guy who, in just three short years...
* Increased the debt by $5 trillion
* Backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and invited them into the White House
* Brought unemployment above 8% for every month he has been in office
* Spent nearly a trillion bucks on stimulus that only stimulated his donors
* Presided over the only credit downgrade of America in its history
* Blew 2 billion taxpayer bucks on "green" companies like Solyndra that went bankrupt
* Robbed GM stock and bond holders of their share of GM, giving it to his union buds
* Tried to stop Boeing from creating jobs in South Carolina
* Stopped the Keystone Pipeline and prevented thousands of great jobs
* Stopped drilling in the Gulf and offshore as much as he could
* Tries to infringe on freedom of religion by forcing taxpayers to pay for contraceptive, even if their religion forbids it
* Takes the inventory from Gibson Guitar without filing ANY charges against them
* Cut $500 billion from Medicare in Obamacare
* Refused to defend/enforce a legally passed law - Defense of Marriage Act
* Refused to enforce immigration laws
* Authorizes the use of 50,000 drones to spy on AMERICANS
* Was a member of the socialist NEW Party in Chicago
* Several leaks that seriously compromised national security coming from his administration
* Is pushing for the Law of the Sea Treaty which would take away American sovereignty and freedom (AND billions of our dollars)
* Sued several states for passing immigration laws
* Sued several states for passing Voter ID laws
* Passed a multi-trillion dollar, invasive, ineffective health care bill
* Presided over the administration responsible for Fast & Furious and the death of a border agent
* Asserted "Executive Privilege" to cover up the administration's culpability in Fast & Furious
* And several times by-passed a legally elected Congress in order to dictate laws, as if he were a King
And in spite of all this and more, many blind, foolish, demented people will still vote for him, like rats following the Pied Piper to drown in the sea.
I contend we do not need a Voter I.D. law. Instead, we need a Voter I.Q. Law!
/
* Increased the debt by $5 trillion
* Backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and invited them into the White House
* Brought unemployment above 8% for every month he has been in office
* Spent nearly a trillion bucks on stimulus that only stimulated his donors
* Presided over the only credit downgrade of America in its history
* Blew 2 billion taxpayer bucks on "green" companies like Solyndra that went bankrupt
* Robbed GM stock and bond holders of their share of GM, giving it to his union buds
* Tried to stop Boeing from creating jobs in South Carolina
* Stopped the Keystone Pipeline and prevented thousands of great jobs
* Stopped drilling in the Gulf and offshore as much as he could
* Tries to infringe on freedom of religion by forcing taxpayers to pay for contraceptive, even if their religion forbids it
* Takes the inventory from Gibson Guitar without filing ANY charges against them
* Cut $500 billion from Medicare in Obamacare
* Refused to defend/enforce a legally passed law - Defense of Marriage Act
* Refused to enforce immigration laws
* Authorizes the use of 50,000 drones to spy on AMERICANS
* Was a member of the socialist NEW Party in Chicago
* Several leaks that seriously compromised national security coming from his administration
* Is pushing for the Law of the Sea Treaty which would take away American sovereignty and freedom (AND billions of our dollars)
* Sued several states for passing immigration laws
* Sued several states for passing Voter ID laws
* Passed a multi-trillion dollar, invasive, ineffective health care bill
* Presided over the administration responsible for Fast & Furious and the death of a border agent
* Asserted "Executive Privilege" to cover up the administration's culpability in Fast & Furious
* And several times by-passed a legally elected Congress in order to dictate laws, as if he were a King
And in spite of all this and more, many blind, foolish, demented people will still vote for him, like rats following the Pied Piper to drown in the sea.
I contend we do not need a Voter I.D. law. Instead, we need a Voter I.Q. Law!
/
The Left's Crazy Rants On Romney Horses
Some of the whackos on the left are ranting about Romney's claim of a tax deduction for horses based on the therapeutic value of horses and dressage for his wife, suffering MS. I can state unequivically that dressage is, indeed, therapeutic for several conditions, including MS, Downes Syndrome and others.
Having worked several years for the Moore Center for mentally and physically impaired persons, horse dressage was often PRESCRIBED by doctors for certain clients. It seems there is some sort of calming effect when working with horses that helps some people, especially those suffering from muscular problems.
Of course, we would never expect people on the left - especially the crazed liberals - to understand that. I doubt many of them have ever heard of such therapy - and doubt many have ever seen a real horse, for that matter.
By taking on like this about issues for which they have no knowledge, they continue to prove to the world how ignorant they really are.
/
Having worked several years for the Moore Center for mentally and physically impaired persons, horse dressage was often PRESCRIBED by doctors for certain clients. It seems there is some sort of calming effect when working with horses that helps some people, especially those suffering from muscular problems.
Of course, we would never expect people on the left - especially the crazed liberals - to understand that. I doubt many of them have ever heard of such therapy - and doubt many have ever seen a real horse, for that matter.
By taking on like this about issues for which they have no knowledge, they continue to prove to the world how ignorant they really are.
/
Still Waiting For That "Very Special American" To Show
On December 26 last year, I put forth a challenge - "If you know of any legal citizen who would LIKE to vote but cannot because they are unable to procure a photo ID, let me know and I will pay for them getting such an ID."
I am still waiting for someone - anyone - to produce such a person. Could it be there is no such thing? To reiterate, it would be a person who wants to vote but has never cashed a check at a bank, never used a check at a store, never bought alcoholics beverages or tobacco products, doesn't drive a motor vehicle, never flies on an airline, never collected any form of public assistance, i.e. food stamps, fuel assistance, WIC, Section 8 etc., does not have a passport, never purchased a firearm and never got a marriage license.
Please, if you know such a person, let me know.
/
I am still waiting for someone - anyone - to produce such a person. Could it be there is no such thing? To reiterate, it would be a person who wants to vote but has never cashed a check at a bank, never used a check at a store, never bought alcoholics beverages or tobacco products, doesn't drive a motor vehicle, never flies on an airline, never collected any form of public assistance, i.e. food stamps, fuel assistance, WIC, Section 8 etc., does not have a passport, never purchased a firearm and never got a marriage license.
Please, if you know such a person, let me know.
/
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Is Church Sign "Racially-Charged"?
The headline on the uber-liberal HuffPost/AOL reads, "South Carolina Church Posts Racially-Charged Abortion Sign". So I expected to see a KKK style signage.
Nope.
The sign outside Macedonia Baptist Church read, "Ultimate Racism - Abortionists Target Black Babies"
The lefty loons think that is somehow racially charged. It does not seem to matter to them that it is factually correct, and the church is trying to shed light on the dirty little secret behind abortion.
It is no secret that over the last 100 years, progressive liberals have espoused that society should "eliminate" less desireable persons. And abortion seems to be their ticket. Want proof?
Let's look past the fact that most abortion clinics are "coincidentally" located in low income neighborhoods, populated primarily by people of color or ethnicities other than white. I do not believe in coincidence, but that is a minor, yet thought-provoking detail. The actual stas go something like this:
a) black women make up 12.3% of the female population in America, but accounted for 36.4% of all U.S. abortions in 2006 (the last year that records are available)
b) Hispanic women accounted for 25% of all U.S. abortions, though they made up just 12.5% of the female population
c) non-Hispanic, white women, who make up 69% of America's female population, but account for only 36% of all U.S. abortions
d) In 2005, a total of 292,808 blacks died in the U.S. That same year, almost twice as many blacks (roughly 447,700) were killed by abortion
e) In 2004, the black population in the U.S. stood at 36 million. Between 1973 and 2004, roughly 15 million blacks were aborted, which means that, as of 2004, nearly 30% of the black population has been lost to abortion
Martin Luther King, Jr., a hero to the left and the Civil Rights movement once said, "The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety." How can the "Dream" survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.
To those who do not understand - or do not care - that abortion is little more than black genocide, I say that you would feel differently if you were to go back in time and YOUR mother was deciding to abort.
/
Nope.
The sign outside Macedonia Baptist Church read, "Ultimate Racism - Abortionists Target Black Babies"
The lefty loons think that is somehow racially charged. It does not seem to matter to them that it is factually correct, and the church is trying to shed light on the dirty little secret behind abortion.
It is no secret that over the last 100 years, progressive liberals have espoused that society should "eliminate" less desireable persons. And abortion seems to be their ticket. Want proof?
Let's look past the fact that most abortion clinics are "coincidentally" located in low income neighborhoods, populated primarily by people of color or ethnicities other than white. I do not believe in coincidence, but that is a minor, yet thought-provoking detail. The actual stas go something like this:
a) black women make up 12.3% of the female population in America, but accounted for 36.4% of all U.S. abortions in 2006 (the last year that records are available)
b) Hispanic women accounted for 25% of all U.S. abortions, though they made up just 12.5% of the female population
c) non-Hispanic, white women, who make up 69% of America's female population, but account for only 36% of all U.S. abortions
d) In 2005, a total of 292,808 blacks died in the U.S. That same year, almost twice as many blacks (roughly 447,700) were killed by abortion
e) In 2004, the black population in the U.S. stood at 36 million. Between 1973 and 2004, roughly 15 million blacks were aborted, which means that, as of 2004, nearly 30% of the black population has been lost to abortion
Martin Luther King, Jr., a hero to the left and the Civil Rights movement once said, "The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety." How can the "Dream" survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.
