President Obama attended a fundraising event in Newport Beach. Since it was a campaign event, the campaign is responsible for any debts incurred. One of those debts was over $35,000 for the additional security Newport Beach had to provide.
The Obama campaign refuses to pay.
Kinda says a lot about the folks who complain that the rich don't pay their "fair share" when these clowns won't even pay their just debts.
Looks like the good folks of Newport Beach are going to be stuck paying the tab - another tax increase from Obama.
/
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Who Is Barak Obama?
This question still causes me concern - we know nothing of this man who is our president. For instance:
1) His records at Columbia - sealed
2) His records at Occidental - sealed
3) His records at Harvard - sealed
4) His records as an attorney - sealed
5) His college theses - sealed
6) How his college was funded - sealed
7) He has a Connecticut Social Security number - but never lived there
8) By his own adnission, his "autobiography" is fictional
9) His publisher claimed he was Muslim in the brochure that touted his book
10) Many have seen copies of his birth certificate, but no one has seen the original.
We know nothing about this man. He has been so meticulous in hiding his entire past. So why is he our president, and why is the liberal media so determined to keep him there?
He is asking for our vote. So we have a right to know who he is.
/
1) His records at Columbia - sealed
2) His records at Occidental - sealed
3) His records at Harvard - sealed
4) His records as an attorney - sealed
5) His college theses - sealed
6) How his college was funded - sealed
7) He has a Connecticut Social Security number - but never lived there
8) By his own adnission, his "autobiography" is fictional
9) His publisher claimed he was Muslim in the brochure that touted his book
10) Many have seen copies of his birth certificate, but no one has seen the original.
We know nothing about this man. He has been so meticulous in hiding his entire past. So why is he our president, and why is the liberal media so determined to keep him there?
He is asking for our vote. So we have a right to know who he is.
/
Obama Traced To John Punch, Slave #1 - NOT!
The liberal media are all over a report by Ancestry.com that says President Obama's lineage on his white mother's side goes back to John Punch, the first American black slave. But the story adds a minor caveat - they cannot prove it! But that does not stop the liberal media who are dying to "legitimize" Obama as a descendant of "The Black Struggle".
According to Ancestry.com. Obama MAY have been descended from John Punch through a man who may or may not have been Punch's son. But they quietly note that there is no record to prove that the Virginia tobacco farmer related to Obama and who owned 450 acres of land was actually the son of John Punch, a slave.
The liberal media "surmises" that Punch married a white woman, whose children were raised as white and could therefore be landowners. But again, there is no record to connect the two men. It is nothing more than a baseless assumption. Hey, does that mean I can be descended from George Washington just by assuming it?
But liberals do not care if it can be proved or not - to them, just the suggestion that it MIGHT be so is good enough for them to proclaim it IS so. Like evolution. Or global warming.
Meanwhile, the liberals have no interest in checking on Obama's ancestry on his black father's side, since he was Kenyan, and to this day many black Kenyans are still slave traders. The odds Obama is related to someone who sold people into slavery is not something they would like to discover.
/
According to Ancestry.com. Obama MAY have been descended from John Punch through a man who may or may not have been Punch's son. But they quietly note that there is no record to prove that the Virginia tobacco farmer related to Obama and who owned 450 acres of land was actually the son of John Punch, a slave.
The liberal media "surmises" that Punch married a white woman, whose children were raised as white and could therefore be landowners. But again, there is no record to connect the two men. It is nothing more than a baseless assumption. Hey, does that mean I can be descended from George Washington just by assuming it?
But liberals do not care if it can be proved or not - to them, just the suggestion that it MIGHT be so is good enough for them to proclaim it IS so. Like evolution. Or global warming.
Meanwhile, the liberals have no interest in checking on Obama's ancestry on his black father's side, since he was Kenyan, and to this day many black Kenyans are still slave traders. The odds Obama is related to someone who sold people into slavery is not something they would like to discover.