To those who do not understand - or do not care - that abortion is little more than black genocide, I say that you would feel differently if you were to go back in time and YOUR mother was deciding to abort.
/
More Proof Pelosi Has Lost It
Today, ahead of the Contempt of Congress vote against Holder, Nancy Pelosi said, "I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day. I'm not kidding. There's a prison here in the Capitol ... If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him."
However, wsked on what grounds she could have arrested Rove, Pelosi replied, "Oh, any number. But there were some specific ones for his being in contempt of Congress. But we didn't."
The problem for Pelosi, of course, is that Rove broke no laws and was never charged with anything, so it would have been impossible to "arrest him." We do not, yet, live in a police state, but Pelosi and her ilk are working on that.
And another little problem with Pelosi's psychotic rant: Rove was never in contempt of congress. Was never cited for it. Never went before the House panel on it. Nothing. Nada. So once again Pelosi is lying through her false teeth - she could NOT have arrested Rove, and he was NEVER in contempt of Congress - though I must admit, even I found the Pelosi/Reid Congress contemptable.
Just once I would like to see Pelosi get in front of a camera lucid, and actually make a truthful remark. Just once.
/
However, wsked on what grounds she could have arrested Rove, Pelosi replied, "Oh, any number. But there were some specific ones for his being in contempt of Congress. But we didn't."
The problem for Pelosi, of course, is that Rove broke no laws and was never charged with anything, so it would have been impossible to "arrest him." We do not, yet, live in a police state, but Pelosi and her ilk are working on that.
And another little problem with Pelosi's psychotic rant: Rove was never in contempt of congress. Was never cited for it. Never went before the House panel on it. Nothing. Nada. So once again Pelosi is lying through her false teeth - she could NOT have arrested Rove, and he was NEVER in contempt of Congress - though I must admit, even I found the Pelosi/Reid Congress contemptable.
Just once I would like to see Pelosi get in front of a camera lucid, and actually make a truthful remark. Just once.
/
New York Times Picks & Chooses
At first I wondered how it was that the New York Times was eager to get leaked info and publish it, but refused any interest in what might be in the docs being withheld by Attorney General WithHolder. But it did not take long at all to figure it out - by leaking classified info, they help Obama. And by NOT going after the info in the Fast & Furious docs, they are ALSO helping Obama.
The New York Times was once a newspaper. Now it is nothing more than a waterboy for Obama and the liberal socialists. What a waste of newsprint.
/
The New York Times was once a newspaper. Now it is nothing more than a waterboy for Obama and the liberal socialists. What a waste of newsprint.
/
WH Protects Holder By Claim Of Executive Privilege
Just as Congress was about to cite AG Holder for contempt, the White House jumps into the fray and claims executive privilege in not producing the documents Congress needs to get to the bottom of who was responsible for Fast & Furious and the death of a border agent. Bear in mind, the President can only claim executive privilege on documents that pertain to the President DIRECTLY. So, is the White House saying Obama is implicated in Fast & Furious? Holder testified UNDER OATH that neither he nor the President were aware of Fast & Furious until after the fact, and the President stated that he learned about it "in the news". The fact that executive privilege is being invoked tells us both were lying - the privilege cannot extend beyond direct involvement, i.e. national security, for example.
Let's cut the crap, folks. Let's not lose sight of the most important thing here - that Attorney General Holder, and President Obama himself, are going to great lengths to hide something. So the ONLY real question is WHY?
What is so devastating to Holder and the Obama administration that they risk everything to keep it secret. How bad IS it? I'll make a prediction - eventually it will come out that Holder and Obama decided to use Fast & Furious to incite enough violence so enraged and frightened Americans would demand that gun rights be curbed. That this whole thing was designed to change public opinion on the 2nd Amendment. Bet on it.
When we step into the voting booth in November, ask yourself - is this corrupt, secretive, gangster-style politics what you want? If your answer is "no", then vote the crooked, corrupt, lying, cheating, stealing, treasonous bums out.
I am tired of all the lies and excuses coming from this administration. I am tired of hearing them blame everything and everyone else for the problems they either created or cannot solve. I am tired of the secrecy, the back-door deals in a dark alley that would not survive a light being shone on them. I am tired of being told things are getting better when they are not. I am tired of losing more and more freedoms every day. I am tired of some nitwit who THINKS he's smarter than me trying to tell me what I can and cannot eat or drink. I am tired of morons apologizing for America. I am tired of having America's power eroded, and our exceptionalism denied.
I am tired of this bunch of clowns that took over, and trashed, the White House and our good name in the world.
You bet your sweet butt I'll be voting in November - even if I have to climb out of the grave to do it! Our country is at stake.
/
Let's cut the crap, folks. Let's not lose sight of the most important thing here - that Attorney General Holder, and President Obama himself, are going to great lengths to hide something. So the ONLY real question is WHY?
What is so devastating to Holder and the Obama administration that they risk everything to keep it secret. How bad IS it? I'll make a prediction - eventually it will come out that Holder and Obama decided to use Fast & Furious to incite enough violence so enraged and frightened Americans would demand that gun rights be curbed. That this whole thing was designed to change public opinion on the 2nd Amendment. Bet on it.
When we step into the voting booth in November, ask yourself - is this corrupt, secretive, gangster-style politics what you want? If your answer is "no", then vote the crooked, corrupt, lying, cheating, stealing, treasonous bums out.
I am tired of all the lies and excuses coming from this administration. I am tired of hearing them blame everything and everyone else for the problems they either created or cannot solve. I am tired of the secrecy, the back-door deals in a dark alley that would not survive a light being shone on them. I am tired of being told things are getting better when they are not. I am tired of losing more and more freedoms every day. I am tired of some nitwit who THINKS he's smarter than me trying to tell me what I can and cannot eat or drink. I am tired of morons apologizing for America. I am tired of having America's power eroded, and our exceptionalism denied.
I am tired of this bunch of clowns that took over, and trashed, the White House and our good name in the world.
You bet your sweet butt I'll be voting in November - even if I have to climb out of the grave to do it! Our country is at stake.
/
Government Control of Our Choices
It's rampant! Government is inserting itself into every aspect of pour lives, taking away our choices and replacing those choices with THEIR choices. A true Nanny State.
First, they took away the right to smoke, sometimes in our own homes! Then they started taking away our salt. Then our sugar. Then our soda. They took away the right of a child to have a lemonade stand, or sell Girl Scout cookies. They took away the right to grow herbs (under the "unkempt property" laws). In Georgia they even took away a gardener's right to GIVE AWAY excess produce from his garden. The list of rights and liberties the various intrusive governments have taken away from "free citizens" in the last 20 years is in the thousands. Literally.
The government has NO right to take the liberties from ANYONE. The government may only restrict freedoms in cases where the freedom of one person interferes directly with the freedom of another, or where it poses a real and direct threat to the health and/or welfare of the community at large.
If a person makes food choices that lead to obesity or other medical condition, that is the person's right to choose - as a woman has a right to control her body (Roe v Wade), everyone has the same right. Granted, a person's poor choices could end up costing taxpayers for his medical care, as society is currently set up. But I contend society is set up incorrectly.
Each person has the right to choose, but by the same token, each person has the onligation to take responsibility for those choices. THAT is how a viable society works. If a person makes poor choices, he must live with, or deal with the consequences, without imposing on others to "bail him out."
Americans keep saying they are tired of bailouts. But our government, and our society is set up to bail everyone out of every bad choice they make. Don't want to get educated or get a job? Just collect the welfare bailout. Made poor food choices and got sick? Just get the free medical care or free insurance bailout. Spilled your hot coffee in your own lap? Just sue the coffee vendor and get your bailout from him. Slept around with 40 guys at the party last month, and now you are pregnant? No problem - get a bailout from an abortion clinic, often courtesy of the taxpayer.
In a FREE society as American once was, every citizen had rights. And with those rights it was understood there were responsibilities. If you demand a right, but refuse to accept the responsibility, what you have is a society that degrades into the dole system of the Roman Empire. [Brief history lesson - the Roman Empire was the greatest empire on Earth, and was destroyed by the dole (welfare/entitlement) system].
Liberals have spent 100 years setting up a system where people no longer have to be responsible for themselves. And that only encourages more bad choices, as consequences no longer play into the decision making process. And that is precisely why liberal societies have ALWAYS failed. Every one.
I say, STAY OUT of my personal choices, and let ME take personal responsibility for those choices. If they kill me - THAT IS MY CHOICE.
/
First, they took away the right to smoke, sometimes in our own homes! Then they started taking away our salt. Then our sugar. Then our soda. They took away the right of a child to have a lemonade stand, or sell Girl Scout cookies. They took away the right to grow herbs (under the "unkempt property" laws). In Georgia they even took away a gardener's right to GIVE AWAY excess produce from his garden. The list of rights and liberties the various intrusive governments have taken away from "free citizens" in the last 20 years is in the thousands. Literally.
The government has NO right to take the liberties from ANYONE. The government may only restrict freedoms in cases where the freedom of one person interferes directly with the freedom of another, or where it poses a real and direct threat to the health and/or welfare of the community at large.