/
Democratic National Convention Makes "History"
Julian Castro, Democratic mayor of San Antonio, Texas, will be the first Latino to be keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. The Democrats claim it is because Castro has done so much to spur economic growth "from the middle out" in his city, as Obama likes to say.
Typical Democrat spin. There was no "middle out" growth in San Antonio - or anywhere else. According to Forbes and even San Antonio's own Economic Foundation, the growth was primarily spurred by bringing in new business (you know, the "top down" folks). And business came in because the Republicans that run the state of Texas have provided great economic incentives, such as lower taxes for corporations (which Democrats oppose).
So it would seem that San Antonio has grown not because of Julian Castro's meager efforts, but in spite of them. Democrats want higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, but Texas Republicans have kept taxes low, thereby bringing in the businesses that employ people and strengthen the middle class. The fact that the middle class is growing is simply because there are more wealthy businesses that are hiring people. And Texas Republicans are the ones who are responsible for that.
If the Democratic Natuional Convention wants to be honest and choose a keynote speaker most responsible for the growth and success of San Antonio - and most of Texas - perhaps they should choose Republican Governor Perry...
/
Typical Democrat spin. There was no "middle out" growth in San Antonio - or anywhere else. According to Forbes and even San Antonio's own Economic Foundation, the growth was primarily spurred by bringing in new business (you know, the "top down" folks). And business came in because the Republicans that run the state of Texas have provided great economic incentives, such as lower taxes for corporations (which Democrats oppose).
So it would seem that San Antonio has grown not because of Julian Castro's meager efforts, but in spite of them. Democrats want higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, but Texas Republicans have kept taxes low, thereby bringing in the businesses that employ people and strengthen the middle class. The fact that the middle class is growing is simply because there are more wealthy businesses that are hiring people. And Texas Republicans are the ones who are responsible for that.
If the Democratic Natuional Convention wants to be honest and choose a keynote speaker most responsible for the growth and success of San Antonio - and most of Texas - perhaps they should choose Republican Governor Perry...
/
Monday, July 30, 2012
Oldest Store In The Country Closes After 224 Years
This is important to note, as I will explain after the article from the news:
LITTLE COMPTON, R.I. (AP) -- Gray's Store in Adamsville village brought in customers for years with its old-fashioned marble soda fountain, cigar and tobacco cases, and Rhode Island johnny cakes.
The 224-year-old business may be the oldest operating general store in America, although others have staked similar claims. The Rhode Island store near the Massachusetts line opened in 1788. Now owners say this year is its last.
This store opened its doors one year after the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified and America became one nation, and one year before thew First Congress convened. At that time, there was no real government to speak of, nor any income taxes, nor millions of government regulations etc. Yet, the business started and thrived. Thrived for 224 years!
At the time of its inception, government provided NOTHING for businesses. Roads and bridges were built by the people in each community, working together to survive. They provided for themselves. And the businesses generally financed it.
Kinda tosses Obama's assertion the "you didn't build that" right out the ol' window, eh? Yes, we now have government, and it does provide infrastructure. But that is for EVERYONE to use. But the point is that businesses don't absolutely NEED it to be provided by government. And for every thing government provides, it also regulates so heavily as to outweigh any benefit.
The very nature of an entrepreneur is what builds a business - an entrepreneur would build a successful business no matter what, with or without government, as was done by the founder of Gray's Store. And if not for the stifling effect of government regulations and excessive taxes, even more businesses would be built, and would thrive.
For example, are you aware there are over 8000 pages of regulations just to borrow money from a bank? Or that the average small business with employees, just starting out, is subject to more than 15,000 regulations from the EPA, Labor Department and a myriad of other government agencies - federal, state and local? Who in their right mind would go through all that today? It's so much easier to just collect food stamps.
Gray's Store will be dearly missed. An important piece of America has passed away. And the entrepreneurial spirit that founded it and kept it going for 224 years is also dying, stifled and battered the the very government that was foun ded to protect and preserve it.
/
LITTLE COMPTON, R.I. (AP) -- Gray's Store in Adamsville village brought in customers for years with its old-fashioned marble soda fountain, cigar and tobacco cases, and Rhode Island johnny cakes.