If a person makes food choices that lead to obesity or other medical condition, that is the person's right to choose - as a woman has a right to control her body (Roe v Wade), everyone has the same right. Granted, a person's poor choices could end up costing taxpayers for his medical care, as society is currently set up. But I contend society is set up incorrectly.
Each person has the right to choose, but by the same token, each person has the onligation to take responsibility for those choices. THAT is how a viable society works. If a person makes poor choices, he must live with, or deal with the consequences, without imposing on others to "bail him out."
Americans keep saying they are tired of bailouts. But our government, and our society is set up to bail everyone out of every bad choice they make. Don't want to get educated or get a job? Just collect the welfare bailout. Made poor food choices and got sick? Just get the free medical care or free insurance bailout. Spilled your hot coffee in your own lap? Just sue the coffee vendor and get your bailout from him. Slept around with 40 guys at the party last month, and now you are pregnant? No problem - get a bailout from an abortion clinic, often courtesy of the taxpayer.
In a FREE society as American once was, every citizen had rights. And with those rights it was understood there were responsibilities. If you demand a right, but refuse to accept the responsibility, what you have is a society that degrades into the dole system of the Roman Empire. [Brief history lesson - the Roman Empire was the greatest empire on Earth, and was destroyed by the dole (welfare/entitlement) system].
Liberals have spent 100 years setting up a system where people no longer have to be responsible for themselves. And that only encourages more bad choices, as consequences no longer play into the decision making process. And that is precisely why liberal societies have ALWAYS failed. Every one.
I say, STAY OUT of my personal choices, and let ME take personal responsibility for those choices. If they kill me - THAT IS MY CHOICE.
/
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Will Unions Become Political Orphans?
Unions have typically funded (heavily) and campaigned for (aggressively) the Democrats, and Democrats have always voted to strengthen the unions. But recent turns of events may be changing that relationship. The head of the AFL-CIO even went so far as to say they will not be contributing as much in the future, and Democrats in Washington have been turning their backs on unions as public opinion on unions shift, and membership tumbles by the hundreds of thousands.
And it appears that the once mighty unions, and the Democrats they were in bed with, are looking for a separation, if not an outright divorce.
The problem for unions is that they will no longer weild much political power, because the Republicans simply are not interested in being held hostage to unions, either. So it may come down to the unions becoming "orphaned", politically. Is that the "death knell" for unions?
Democrats sidle up to whoever has the votes and the money for campaigns. When the votes wither, and the well dries up, Democrats simply move on, looking for another sector of the population to cater to, and get votes from. They did it with unions, and are now throwing them under the bus. They did it with black people, and may be throwing them under the bus soon, since Asians are now the fastest growing race in America, followed by Hispanics. The Democrats have already been partying it up with Hispanics, but now that Asians are populating faster, watch for the Democrats to start coddling up to their special interests.
Democrats in Washington would favor Shariah Law if they thought it would get them enough votes to win elections. Bet on it.
Republicans are not perfect, either, but you don't see them throwing expensive freebies to groups in order to cultivate their votes. You won't see them chaining themselves to hostage takers like the Unions, being bought off even when it goes against their own beliefs. When a Republican chases a voter bloc, they do so by promising to make America stronger for ALL, including them. But Democrats take the short cut and buy the votes of voter blocs by singling them out from the rest, then offering ONLY them some special treats, like amnesty, welfare, extended unemployment benefits, free birth control, free this, free that etc. You won't see Republicans stooping that low to get votes.
And it all boils down to the simple fact that Democrat politicians are fair-weather friends, at best, and will abandon you in a heartbeat if your votes or money dries up. And that is why it looks like Unions are to be orphaned.
/
And it appears that the once mighty unions, and the Democrats they were in bed with, are looking for a separation, if not an outright divorce.
The problem for unions is that they will no longer weild much political power, because the Republicans simply are not interested in being held hostage to unions, either. So it may come down to the unions becoming "orphaned", politically. Is that the "death knell" for unions?
Democrats sidle up to whoever has the votes and the money for campaigns. When the votes wither, and the well dries up, Democrats simply move on, looking for another sector of the population to cater to, and get votes from. They did it with unions, and are now throwing them under the bus. They did it with black people, and may be throwing them under the bus soon, since Asians are now the fastest growing race in America, followed by Hispanics. The Democrats have already been partying it up with Hispanics, but now that Asians are populating faster, watch for the Democrats to start coddling up to their special interests.
Democrats in Washington would favor Shariah Law if they thought it would get them enough votes to win elections. Bet on it.
Republicans are not perfect, either, but you don't see them throwing expensive freebies to groups in order to cultivate their votes. You won't see them chaining themselves to hostage takers like the Unions, being bought off even when it goes against their own beliefs. When a Republican chases a voter bloc, they do so by promising to make America stronger for ALL, including them. But Democrats take the short cut and buy the votes of voter blocs by singling them out from the rest, then offering ONLY them some special treats, like amnesty, welfare, extended unemployment benefits, free birth control, free this, free that etc. You won't see Republicans stooping that low to get votes.
And it all boils down to the simple fact that Democrat politicians are fair-weather friends, at best, and will abandon you in a heartbeat if your votes or money dries up. And that is why it looks like Unions are to be orphaned.
/
Monday, June 18, 2012
What Iran Means By "Peaceful Purposes"
Time and again Iran has insisted that their quest for nuclear energy is strictly for "peaceful purposes."
And believe it or not, that is 100% TRUE!
Stop and think about it - many times the president of Iran has stated in no uncertain terms that there can be NO PEACE as long as Israel exists. So, the complete destruction of Israel would, in the eyes of Iran, be a "peaceful purpose." They are being honest - in the typically deceitful manner of Islamists - when they say their nuclear energy would be used for peaceful purrposes - and the destruction of Israel is the most "peaceful purpose" on their list.
/
And believe it or not, that is 100% TRUE!
Stop and think about it - many times the president of Iran has stated in no uncertain terms that there can be NO PEACE as long as Israel exists. So, the complete destruction of Israel would, in the eyes of Iran, be a "peaceful purpose." They are being honest - in the typically deceitful manner of Islamists - when they say their nuclear energy would be used for peaceful purrposes - and the destruction of Israel is the most "peaceful purpose" on their list.
/
Why Islam Really Wants To Destroy Israel
There has been a lot of speculation as to why Islam is so intent on destroying Israel, all Jews, and even Christianity, which arose from Judism. But it really is no big secret for those who simply read the story of Abraham in the Bible.
Abraham had two sons - one, Isaac, was fair-skinned who would father the Hebrew nations. The other, Ishmael, was dark-skinned and would spawn the Arab nations.
When Abraham was going blind and dying, he was about to bestow everything to his eldest, favored son, Isaac. Isaac would receive all the lands and all that Abraham held. Ishmael would serve Isaac.
Ishmael was not at all happy about that, so he fooled his blind father into thinking he was Isaac, whereupon Abraham officially bestowed all his welath and lands to Ishmael, believing him to be Isaac.
Ishmael, using treachery and deceit, stole everything from Isaac, the rightful heir. Not wanting any witness to his treachery, Ishmael wanted only to destroy Isaac, but Isaac survived.
Isaac fathered the Hebrew tribes, which would follow Judism. Ishmael, the deceiver, sired the Arab nations. And ever since Ishmael stole Isaac's birthright, Ishmael and his people have wanted to destroy Isaac and his people, for only the complete destruction of the Jews would provide legitimacy to the rights of the Arabs - there are only two ways to have legitimacy: by birthright, or by survivorship. Ishmael, as the younger son did not have the birthright, so he had a need to be the only surviving son.
And that is why the Arabs want to destroy the Jews. It is why Islam wants to destroy Judism, Israel and Christianity.
It is worthy to note that even in the very beginning, the "Arab" was the deceiver and destroyer, while the "Jew" was the peacemaker simply trying to survive against his enemy. And so it remains, thousands of years later.
/
Abraham had two sons - one, Isaac, was fair-skinned who would father the Hebrew nations. The other, Ishmael, was dark-skinned and would spawn the Arab nations.
When Abraham was going blind and dying, he was about to bestow everything to his eldest, favored son, Isaac. Isaac would receive all the lands and all that Abraham held. Ishmael would serve Isaac.
Ishmael was not at all happy about that, so he fooled his blind father into thinking he was Isaac, whereupon Abraham officially bestowed all his welath and lands to Ishmael, believing him to be Isaac.
Ishmael, using treachery and deceit, stole everything from Isaac, the rightful heir. Not wanting any witness to his treachery, Ishmael wanted only to destroy Isaac, but Isaac survived.
Isaac fathered the Hebrew tribes, which would follow Judism. Ishmael, the deceiver, sired the Arab nations. And ever since Ishmael stole Isaac's birthright, Ishmael and his people have wanted to destroy Isaac and his people, for only the complete destruction of the Jews would provide legitimacy to the rights of the Arabs - there are only two ways to have legitimacy: by birthright, or by survivorship. Ishmael, as the younger son did not have the birthright, so he had a need to be the only surviving son.
And that is why the Arabs want to destroy the Jews. It is why Islam wants to destroy Judism, Israel and Christianity.