The 224-year-old business may be the oldest operating general store in America, although others have staked similar claims. The Rhode Island store near the Massachusetts line opened in 1788. Now owners say this year is its last.
This store opened its doors one year after the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified and America became one nation, and one year before thew First Congress convened. At that time, there was no real government to speak of, nor any income taxes, nor millions of government regulations etc. Yet, the business started and thrived. Thrived for 224 years!
At the time of its inception, government provided NOTHING for businesses. Roads and bridges were built by the people in each community, working together to survive. They provided for themselves. And the businesses generally financed it.
Kinda tosses Obama's assertion the "you didn't build that" right out the ol' window, eh? Yes, we now have government, and it does provide infrastructure. But that is for EVERYONE to use. But the point is that businesses don't absolutely NEED it to be provided by government. And for every thing government provides, it also regulates so heavily as to outweigh any benefit.
The very nature of an entrepreneur is what builds a business - an entrepreneur would build a successful business no matter what, with or without government, as was done by the founder of Gray's Store. And if not for the stifling effect of government regulations and excessive taxes, even more businesses would be built, and would thrive.
For example, are you aware there are over 8000 pages of regulations just to borrow money from a bank? Or that the average small business with employees, just starting out, is subject to more than 15,000 regulations from the EPA, Labor Department and a myriad of other government agencies - federal, state and local? Who in their right mind would go through all that today? It's so much easier to just collect food stamps.
Gray's Store will be dearly missed. An important piece of America has passed away. And the entrepreneurial spirit that founded it and kept it going for 224 years is also dying, stifled and battered the the very government that was foun ded to protect and preserve it.
/
Is This ANOTHER Security Leak?
Israeli newspaper Haaretz said National Security Adviser Tom Donilon laid out the plans before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a dinner at a visit to Israel earlier this month, which came out as presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was telling Israel he would back an Israeli military strike against Iran.
The American official also said Donilon shared information on U.S. weapons that could be used for such an attack, and on the U.S. military's ability to reach Iranian nuclear facilities buried deep underground, the newspaper said.
Of course, there are denials all over the place, but it was Donilon who was also reported as having leaked other security info in recent months, so it does make one wonder - and since this reportedly came out just as Romney was assuring Israel, if this report is true, this would be yet another leak for partisan reasons, to make Obama look strong and keep favor with Jewish voters, particularly in Florida.
/
The American official also said Donilon shared information on U.S. weapons that could be used for such an attack, and on the U.S. military's ability to reach Iranian nuclear facilities buried deep underground, the newspaper said.
Of course, there are denials all over the place, but it was Donilon who was also reported as having leaked other security info in recent months, so it does make one wonder - and since this reportedly came out just as Romney was assuring Israel, if this report is true, this would be yet another leak for partisan reasons, to make Obama look strong and keep favor with Jewish voters, particularly in Florida.
/
Sunday, July 29, 2012
The President Vs. His Own Jobs Council
From the desk of John Boehner:
Flashback to January. When the Jobs Council last met, they produced a series of recommendations to get the economy moving and create jobs. As it turned out, their report looked a lot like what House Republicans have been advocating in the Plan for America’s Job Creators. Here’s how Reuters described the Council’s recommendations back then:
“President Barack Obama's jobs council is calling for a corporate tax overhaul, expanded domestic drilling and new regulatory reforms… The panel calls for lowering corporate tax rates to ‘internationally competitive levels’ while broadening the corporate tax base by eliminating deductions and loopholes… the report calls for an ‘all in’ strategy on energy that would seek to further exploit domestic fossil-fuel supplies to reduce reliance on foreign imports… [and] the report called for a series of reforms to streamline government rules and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, which it said would enhance U.S. competitiveness.”