It is worthy to note that even in the very beginning, the "Arab" was the deceiver and destroyer, while the "Jew" was the peacemaker simply trying to survive against his enemy. And so it remains, thousands of years later.
/
"Conference of Mayors" Votes Pro-Choice
When I first read that headline on HuffPost/AOL I thought it was a joke, since more than half of all Americans are pro-life. But as I read the article, the truth of the matter came to light DESPITE HuffPost's apparent attempt to hide the real truth by spinning the stats.
First, let's look at this "Conference of Mayors". It was comprised of mayors from "approximately 1200 towns and cities". Wow! But then a jolt of realization hits you - there are over 30,000 towns and cities in the United States. So, this "Conference of Mayors" only represented 4% of American towns and cities. And that begs the question, "Who, exactly, attended this 'conference'"?
Some of its leading sponsors include Michael Bloomberg of New York City, Ed Lee of San Francisco, Mike McGinn of Seattle, Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, Pedro Segarra of Hartford, Conn. and Sam Adams of Portland, Ore.
Do you notice anything about the mayors who sponsored this "conference"? Every one is from the uber-liberal metropolitan areas of America - strictly from the bluest of the "blue zone."
So it becomes clear - the REAL headline - and the truth, if HuffPost were to print it - would read "Conference of LIBERAL Mayors Vote Pro-Choice."
Nice try, HuffPost. And while you can certainly fool the fools who follow your garbage, you still cannot fool intelligent, thinking people.
/
First, let's look at this "Conference of Mayors". It was comprised of mayors from "approximately 1200 towns and cities". Wow! But then a jolt of realization hits you - there are over 30,000 towns and cities in the United States. So, this "Conference of Mayors" only represented 4% of American towns and cities. And that begs the question, "Who, exactly, attended this 'conference'"?
Some of its leading sponsors include Michael Bloomberg of New York City, Ed Lee of San Francisco, Mike McGinn of Seattle, Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, Pedro Segarra of Hartford, Conn. and Sam Adams of Portland, Ore.
Do you notice anything about the mayors who sponsored this "conference"? Every one is from the uber-liberal metropolitan areas of America - strictly from the bluest of the "blue zone."
So it becomes clear - the REAL headline - and the truth, if HuffPost were to print it - would read "Conference of LIBERAL Mayors Vote Pro-Choice."
Nice try, HuffPost. And while you can certainly fool the fools who follow your garbage, you still cannot fool intelligent, thinking people.
/
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Greece, the Euro & Abject Stupidity
As Greece considers abandoning the European Union and dumping the Euro, markets around the world tremble. And once again we see the debilitating effects of putting all our eggs in one basket.
Governments around the globe keep insisting on the stupidity of centralizing everything - money, electrical power, communications, food supplies etc. And they do this even after repeatedly being slapped down by natural forces that abhor centralization. The Euro is just one example.
When I was a kid, what happened in Greece had no effect on America to speak of. In fact, the financial affairs of any other country would have minimal effect on us. Then came the progrssive politicians and their call for "globalization", to insure that there would have to be peace on Earth because we all become connected and dependent upon one another.
What they fail to understand is that dependency is the road to failure, not success. America became the greatest power on Earth because we were INdependent, and refused to be dependent on others.
Our progressive politicians have successfully centralized far, far too many things. It would only take one large solar flare like the one that hit in the 1860's to completely wipe out all communications worldwide. And it would only take one act of terrorism to shut down the entire electrical grid across North America.
That is the problem with centralization (globalization) - it only takes one, small monkey wrench to destroy everything.
We need to become LESS dependent on others - including less dependent upon our own governments' social programs, which are designed by progressives to indoctrinate us all into a single society, all dependent upon others.
The biggest reason we should NOT become dependent upon others is the simple fact that NO ONE ON EARTH will be as interested in your fate as YOU. NO ONE will have YOUR best interests at heart. Just look at the U.N. - when was the last time they considered the best interests of America?
If Greece dumps the Euro, while it may have rippling effects worldwide, it would be the smartest thing Greece has done in generations.
And we, in America, should learn from this fiasco - do we really want our nation and its people to be at the mercy of some crappy little third world country that decides to upset the apple cart? Do we REALLY want to be one of the eggs in the basket when the basket gets dropped?
Wake up, America! We are headed for disaster unless we back off the "Global Freight Train" that is headed for derailment.
/
Governments around the globe keep insisting on the stupidity of centralizing everything - money, electrical power, communications, food supplies etc. And they do this even after repeatedly being slapped down by natural forces that abhor centralization. The Euro is just one example.
When I was a kid, what happened in Greece had no effect on America to speak of. In fact, the financial affairs of any other country would have minimal effect on us. Then came the progrssive politicians and their call for "globalization", to insure that there would have to be peace on Earth because we all become connected and dependent upon one another.
What they fail to understand is that dependency is the road to failure, not success. America became the greatest power on Earth because we were INdependent, and refused to be dependent on others.
Our progressive politicians have successfully centralized far, far too many things. It would only take one large solar flare like the one that hit in the 1860's to completely wipe out all communications worldwide. And it would only take one act of terrorism to shut down the entire electrical grid across North America.
That is the problem with centralization (globalization) - it only takes one, small monkey wrench to destroy everything.
We need to become LESS dependent on others - including less dependent upon our own governments' social programs, which are designed by progressives to indoctrinate us all into a single society, all dependent upon others.
The biggest reason we should NOT become dependent upon others is the simple fact that NO ONE ON EARTH will be as interested in your fate as YOU. NO ONE will have YOUR best interests at heart. Just look at the U.N. - when was the last time they considered the best interests of America?
If Greece dumps the Euro, while it may have rippling effects worldwide, it would be the smartest thing Greece has done in generations.
And we, in America, should learn from this fiasco - do we really want our nation and its people to be at the mercy of some crappy little third world country that decides to upset the apple cart? Do we REALLY want to be one of the eggs in the basket when the basket gets dropped?
Wake up, America! We are headed for disaster unless we back off the "Global Freight Train" that is headed for derailment.
/
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Can We Still Blame Bush?
A recent poll shows 68% of Americans blame Bush for the current poor economy. Of course, two wars and the bank bailout did drive up the debt, but can we still blame Bush for the CURRENT state of affairs?
From September 2009 - July 2010 we had three consecutive quarters of 4% growth, which is rather robust. It indicated that the "Bush recession" had ended. And so Obama got in front of the cam to state we were going to have a "recovery summer."
Since July 2010, growth has gone down consistently, and a NEW downturn is upon us. Employment rate is again creeping upwards, as is the cost of everything we buy. This cannot be attributed to Bush. THIS economy rests squarely upon the scant shoulders of Mr. Obama and his do-nothing Democrat-controlled Senate.
The Republican House has sent over 30 jobs bills to the Senate, but the Democrats will not even vote on them. The Republican house has presented budgets to the Senate, but the Democrat Senate - in violation of the Constitution - has not passed a budget in three years.
THIS current economic state is the direct result of the policies (or lack of good policies) of the President and the Democrat Senate.
Bush can no longer be blamed - at least, not rightfully.
And if your liberal friends contest this, just ask them one question: "In 2010 we elected a few Republicans to the House, and even before they were inaugurated, the liberals were screaming that those Republiccans still were not creating jobs. Yet Obama has been in office for nearly 4 years - so, how do they blame Republicans not even in office a week, but not blame Obama who has been in office for 4 years?
/
From September 2009 - July 2010 we had three consecutive quarters of 4% growth, which is rather robust. It indicated that the "Bush recession" had ended. And so Obama got in front of the cam to state we were going to have a "recovery summer."
Since July 2010, growth has gone down consistently, and a NEW downturn is upon us. Employment rate is again creeping upwards, as is the cost of everything we buy. This cannot be attributed to Bush. THIS economy rests squarely upon the scant shoulders of Mr. Obama and his do-nothing Democrat-controlled Senate.
The Republican House has sent over 30 jobs bills to the Senate, but the Democrats will not even vote on them. The Republican house has presented budgets to the Senate, but the Democrat Senate - in violation of the Constitution - has not passed a budget in three years.
THIS current economic state is the direct result of the policies (or lack of good policies) of the President and the Democrat Senate.
Bush can no longer be blamed - at least, not rightfully.
And if your liberal friends contest this, just ask them one question: "In 2010 we elected a few Republicans to the House, and even before they were inaugurated, the liberals were screaming that those Republiccans still were not creating jobs. Yet Obama has been in office for nearly 4 years - so, how do they blame Republicans not even in office a week, but not blame Obama who has been in office for 4 years?
/
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Dead Wrong
The current administration came into power with a strong belief in "Keynesian economics" rather than the tried and true Friedman economics professed by nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman. They were certain that their theories on economics would revive the economy.
They were dead wrong.
They believed that their "social justice" policies would move the country "forward".
They were dead wrong.
They believed that the stimulus spending would bring the unemployment rate below 8%, "guaranteed".
They were dead wrong.
They believed that we, the people would love their extravagant, expensive, freedom-stealing "ObamaCare".
They were dead wrong.
In 2009, President Obama said, "If I don't turn this around in the first three years, I will be a one term president."
He was DEAD RIGHT!
/
They were dead wrong.
They believed that their "social justice" policies would move the country "forward".
They were dead wrong.
They believed that the stimulus spending would bring the unemployment rate below 8%, "guaranteed".
They were dead wrong.
They believed that we, the people would love their extravagant, expensive, freedom-stealing "ObamaCare".
They were dead wrong.
In 2009, President Obama said, "If I don't turn this around in the first three years, I will be a one term president."
He was DEAD RIGHT!
/
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Secret Trade Negotiations To Harm America
The Obama administration has been in SECRET trade negotiations for two years (so much for transparency). And it is the details of the trade agreement that are very disconcerting to real Americans, because Obama is planning on giving away our sovereign rights to a multinational court.
Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.
And that is only a small part of the troubling details that were leaked today.
This is not the only instance where Obama wants to usurp American sovereignty. This trade agreement is on top of the Law of the Sea Treaty he is advocating, which this blog addressed a couple weeks ago.
Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism, and thinks it is wrong for us to be "King of the Hill". He has often said so. And he is doing everything in his power to take us down to the level of other nations, in his effort to push his "social justice' agenda.
We need to stop this dangerous, Marxist amateur in November.
/
Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.
And that is only a small part of the troubling details that were leaked today.
This is not the only instance where Obama wants to usurp American sovereignty. This trade agreement is on top of the Law of the Sea Treaty he is advocating, which this blog addressed a couple weeks ago.
Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism, and thinks it is wrong for us to be "King of the Hill". He has often said so. And he is doing everything in his power to take us down to the level of other nations, in his effort to push his "social justice' agenda.
We need to stop this dangerous, Marxist amateur in November.
/
Monday, June 11, 2012
Commerce Secretary Bryson's Accidents Due To Seizure???
The latest reports from the lamestream media claim Commerce Secretary Bryson had a seizure which caused him to be involved in two accidents.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the San Gabriel Police Department said that in the first crash, Bryson was driving alone in his Lexus on a major street in San Gabriel when he allegedly struck the rear end of a Buick. He spoke with the occupants of that car before leaving the scene and "hitting the same car again as he left the scene," according to a police statement. The men in the Buick followed him.
The agencies say minutes later he struck another vehicle, a Honda Accord, in a nearby community, and police arriving found him unconscious behind the wheel of his car.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a problem with their explanation that it was caused by a seizure.
1) He hits a car
2) He then gets out and exchanges info with the other driver (during a seizure?)
3) He then drives off, hitting the same car a second time (Did this "seizure" just kinda come and go?)
4) Minutes later, he hits another car. Did he have yet another seizure?
My understanding of seizures is that you would not be getting out of a car and cogently exchanging insurance info with someone. The seizure would had to have been over by that point, I should think. If not, how was he functioning at all?
Frankly, I think the "seizure" excuse is just a lame excuse for what really transpired. And if drugs or alcohol were not involved, why the need to cover up with a "seizure" that comes and goes several times over the course of this event?
Did anyone ask the guy he was exchanging insurance info with whether or not Bryson appeared to be having a seizure?
Fishy, to say the least.
/
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the San Gabriel Police Department said that in the first crash, Bryson was driving alone in his Lexus on a major street in San Gabriel when he allegedly struck the rear end of a Buick. He spoke with the occupants of that car before leaving the scene and "hitting the same car again as he left the scene," according to a police statement. The men in the Buick followed him.
The agencies say minutes later he struck another vehicle, a Honda Accord, in a nearby community, and police arriving found him unconscious behind the wheel of his car.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a problem with their explanation that it was caused by a seizure.
1) He hits a car
2) He then gets out and exchanges info with the other driver (during a seizure?)
3) He then drives off, hitting the same car a second time (Did this "seizure" just kinda come and go?)
4) Minutes later, he hits another car. Did he have yet another seizure?
My understanding of seizures is that you would not be getting out of a car and cogently exchanging insurance info with someone. The seizure would had to have been over by that point, I should think. If not, how was he functioning at all?
Frankly, I think the "seizure" excuse is just a lame excuse for what really transpired. And if drugs or alcohol were not involved, why the need to cover up with a "seizure" that comes and goes several times over the course of this event?
Did anyone ask the guy he was exchanging insurance info with whether or not Bryson appeared to be having a seizure?
Fishy, to say the least.
/
Does WH Need "Depends" To Stop The Leaks?
Eight serious leaks this year, each of which violates the Espionage Act because they harm the country and the government's ability to protect us. It used to be a Death Penalty offense, right up there with treason (which it really is).
In studying those leaks I asked a simple question - "WHO had that Top Secret information?" And the simple answer was, "Only people in the administration had all that information."
Then I asked, "The purpose of a leak is to benefit someone - who does these leaks benefit?" Again, the answer was the administration - each one made Obama look like a good, strong leader. And in an election year no less.
So Congress wants an INDEPENDENT prosecuter to look into this, but guess what? The administration says "no". The administration decided to have the administration (Holder) look into it, and to insure the investigation is not completed before the election. Again I ask, "Why?" We all know why - if the administration is NOT complicit, they would WANT the results to be made public before the election. The only reason I can think of to drag it out is because they know someone in the administration is a traitor.
I don't care what anyone else says or thinks - I believe one or more of the folks in the White House are complicit in acts of espionage for the express purpose of making themselves and/or the President look good. And frankly, I would not be surprised if this came from the top. Just my opinion.
Maybe if we all were to send a DEPENDS to the White House they would get the message to STOP THE LEAKS!
Just my opinion - but it is an opinion founded in the simple answers to simple questions.
/
In studying those leaks I asked a simple question - "WHO had that Top Secret information?" And the simple answer was, "Only people in the administration had all that information."
Then I asked, "The purpose of a leak is to benefit someone - who does these leaks benefit?" Again, the answer was the administration - each one made Obama look like a good, strong leader. And in an election year no less.
So Congress wants an INDEPENDENT prosecuter to look into this, but guess what? The administration says "no". The administration decided to have the administration (Holder) look into it, and to insure the investigation is not completed before the election. Again I ask, "Why?" We all know why - if the administration is NOT complicit, they would WANT the results to be made public before the election. The only reason I can think of to drag it out is because they know someone in the administration is a traitor.
I don't care what anyone else says or thinks - I believe one or more of the folks in the White House are complicit in acts of espionage for the express purpose of making themselves and/or the President look good. And frankly, I would not be surprised if this came from the top. Just my opinion.
Maybe if we all were to send a DEPENDS to the White House they would get the message to STOP THE LEAKS!
Just my opinion - but it is an opinion founded in the simple answers to simple questions.
/
Sunday, June 10, 2012
If You Can't Get Rid Of Fat...
A lot of readers have been telling me they would like some REAL info on getting rid of some fat, without any of the sales hype for crap. Here is the best info (via video) I have found. It is sensible, and it works.
The video does end up trying to sell you a program, but most people do not need that - just follow the free tips provided in the first half of the video about what NOT to eat, and why, and you will lose fat and be healthier.
And no, it's not about avacados...
http://www.beyonddiet.com/bd/landing?food=avocado
And then there is this one...this guys product is probably bogus, but the info and tips in the first half are valid.
http://www.realdose.com/weight-loss/g/lose-belly-fat-naturally/?a_aid=PPC&a_bid=1722cbe9&chan=GPPC&utm_source=google&utm_medium=display&utm_term=nil&utm_campaign=weight_loss&gclid=CL6R8Y3zxLACFQrf4Aodt1xOVg
Good luck!
/
The video does end up trying to sell you a program, but most people do not need that - just follow the free tips provided in the first half of the video about what NOT to eat, and why, and you will lose fat and be healthier.
And no, it's not about avacados...
http://www.beyonddiet.com/bd/landing?food=avocado
And then there is this one...this guys product is probably bogus, but the info and tips in the first half are valid.
http://www.realdose.com/weight-loss/g/lose-belly-fat-naturally/?a_aid=PPC&a_bid=1722cbe9&chan=GPPC&utm_source=google&utm_medium=display&utm_term=nil&utm_campaign=weight_loss&gclid=CL6R8Y3zxLACFQrf4Aodt1xOVg
Good luck!
/
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Only Liberal Comedians Are Off Limits
Every time a liberal comedian makes an unfunny "joke" that smears a conservative, liberals say, "Oh, it's OK - he's a comedian. It's only a joke." Like when Letterman smeared and slandered Sarah Palin's underage daughter, or Bill Maher calls conservative women the "C" word. All that is OK, according to liberals, because they are "only comedians."
But they sing a different tune when the comedian is a conservative joking about liberals. Like when Don Rickles (a REAL comedian, unlike those idiots Letterman and Maher) made a joke about Obama.
"I shouldn’t make fun of the blacks," Rickles, 86, said according to The Hollywood Reporter. "President Obama is a personal friend of mine. He was over to the house yesterday, but the mop broke."
Now I admit, it is always in poor taste to use race as a basis for a joke. But it is also in poor taste to use conservative women - or their underage daughters - as a basis for a joke.
Rickles should not have made such a joke. But neither should Letterman, Maher or any other liberal idiot that thinks he's a comic. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If liberals think it's OK for Maher to smear people in a cruel fashion, then it is just as OK for Rickles to make a racial joke.