As Speaker Boehner said at the time, “With this report, President Obama’s own panel of experts has endorsed the approach to job creation House Republicans have been pursuing for more than a year.” Indeed, House Republicans have passed more than 30 jobs bills that are focused on these very types of solutions: increasing American energy production, cutting red tape, providing tax relief for small businesses, and reforming our burdensome tax code. Despite calls for action from his Jobs Council, the president has “checked out” and roundly ignored these House-passed bills, leaving them to collect dust in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Now we know why the President has decided not to meet with his own Jobs Council - they agree with Republicans on how to jump-start the economy. And that is the last thing Obama wants to hear. He would rather let us go over the cliff than to admit his liberal ways are wrong and the Republicans are right.
And that is exactly what he is doing.
After 41 months of unemployment above eight percent, Americans would appreciate a president focused more on saving jobs than saving face.
Meanwhile, the Republican House has passed more than 30 jobs bills that are being blocked by Harry Reid and Senate Democrats. They fear if Republican bills pass - AND WORK - it would doom the Democratic Party. So, once again the Democrats show they are concerned not with the nation and its people, but with their own political arses.
/
Flashback to January. When the Jobs Council last met, they produced a series of recommendations to get the economy moving and create jobs. As it turned out, their report looked a lot like what House Republicans have been advocating in the Plan for America’s Job Creators. Here’s how Reuters described the Council’s recommendations back then:
“President Barack Obama's jobs council is calling for a corporate tax overhaul, expanded domestic drilling and new regulatory reforms… The panel calls for lowering corporate tax rates to ‘internationally competitive levels’ while broadening the corporate tax base by eliminating deductions and loopholes… the report calls for an ‘all in’ strategy on energy that would seek to further exploit domestic fossil-fuel supplies to reduce reliance on foreign imports… [and] the report called for a series of reforms to streamline government rules and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, which it said would enhance U.S. competitiveness.”
As Speaker Boehner said at the time, “With this report, President Obama’s own panel of experts has endorsed the approach to job creation House Republicans have been pursuing for more than a year.” Indeed, House Republicans have passed more than 30 jobs bills that are focused on these very types of solutions: increasing American energy production, cutting red tape, providing tax relief for small businesses, and reforming our burdensome tax code. Despite calls for action from his Jobs Council, the president has “checked out” and roundly ignored these House-passed bills, leaving them to collect dust in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Now we know why the President has decided not to meet with his own Jobs Council - they agree with Republicans on how to jump-start the economy. And that is the last thing Obama wants to hear. He would rather let us go over the cliff than to admit his liberal ways are wrong and the Republicans are right.
And that is exactly what he is doing.
After 41 months of unemployment above eight percent, Americans would appreciate a president focused more on saving jobs than saving face.
Meanwhile, the Republican House has passed more than 30 jobs bills that are being blocked by Harry Reid and Senate Democrats. They fear if Republican bills pass - AND WORK - it would doom the Democratic Party. So, once again the Democrats show they are concerned not with the nation and its people, but with their own political arses.
/
President Says "Trickle Down" Fails. Really?
In a recent speech (actually, several of them) President Obama makes the claim that "trickle down economics" does not work, and as "proof" he says it has not worked in the last decade.
Here's the problem - in the 225 year history of this country, "trickle down economics" worked for 215 years. And the only reason it has not worked well in the last 10 years is simply because government gets in the way by stifling free markets with strict regulations and controls and flooding the market with more paper money - not exactly "free markets."
Had the government stayed out of things, trickle down would have always worked.
But in no instance has "middle out" or "bottom up" economics ever worked anywhere on Earth where it was tried.
Once again, President Obama proves his ineptitude and ignorance in matters of economics.
Once more - the ONLY method of free market capitalism that works is "trickle down", as detailed by Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman. Wealth cannot go up, down or sideways until first it is created. And it is only created at the top by people who create products and provide services. So it MUST come down from the top. Only when wealth is CREATED by people on the bottom can wealth possibly "trickle up."
/
Here's the problem - in the 225 year history of this country, "trickle down economics" worked for 215 years. And the only reason it has not worked well in the last 10 years is simply because government gets in the way by stifling free markets with strict regulations and controls and flooding the market with more paper money - not exactly "free markets."
Had the government stayed out of things, trickle down would have always worked.