After all - he's "only a comedian."
/
But they sing a different tune when the comedian is a conservative joking about liberals. Like when Don Rickles (a REAL comedian, unlike those idiots Letterman and Maher) made a joke about Obama.
"I shouldn’t make fun of the blacks," Rickles, 86, said according to The Hollywood Reporter. "President Obama is a personal friend of mine. He was over to the house yesterday, but the mop broke."
Now I admit, it is always in poor taste to use race as a basis for a joke. But it is also in poor taste to use conservative women - or their underage daughters - as a basis for a joke.
Rickles should not have made such a joke. But neither should Letterman, Maher or any other liberal idiot that thinks he's a comic. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If liberals think it's OK for Maher to smear people in a cruel fashion, then it is just as OK for Rickles to make a racial joke.
After all - he's "only a comedian."
/
Remember The Movie "Soylent Green"?
The movie plot revolved around a world in which there were far too many people, and far too little food. So the government created a food replacement called soylent green. No one ever thought to ask where the nutrients of soylent green were coming from. As it turned out, older persons were "eliminated" and turned into soylent green. It was the only source of food available.
And that brings me to the current world. In the '50's it was recognized that there was already an unsustainable population, so more "food" sources were needed. And in the '60's we were introduced to a new "food" developed from soybeans. Soybeans are actually toxic, and must be seriously processed with another toxic substance to make soy an edible product. It was a way to help feed a burgeoning population. But there was one little problem - the population just keeps on exploding exponentially. We now have nearly 7 billion humans on this rock we call home, and that is expected to double in this coming generation. And the real problem is simply that while the population is expanding, the amount of land needed for agriculture is not. In fact, it is shrinking big time as humans propagate. We need space for homes, work, parking lots, highways, stores, airports...
So science has to come up with MORE "foods" that aren't food, and convince us they are great for us. Instead of sugar, it's now "high fructose corn syrup". And there's tofu. And about 70 other "foods" that were not foods just a generation ago. Science is struggling to produce more food using less space. The result is that much of our food is not food at all.
HINT: If it wasn't food 100 years ago, it's not food now.
But the world needs these fake foods, because we cannot produce enough real food.
I contend that much of our medical ills are brought on from these fake foods. Our bodies have spent a million years with certain nutritional needs from natural sources. And in one or two generations, our bodies are being forced to accept foods that were never intended for our bodies. The result? Increasing illnesses and obesity.
This might also explain why liberals are so adamant about abortion rights - many liberals strongly believe in population control. Some (like Carl Sandburg) have even advocated euthanasia of those who are unable to contribute substantially to society.
Soylent Green, anyone?
This may have you asking, "What can I do about it?"
All I can tell you is what I, myself, am doing, and have done for years. I raise my own crops, and even some of my meat, all on my own land. My garden is only 1/4 acre and feeds my family of three, plus our pets. And our meat rabbits (the leanest meat on Earth) only take up about 100 square feet of barn area, and they produce enough to provide our family with about 1/3 of our meat and all the meat for our 5 miniature schnauzers. The rest we trade or sell. The money we get from rabbit sales is used to buy chicken or beef to round out our diet.
The rabbit droppings are the best natural fertilzer available, and keeps our garden space fertile.
I realize not everyone can do what we do, but almost everyone can do something. Even window boxes can grow a few crops. Imagine - if every person in America were to grow even 5 pounds of food each year, that would increase the supply of natural, healthy food to the tune of over 15 million pounds per year.
Just so you know - I have a raised bed I use especially to grow carrots. The bed is 4'x16' - doesn't take much room. And it produces over 200 pounds of carrots every year. The same space would also grow about 40 pounds of peas. So you see, it doesn't take much for a person to contribute to their own needs.
Imagine - a buck for carrot seed, and you get 200 pounds of food!
It sure beats soylent green...
/
And that brings me to the current world. In the '50's it was recognized that there was already an unsustainable population, so more "food" sources were needed. And in the '60's we were introduced to a new "food" developed from soybeans. Soybeans are actually toxic, and must be seriously processed with another toxic substance to make soy an edible product. It was a way to help feed a burgeoning population. But there was one little problem - the population just keeps on exploding exponentially. We now have nearly 7 billion humans on this rock we call home, and that is expected to double in this coming generation. And the real problem is simply that while the population is expanding, the amount of land needed for agriculture is not. In fact, it is shrinking big time as humans propagate. We need space for homes, work, parking lots, highways, stores, airports...
So science has to come up with MORE "foods" that aren't food, and convince us they are great for us. Instead of sugar, it's now "high fructose corn syrup". And there's tofu. And about 70 other "foods" that were not foods just a generation ago. Science is struggling to produce more food using less space. The result is that much of our food is not food at all.
HINT: If it wasn't food 100 years ago, it's not food now.
But the world needs these fake foods, because we cannot produce enough real food.
I contend that much of our medical ills are brought on from these fake foods. Our bodies have spent a million years with certain nutritional needs from natural sources. And in one or two generations, our bodies are being forced to accept foods that were never intended for our bodies. The result? Increasing illnesses and obesity.
This might also explain why liberals are so adamant about abortion rights - many liberals strongly believe in population control. Some (like Carl Sandburg) have even advocated euthanasia of those who are unable to contribute substantially to society.
Soylent Green, anyone?
This may have you asking, "What can I do about it?"
All I can tell you is what I, myself, am doing, and have done for years. I raise my own crops, and even some of my meat, all on my own land. My garden is only 1/4 acre and feeds my family of three, plus our pets. And our meat rabbits (the leanest meat on Earth) only take up about 100 square feet of barn area, and they produce enough to provide our family with about 1/3 of our meat and all the meat for our 5 miniature schnauzers. The rest we trade or sell. The money we get from rabbit sales is used to buy chicken or beef to round out our diet.
The rabbit droppings are the best natural fertilzer available, and keeps our garden space fertile.
I realize not everyone can do what we do, but almost everyone can do something. Even window boxes can grow a few crops. Imagine - if every person in America were to grow even 5 pounds of food each year, that would increase the supply of natural, healthy food to the tune of over 15 million pounds per year.
Just so you know - I have a raised bed I use especially to grow carrots. The bed is 4'x16' - doesn't take much room. And it produces over 200 pounds of carrots every year. The same space would also grow about 40 pounds of peas. So you see, it doesn't take much for a person to contribute to their own needs.
Imagine - a buck for carrot seed, and you get 200 pounds of food!
It sure beats soylent green...
/
Friday, June 8, 2012
Getting Health Care Costs Under Control
Here are a few of my thoughts on the best way to control health care costs without putting a burden on citizens.
1) Tort reform. Limit the types of cases that can be pursued against medical practicioners and limit amounts that can be awarded, thereby reducing the cost of malpractice insurance. Savings passed on to patients.
2) Remove state line restrictions. Each person should be allowed to shop around for the benefits they require, and "comparison shop". Competition drives costs down
3) Unbundle. Currently, people have little or no choice in the coverage their policy provides. Make it possible for people to create their own package, suited to their needs. They might get prescription coverage from one insurer and major medical from another. Again, costs go down due to competition, and people do not have to pay for benefits they do not require or cannot use (should a single male have to pay for mammogram coverage?)
4) Subsidize health. Many foods are simply unhealthy, but they tend to be much cheaper than healthier food choices. Identify the less healthy foods and/or ingredients and tax the manufacturer for producing those foods or using those ingredients (like trans fat, High Fructose Corn Syrup, junk foods etc.) and use those funds to subsidize companies that produce healthy food choices, making the healthier foods less expensive. Easier, cheaper access to healthier foods would result in better health overall, and reduce demand for expensive health care
5) Add a 1/2% tax to FICA to be kept separate and used ONLY for subsidizing the research and development of new medical equipment and/or procedures (not drugs). In return for funding R&D, costs for the equipment and/or procedures would be reduced accordingly
6) Bonding. Any company that produces or whose actions could cause serious medical threats would be required to put up a bond in an amount determined by the scope of the threat. Should the threat materialize, the costs to deal with it are paid through the bond. It would be similar to malpractice insurance, or a "security deposit". For example, tobacco companies would put up a bond that would cover medical expenses in the event they are sued because some smoker died of lung cancer, and oil companies would have a bond to cover spills, etc.
7) Educate. Every school in America, beginning with Grade 1, should have mandatory classes on health and nutrition.
8) Put Physical Education back into every school - and devise ways to make exercise fun.
It would be wrong to take choices away from a free people, as Bloomberg tries to do in New York City. It is also ineffective. It is far better to allow the choices, but to make less healthy choices more expensive and use those funds to make more healthy choices less expensive. Many people make choices according to cost.
/
1) Tort reform. Limit the types of cases that can be pursued against medical practicioners and limit amounts that can be awarded, thereby reducing the cost of malpractice insurance. Savings passed on to patients.
2) Remove state line restrictions. Each person should be allowed to shop around for the benefits they require, and "comparison shop". Competition drives costs down
3) Unbundle. Currently, people have little or no choice in the coverage their policy provides. Make it possible for people to create their own package, suited to their needs. They might get prescription coverage from one insurer and major medical from another. Again, costs go down due to competition, and people do not have to pay for benefits they do not require or cannot use (should a single male have to pay for mammogram coverage?)
4) Subsidize health. Many foods are simply unhealthy, but they tend to be much cheaper than healthier food choices. Identify the less healthy foods and/or ingredients and tax the manufacturer for producing those foods or using those ingredients (like trans fat, High Fructose Corn Syrup, junk foods etc.) and use those funds to subsidize companies that produce healthy food choices, making the healthier foods less expensive. Easier, cheaper access to healthier foods would result in better health overall, and reduce demand for expensive health care
5) Add a 1/2% tax to FICA to be kept separate and used ONLY for subsidizing the research and development of new medical equipment and/or procedures (not drugs). In return for funding R&D, costs for the equipment and/or procedures would be reduced accordingly
6) Bonding. Any company that produces or whose actions could cause serious medical threats would be required to put up a bond in an amount determined by the scope of the threat. Should the threat materialize, the costs to deal with it are paid through the bond. It would be similar to malpractice insurance, or a "security deposit". For example, tobacco companies would put up a bond that would cover medical expenses in the event they are sued because some smoker died of lung cancer, and oil companies would have a bond to cover spills, etc.
7) Educate. Every school in America, beginning with Grade 1, should have mandatory classes on health and nutrition.
8) Put Physical Education back into every school - and devise ways to make exercise fun.
It would be wrong to take choices away from a free people, as Bloomberg tries to do in New York City. It is also ineffective. It is far better to allow the choices, but to make less healthy choices more expensive and use those funds to make more healthy choices less expensive. Many people make choices according to cost.
/
Thursday, June 7, 2012
You Won't Hear This From The Mainstream Media
If there is a singular reason for the mess America is in right now, it is the simple fact that the liberal mainstream media refuse to do their job, and be objective. They are so deep into the tank for liberal causes that they actively avoid telling their readers and viewers the truth about many things. And this one is a corker!
In the '90's, there was a socialist/communist party in Chicago. Much of their mission statement was copied almost word for word from the Constitution - not ours, but the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. (communist Russia). The name of the party was the NEW PARTY.
In 2008 a story surfaced that Barack Obama was a member of the NEW Party. He vehemently denied it and villified anyone who brought up the story. And the mainstream media never even questioned it - because they did not want to know.
Over the last 4 years, the president's own "stop the smears" website continued to deny the story.
But now a diligent journalist has dug up records from ACORN and the Minutes of the Meeting of the NEW Party for January 11, 1996. Barack Obama was at that meeting, and photos were taken. At that meeting the minutes state he asked the NEW Party for their support, he signed a pledge to push their agenda and signed up to be a member.
Two things: it appears Barack Obama was, indeed a member of a socialist party, and that he and his team have been lying about it ever since.
But the more important thing - people like that get away with it because the lamestream media will not do their job. They adamantly refuse to investigate "their" liberal politicians. The fail to vet them because they don't want to know, and really don't care about skeletons in liberal closets. And because of that, America is failing. The mainstream news outlets and magazines are lying through their teeth to convince the public that liberals are the hope for the future. And that is not even close to the truth.
For more info on this, read the whole story at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/ or http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=46533
/
In the '90's, there was a socialist/communist party in Chicago. Much of their mission statement was copied almost word for word from the Constitution - not ours, but the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. (communist Russia). The name of the party was the NEW PARTY.
In 2008 a story surfaced that Barack Obama was a member of the NEW Party. He vehemently denied it and villified anyone who brought up the story. And the mainstream media never even questioned it - because they did not want to know.
Over the last 4 years, the president's own "stop the smears" website continued to deny the story.
But now a diligent journalist has dug up records from ACORN and the Minutes of the Meeting of the NEW Party for January 11, 1996. Barack Obama was at that meeting, and photos were taken. At that meeting the minutes state he asked the NEW Party for their support, he signed a pledge to push their agenda and signed up to be a member.
Two things: it appears Barack Obama was, indeed a member of a socialist party, and that he and his team have been lying about it ever since.
But the more important thing - people like that get away with it because the lamestream media will not do their job. They adamantly refuse to investigate "their" liberal politicians. The fail to vet them because they don't want to know, and really don't care about skeletons in liberal closets. And because of that, America is failing. The mainstream news outlets and magazines are lying through their teeth to convince the public that liberals are the hope for the future. And that is not even close to the truth.
For more info on this, read the whole story at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/ or http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=46533
/
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Number of "Green Jobs" Is Inflated - A LOT!
In a Congressional hearing, Congressman Issa (R) questioned the guy at the Labor Department that came up with all those "green job" numbers that make Obama look good. Guess what? The guy admitted that many of those "green jobs" are not even close to being green jobs.
Issa asked if a janitor at a green facility was considered a green job
"Yes"
Is a bus driver who just happens to drive a hybrid bus a green job?
"Yes"
Is the gas station attendant who pumps gas into that hybrid bus a green job?
"Yes"
Being a clerk at a bicycle shop - is that a green job?
"Yes"
Following the fuzzy (dishonest) logic of the Obama folks, it appears that the guy who drills an "un-green" oil well is a green job because he produces the oil that is turned to gas so the gas station attendant could pump it into a hybrid bus.
And coal miners are "green" jobs because coal produces 70% of all electricity, and electricity is used in electric cars.
Seems to me Obama's Labor folks are really stretching to get decent numbers. Makes one wonder if they might be doing the same with OTHER "jobs numbers", like unemployment...
/
Issa asked if a janitor at a green facility was considered a green job
"Yes"
Is a bus driver who just happens to drive a hybrid bus a green job?
"Yes"
Is the gas station attendant who pumps gas into that hybrid bus a green job?
"Yes"
Being a clerk at a bicycle shop - is that a green job?
"Yes"
Following the fuzzy (dishonest) logic of the Obama folks, it appears that the guy who drills an "un-green" oil well is a green job because he produces the oil that is turned to gas so the gas station attendant could pump it into a hybrid bus.
And coal miners are "green" jobs because coal produces 70% of all electricity, and electricity is used in electric cars.
Seems to me Obama's Labor folks are really stretching to get decent numbers. Makes one wonder if they might be doing the same with OTHER "jobs numbers", like unemployment...
/
Monday, June 4, 2012
Democrat Fuzzy Math Doesn't Add Up
There are three kinds of people - those who are good at math, and Democrats.
This one is so blatantly false that it's only usefulness is for a good laugh. In the latest ad by the Obama campaign, Sarah Jessica Parker says "Obama has created 4.3 million American jobs."
Let's check that math - there are only 180 million adults in America. Four percent (7 million) will never be employed - alcoholics, homeless, career welfare etc. Now, approximately 40 million people draw Social Security. And 24 million are unemployed or underemployed. That leaves about 109 million available for employment.
Now, if Obama created 4.3 million jobs, that means he is responsible for employing one in every 25 people working people owe their jobs to Obama. Really? That means for every 25 people among your family and friends, one had to get a job because of Obama policies. Among the hundreds I know, I don't think I know even one who got a job because of Obama policies.
The CBO says the so-called "stimulus" created about 749,000 jobs. The Stimulus bill was $787 billion. That means the cost per job is roughly $1.05 million per job. Wouldn't you just love to have a job that pays a million? Solyndra, for example, got almost $500 milllion and only created 15 jobs - and then went bankrupt. So, while those 15 expensive jobs were created, they certainly were not permanent, and were subsequently lost. In fact, most of the jobs created have since been lost because government stimulus jobs go away once the stimulus money runs out.
I still think politicians should be charged with a felony for knowingly lying to their constituents. That is a betrayal of our trust.
/
This one is so blatantly false that it's only usefulness is for a good laugh. In the latest ad by the Obama campaign, Sarah Jessica Parker says "Obama has created 4.3 million American jobs."
Let's check that math - there are only 180 million adults in America. Four percent (7 million) will never be employed - alcoholics, homeless, career welfare etc. Now, approximately 40 million people draw Social Security. And 24 million are unemployed or underemployed. That leaves about 109 million available for employment.
Now, if Obama created 4.3 million jobs, that means he is responsible for employing one in every 25 people working people owe their jobs to Obama. Really? That means for every 25 people among your family and friends, one had to get a job because of Obama policies. Among the hundreds I know, I don't think I know even one who got a job because of Obama policies.
The CBO says the so-called "stimulus" created about 749,000 jobs. The Stimulus bill was $787 billion. That means the cost per job is roughly $1.05 million per job. Wouldn't you just love to have a job that pays a million? Solyndra, for example, got almost $500 milllion and only created 15 jobs - and then went bankrupt. So, while those 15 expensive jobs were created, they certainly were not permanent, and were subsequently lost. In fact, most of the jobs created have since been lost because government stimulus jobs go away once the stimulus money runs out.
I still think politicians should be charged with a felony for knowingly lying to their constituents. That is a betrayal of our trust.
/
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Liberal Desperation In WI Leads To False Allegations
Here's the latest on the desperation of union liberals to try and recall Governor Walker in Wisconsin. This is a typical trick of deceit practiced by liberals and invoked just days before an election in order to smear their opponent without giving them time to respond.
A Facebook post by David Shuster of the far-left Take Action News said, "According to government lawyers familiar with a Milwaukee criminal corruption probe, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is now a 'target' of their investigation."