But in no instance has "middle out" or "bottom up" economics ever worked anywhere on Earth where it was tried.
Once again, President Obama proves his ineptitude and ignorance in matters of economics.
Once more - the ONLY method of free market capitalism that works is "trickle down", as detailed by Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman. Wealth cannot go up, down or sideways until first it is created. And it is only created at the top by people who create products and provide services. So it MUST come down from the top. Only when wealth is CREATED by people on the bottom can wealth possibly "trickle up."
/
Friday, July 27, 2012
When Is "Tolerance" Really Just BS?
The elitists on the left like to tell us they are the "tolerant" folks, and that right-wingers are intolerant - racist, bigoted etc.
As usual, what the left SAYS is exactly opposite of the truth.
The left is tolerant of pot smokers, but intolerant of cigarette smokers. They tolerate homosexuality, but are intolerant of those who find it offensive. They tolerate bans on soda, Big Macs and salt, but are intolerant of those who object to having their choices ripped away.
The left is only tolerant when it suits their agenda. And when anyone disagrees with them, they become the least tolerant of all, resulting to smears, insults and even violence. For those who have noticed, yes, that is fascism.
It is not tolerance to stand for what you believe in. It is tolerance to stand for the rights of those whose beliefs are different. If liberals would stand up for the right to oppose gay marriage, drugs or freedomn to eat crap, THAT would be tolerance. As Benjamin Disraeli once put it, "I disagree with what he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it." But I have yet to see any liberal do that. Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and Mayor Tom Menino take note!
So, the next time someone says liberals are "more tolerant", you can be certain of one thing - it's BS!
/
As usual, what the left SAYS is exactly opposite of the truth.
The left is tolerant of pot smokers, but intolerant of cigarette smokers. They tolerate homosexuality, but are intolerant of those who find it offensive. They tolerate bans on soda, Big Macs and salt, but are intolerant of those who object to having their choices ripped away.
The left is only tolerant when it suits their agenda. And when anyone disagrees with them, they become the least tolerant of all, resulting to smears, insults and even violence. For those who have noticed, yes, that is fascism.
It is not tolerance to stand for what you believe in. It is tolerance to stand for the rights of those whose beliefs are different. If liberals would stand up for the right to oppose gay marriage, drugs or freedomn to eat crap, THAT would be tolerance. As Benjamin Disraeli once put it, "I disagree with what he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it." But I have yet to see any liberal do that. Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and Mayor Tom Menino take note!
So, the next time someone says liberals are "more tolerant", you can be certain of one thing - it's BS!
/
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Cutting Sampson's Hair
I look around at how things are going today and I see a resemblance to the Mighty Sampson. In the Bible we find the story of Sampson & Delilah. Sampson's great strength was in his long hair. Delilah cut his hair, which weakened Sampson so he could be beaten.
For the first 180 years of our natuion's history we were strong, and getting stronger every day. Our strength came from our faith, the value we placed on the sanctity of life and our deep desire for personal freedom and the right to choose our own destiny, without government intervention.
Then, beginning in the mid-1960's, the liberal Warren Court cut the Mighty Sampson's hair. The court kicked God out of schools and the public square, in a reversal of the meaning of the First Amendment - they replaced freedom OF religion with freedom FROM religion. Then they invented a Constitutional amendment that supposedly says women have a right to abort their babies, which, in one great swoop, totally destroyed the concept of "sanctity of life."
When our children see that life has so little value that it can simply be aborted because it is inconvenient, and when those same kids become adults without the benefit of religion in the public square (so they need not be embarrassed to be a believer), it is then that our children begin to grow up without the very values that made America strong. Without a belief that all life is precious, it becomes easy to whip out a gun and blow away a bunch of classmates. It becomes easier still when you do not believe you will have to answer for your actions in the Hereafter.
And ever since the liberal court of the FDR era, the courts have been systematically robbing us of our freedoms. The ridiculous expansion of the Commerce Clause that prevented farmers from growing crops for their own families without regulation comes to mind. And now ObamaCare, and many, many other SCOTUS atrocities (like when the court illegally changed the 5th Amendment from "publice USE" to "public BENEFIT", which now allows any local, state or federal government to steal your property and give it to someone who will give it a higher use).
The Mighty Sampson has fallen! Again.
/
For the first 180 years of our natuion's history we were strong, and getting stronger every day. Our strength came from our faith, the value we placed on the sanctity of life and our deep desire for personal freedom and the right to choose our own destiny, without government intervention.
Then, beginning in the mid-1960's, the liberal Warren Court cut the Mighty Sampson's hair. The court kicked God out of schools and the public square, in a reversal of the meaning of the First Amendment - they replaced freedom OF religion with freedom FROM religion. Then they invented a Constitutional amendment that supposedly says women have a right to abort their babies, which, in one great swoop, totally destroyed the concept of "sanctity of life."
When our children see that life has so little value that it can simply be aborted because it is inconvenient, and when those same kids become adults without the benefit of religion in the public square (so they need not be embarrassed to be a believer), it is then that our children begin to grow up without the very values that made America strong. Without a belief that all life is precious, it becomes easy to whip out a gun and blow away a bunch of classmates. It becomes easier still when you do not believe you will have to answer for your actions in the Hereafter.
And ever since the liberal court of the FDR era, the courts have been systematically robbing us of our freedoms. The ridiculous expansion of the Commerce Clause that prevented farmers from growing crops for their own families without regulation comes to mind. And now ObamaCare, and many, many other SCOTUS atrocities (like when the court illegally changed the 5th Amendment from "publice USE" to "public BENEFIT", which now allows any local, state or federal government to steal your property and give it to someone who will give it a higher use).
The Mighty Sampson has fallen! Again.
/
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Obama: "We Tried Our Plan And It Worked." Huh?
The Fabricator-In-Chief is at it again. Unemployment over 8% for 40 months, housing the lowest it's been since January (and it was bad then), deficits and debts so out of control most people cannot even fathom the amount. And the Stimulus that fell flat. And in spite of all this, Obama said, "We tried our (economic) plan and it worked."
This guy scares me. He does not live in the real world. He is either demented, ignorant or a pathological liar.He spends all his time hob-knobbing with the Anna Wintours, George Clooneys and Sarah Jessica Parkers. THEY are doing well, so maybe that's why he thinks "his plan worked."
Mr. President, if this economy is "working", please make it stop. It's killing us!
This guy scares me. He does not live in the real world. He is either demented, ignorant or a pathological liar.He spends all his time hob-knobbing with the Anna Wintours, George Clooneys and Sarah Jessica Parkers. THEY are doing well, so maybe that's why he thinks "his plan worked."
Mr. President, if this economy is "working", please make it stop. It's killing us!
Another Liberal Media Lie About ObamaCare
Everyone has seen the headlines in the lamestream media - "ObamaCare Will Cost $84 Billion Less, Says CBO".
But that headline is a lie. The CBO did not say ObamaCare will "cost less". What it said is that Obamacare will cover 3 million FEWER people than promised, and by not covering them, the cost of ObamaCare is reduced accordingly.
It is almost unbelieveable how the media spins this stuff. Of course the cost will go down if millions more people will not be covered. And your grocery bill would go down if you stop eating!
/
But that headline is a lie. The CBO did not say ObamaCare will "cost less". What it said is that Obamacare will cover 3 million FEWER people than promised, and by not covering them, the cost of ObamaCare is reduced accordingly.
It is almost unbelieveable how the media spins this stuff. Of course the cost will go down if millions more people will not be covered. And your grocery bill would go down if you stop eating!
/
VA State Senator Luise Lucas - Bigot Extraordinaire
Virginia State Senator Louise Lucas, an African American, says if Obama loses it will be due to racism. She went on to rant that she "finally convinced my kids that racism is alive and well."
Call me dumb, but I have a couple of questions:
If Obama loses because of racism, how did he get elected? Blacks are only 12% of the population.