However, there is absolutely ZERO evidence of any such targeting of Walker, and no "government lawyers" have gone on record to substantiate Shuster's claim. It is nothing more than a phony allegation in order to smear Walker just days before the election. But the liberal hatchet job does not stop there...
On Twitter, Wisconsin Democratic Party Communications Director Graeme Zielinski replied to Walker's denial by saying, "If @GovWalker had a letter or evidence clearing him in corruption probe, don't you know he'd rent a firetruck." And that is the lowest thing of all - everyone knows you cannot disprove the existence of something that does not exist. If Walker is NOT the target of a probe, how would it be possible to produce a letter to that effect. Have YOU ever received a letter from the government telling you that you are NOT a target of a probe? No. The only ones who get letters are those who ARE a target. The government must notify them. But they do not notify people who are not involved in a probe.
Wisconsin Democratic Party Communications Director Zielinski is nothing less than a troll. He knows that he is asking the impossible, knowing Walker CANNOT provide any "letter". That's like asking someone to prove there is (or is not) a God. Can't be done. But just because the Pope cannot produce a letter from the Diety to prove His existence does not mean He does not exist.
You cannot prove a negative. Everyone knows it. But liberal Democrats use that tactic all the time. They use it before every election. Like their phony allegations of an affair between McCain and some woman. Or asking Meg Whitman to somehow prove she was unaware her previous housekeeper was an illegal.
And they will use this tactic against Romney in October (hence the name "October Surprise"). They will invent some bogus story that reflects badly on Romney, and Romney will not have enough time before the election to douse the flames. Trust me - Democrats will do EXACTLY that, so look for it.
Frankly, America would be better served if we could get Congress to pass a law making it a felony to make public any smear on a political candidate that cannot be verified with proof. If you cannot prove it, don't publish it. But Congress would never pass such a law that would result in putting most of them in the walls of prison instead of the Halls of Congress.
/
A Facebook post by David Shuster of the far-left Take Action News said, "According to government lawyers familiar with a Milwaukee criminal corruption probe, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is now a 'target' of their investigation."
However, there is absolutely ZERO evidence of any such targeting of Walker, and no "government lawyers" have gone on record to substantiate Shuster's claim. It is nothing more than a phony allegation in order to smear Walker just days before the election. But the liberal hatchet job does not stop there...
On Twitter, Wisconsin Democratic Party Communications Director Graeme Zielinski replied to Walker's denial by saying, "If @GovWalker had a letter or evidence clearing him in corruption probe, don't you know he'd rent a firetruck." And that is the lowest thing of all - everyone knows you cannot disprove the existence of something that does not exist. If Walker is NOT the target of a probe, how would it be possible to produce a letter to that effect. Have YOU ever received a letter from the government telling you that you are NOT a target of a probe? No. The only ones who get letters are those who ARE a target. The government must notify them. But they do not notify people who are not involved in a probe.
Wisconsin Democratic Party Communications Director Zielinski is nothing less than a troll. He knows that he is asking the impossible, knowing Walker CANNOT provide any "letter". That's like asking someone to prove there is (or is not) a God. Can't be done. But just because the Pope cannot produce a letter from the Diety to prove His existence does not mean He does not exist.
You cannot prove a negative. Everyone knows it. But liberal Democrats use that tactic all the time. They use it before every election. Like their phony allegations of an affair between McCain and some woman. Or asking Meg Whitman to somehow prove she was unaware her previous housekeeper was an illegal.
And they will use this tactic against Romney in October (hence the name "October Surprise"). They will invent some bogus story that reflects badly on Romney, and Romney will not have enough time before the election to douse the flames. Trust me - Democrats will do EXACTLY that, so look for it.
Frankly, America would be better served if we could get Congress to pass a law making it a felony to make public any smear on a political candidate that cannot be verified with proof. If you cannot prove it, don't publish it. But Congress would never pass such a law that would result in putting most of them in the walls of prison instead of the Halls of Congress.
/
Saturday, June 2, 2012
This Says Everything You Need To Know About The Left
Today on HuffPost was an article about the upcoming recall election in Wisconsin.
One person commented as follows:
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
miss sandy .517 Fans
"I hope the good people of Wisconsin come out in droves to take their state back. If they fail, every Republican governor in this country will do the same thing to their states that Walker has done to Wisconsin. We, the American people cannot allow that. "
Now here's the meat of this - since Walker was elected, unemployment is DOWN. The budget is beginning to balance for the first time in awhile. Things are actually looking up, as businesses are now moving to Wisconsin because of the changes Walker has made.
But that doesn't faze the left - oh, no! As Miss Sandy said, "We, the American people cannot allow" other Republican governors in other states to do the same thing - making things better. After all, if Republicans succeed in making things better, it could be a very long time before the left gets elected to anything higher than Animal Control Officer.
/
One person commented as follows:
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
miss sandy .517 Fans
"I hope the good people of Wisconsin come out in droves to take their state back. If they fail, every Republican governor in this country will do the same thing to their states that Walker has done to Wisconsin. We, the American people cannot allow that. "
Now here's the meat of this - since Walker was elected, unemployment is DOWN. The budget is beginning to balance for the first time in awhile. Things are actually looking up, as businesses are now moving to Wisconsin because of the changes Walker has made.
But that doesn't faze the left - oh, no! As Miss Sandy said, "We, the American people cannot allow" other Republican governors in other states to do the same thing - making things better. After all, if Republicans succeed in making things better, it could be a very long time before the left gets elected to anything higher than Animal Control Officer.
/
A Pattern of Lawlessness
In April, a 26 year old woman named Cruz was evicted from her home in Minneapolis for failing to pay for the home.
Most people realize that if you can't pay for something, you lose it, as well you should. After all, you can't go around collecting stuff and expecting to keep it for free. Of course, the "gimmee" people think that is how things should be - they should be able to have what everyone else has, and if they can't afford it they should get it free. But if that were the case, most businesses would go bankrupt - without getting paid for their products, they go belly up. Then no one will have anything.
Anyway...
Ms Cruz had come here as an illegal immigrant, from Mexico City. And a pattern of lawlessness begins - apparently her family had no respect for America's laws.
She goes on to "fight" for the DREAM act, which would bestow citizenship rights to most illegals. Again, we have a mindset that people should get a free ride as if it were a birthright.
Just prior to eviction, Cruz invited many of her activist friends to live in the house with her, in an attempt to thwart the eviction and to stand up for her "right" to stay in the home she was not paying for. More disregard for the law.
In April, Cruz left. But since then Occupy protesters have been staying at the house, trying to keep police from vacating it. As protesters are arrested, more move in.
It seems the Occupy folks also have no regard for the law OR for the property of others.
There is a pattern of lawlessness among those on the far left - Occupiers, illegals, drug users etc. In each case, these people have zero respect for anyone or anything. Their only objective in life is to live without the restrictions that come with laws. Society makes laws for the express purpose of protecting rights. But those on the far left care nothing about the rights of others - only about the rights they think THEY are entitled to. THEY have a right to protest YOU, but they do not believe YOU have the right to protest them. THEY have a right to a free ride, but YOU don't - YOU are the one they feel should be paying for their free ride.
Their disrespect of people, property and laws are the core of these people. They are selfish whiners who are absolutely useless to any civilized society. And we will all be better off if authorities finally begin to enforce the laws and crack down on the pattern of lawlessness that these people perpetuate.
/
Most people realize that if you can't pay for something, you lose it, as well you should. After all, you can't go around collecting stuff and expecting to keep it for free. Of course, the "gimmee" people think that is how things should be - they should be able to have what everyone else has, and if they can't afford it they should get it free. But if that were the case, most businesses would go bankrupt - without getting paid for their products, they go belly up. Then no one will have anything.
Anyway...
Ms Cruz had come here as an illegal immigrant, from Mexico City. And a pattern of lawlessness begins - apparently her family had no respect for America's laws.
She goes on to "fight" for the DREAM act, which would bestow citizenship rights to most illegals. Again, we have a mindset that people should get a free ride as if it were a birthright.
Just prior to eviction, Cruz invited many of her activist friends to live in the house with her, in an attempt to thwart the eviction and to stand up for her "right" to stay in the home she was not paying for. More disregard for the law.
In April, Cruz left. But since then Occupy protesters have been staying at the house, trying to keep police from vacating it. As protesters are arrested, more move in.
It seems the Occupy folks also have no regard for the law OR for the property of others.
There is a pattern of lawlessness among those on the far left - Occupiers, illegals, drug users etc. In each case, these people have zero respect for anyone or anything. Their only objective in life is to live without the restrictions that come with laws. Society makes laws for the express purpose of protecting rights. But those on the far left care nothing about the rights of others - only about the rights they think THEY are entitled to. THEY have a right to protest YOU, but they do not believe YOU have the right to protest them. THEY have a right to a free ride, but YOU don't - YOU are the one they feel should be paying for their free ride.
Their disrespect of people, property and laws are the core of these people. They are selfish whiners who are absolutely useless to any civilized society. And we will all be better off if authorities finally begin to enforce the laws and crack down on the pattern of lawlessness that these people perpetuate.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)