Next question - WHY did she have to "convince" her kids that racism is alive and well? Her kids are black and live in the south. If she had to "convince" them, apparently they never encountered it. If African Americans in the south don't experience racism, it can't be very prevalant. Certainly not as prevalant as Ms Lucas would like it to be so she can keep playing the race card.
Here's the truth - it is Ms Lucas and her ilk that are the racists that are keeping racism alive. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louise Lucas et al NEED racism. It's like their drug of choice. It's their EXCUSE, their crutch. So they work tirelessly to keep it alive.
Yes, Ms Lucas, racism IS alive and well - and it is because bigots like you KEEP it on life support.
/
Call me dumb, but I have a couple of questions:
If Obama loses because of racism, how did he get elected? Blacks are only 12% of the population.
Next question - WHY did she have to "convince" her kids that racism is alive and well? Her kids are black and live in the south. If she had to "convince" them, apparently they never encountered it. If African Americans in the south don't experience racism, it can't be very prevalant. Certainly not as prevalant as Ms Lucas would like it to be so she can keep playing the race card.
Here's the truth - it is Ms Lucas and her ilk that are the racists that are keeping racism alive. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louise Lucas et al NEED racism. It's like their drug of choice. It's their EXCUSE, their crutch. So they work tirelessly to keep it alive.
Yes, Ms Lucas, racism IS alive and well - and it is because bigots like you KEEP it on life support.
/
What This Election Is REALLY about
If there is one thing certain in this election cycle it is simply that it is the most important election of our lifetime. It is this election that will decide whether America will be Big Government or Small Government. That's it in a nutshell, except...
Except that many people do not know just exactly what that entails.
We must first understand one simple concept - there is just "X" amount of power. Whenever government increases its power, we, the People lose that same amount. And when we, the People, gain power, the government must give it up.
So, it is really about where the power will lie. Will it lie with the People, as the Founding Fathers and founding documents said it should be, or will the power rest with the government?
It is important to note that when the government has less power than the people, the government is the servant. But the reverse also holds true. A Big Government America will virtually make serfs of us all. No longer a government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people, it will be a government that is served by the people.
Whenever we give government more power, we relinquish our own, and with the loss of power goes our liberties. As one small example, we gave local governments the power to create and enforce zoning. And now property owners no longer have any real control over their own property - in all cases you need permits to build, and in many cases you can't build at all. The government got power, and the people lost some freedom.
Since FDR, Americans have given up nearly 60% of their liberties and freedoms that so many have died to protect.
And as Ben Franklin said so adequately, "Any person who is willing to give up liberty for security deserves neither."
So now you know the real stakes in November - will Americans choose to be rulers of their own destiny, with a government that simply creates an environment for us to do so safely, or will we choose a Nanny State and give up our liberty - and our self-respect?
We need to get out and vote. But even more important, we need to set "party" aside and vote for the people who are most apt to provide the government we want, even if they may not be our ideal candidate in other matters. Because unless and until we choose which kind of government we want, nothing else will really matter much.
It's our choice. Choose wisely.
/
Except that many people do not know just exactly what that entails.
We must first understand one simple concept - there is just "X" amount of power. Whenever government increases its power, we, the People lose that same amount. And when we, the People, gain power, the government must give it up.
So, it is really about where the power will lie. Will it lie with the People, as the Founding Fathers and founding documents said it should be, or will the power rest with the government?
It is important to note that when the government has less power than the people, the government is the servant. But the reverse also holds true. A Big Government America will virtually make serfs of us all. No longer a government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people, it will be a government that is served by the people.
Whenever we give government more power, we relinquish our own, and with the loss of power goes our liberties. As one small example, we gave local governments the power to create and enforce zoning. And now property owners no longer have any real control over their own property - in all cases you need permits to build, and in many cases you can't build at all. The government got power, and the people lost some freedom.
Since FDR, Americans have given up nearly 60% of their liberties and freedoms that so many have died to protect.
And as Ben Franklin said so adequately, "Any person who is willing to give up liberty for security deserves neither."
So now you know the real stakes in November - will Americans choose to be rulers of their own destiny, with a government that simply creates an environment for us to do so safely, or will we choose a Nanny State and give up our liberty - and our self-respect?
We need to get out and vote. But even more important, we need to set "party" aside and vote for the people who are most apt to provide the government we want, even if they may not be our ideal candidate in other matters. Because unless and until we choose which kind of government we want, nothing else will really matter much.
It's our choice. Choose wisely.
/
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Another "ObamaCare Lie" May Be True After All
Awhile back there were reports that Medicare premiums would soar under ObamaCare. Since then, the left has spun tirelessly to discredit that claim, saying Medicare premiums would actually go down.
So, what is the truth? All you need to do is think about it.
Currently, a huge number of doctors will not take Medicare patients because Medicare does not pay enough to cover the doctor's costs. And many who do accept Medicare are not taking on any more patients.
Now add 30 million people to the rolls. If you think it's difficult to find a doctor that will take Medicare now, just wait until all those folks start looking for one.
The government will only have one choice - increase the amount of Medicare payment they pay doctor's, enticing doctor's to accept Medicare patients. And if they increase the amount they pay out, they will have no choice but to increase Medicare premiums.
So, you decide - will premiums go up, as critics of ObamaCare claim, or will they be the only thing in the history of the world (besides housing) to go down?
/
So, what is the truth? All you need to do is think about it.
Currently, a huge number of doctors will not take Medicare patients because Medicare does not pay enough to cover the doctor's costs. And many who do accept Medicare are not taking on any more patients.
Now add 30 million people to the rolls. If you think it's difficult to find a doctor that will take Medicare now, just wait until all those folks start looking for one.
The government will only have one choice - increase the amount of Medicare payment they pay doctor's, enticing doctor's to accept Medicare patients. And if they increase the amount they pay out, they will have no choice but to increase Medicare premiums.
So, you decide - will premiums go up, as critics of ObamaCare claim, or will they be the only thing in the history of the world (besides housing) to go down?
/
Why Gun Control Does Not Reduce Gun Crime
Every time someone gets shot in a crime, some uninformed people try to push for stricter gun control. And that is absolutely the WORST thing they can do.
If those people were to look at it intelligently, they would notice two things - people who would ignore laws governing murder are not going to suddenly abide by laws concerning guns. Criminals will get and have guns, period. And even if all guns were banned everywhere on Earth, the technology to build guns is simple - I built a zip gun when I was 9. It could fire a deadly round.
The second thing to note is who it is that WOULD abide by the gun laws - honest folks. So what you end up with is armed criminals and unarmed citizenry - predator and prey.
Gun laws make it easier and safer for criminals to ply their trade by taking guns away from citizens who have been made defenseless.
Anyone who doubts this need only look at the statistics of gun deaths per 100,000 population in every area where gun laws are strict (Sweden, Chicago, Washington D.C. etc.) and comparing those to the same rate of gun deaths in areas where guns laws are lax. Sweden has the strictest gun control laws on Earth - and has the highest rate of murder by firearms of any nation, war notwithstanding.
More people are mudered on a weekend in Chicago than in an entire week in Baghdad.
As is true with many things in life, things are not as they appear.It would seem that controlling guns would reduce gun crime, but it has the opposite effect in reality. We should learn our lessons from life. For example, most people believe pain is a bad thing. But the reality is that pain is a good thing - it tells you when something is wrong so you can get it fixed. Without pain, people would bleed to death, not knowing they have been injured. They would die of every disease, not knowing they are infected.
Things are seldom what they appear to be. And gun control is not what it appears to be.
/
If those people were to look at it intelligently, they would notice two things - people who would ignore laws governing murder are not going to suddenly abide by laws concerning guns. Criminals will get and have guns, period. And even if all guns were banned everywhere on Earth, the technology to build guns is simple - I built a zip gun when I was 9. It could fire a deadly round.
The second thing to note is who it is that WOULD abide by the gun laws - honest folks. So what you end up with is armed criminals and unarmed citizenry - predator and prey.
Gun laws make it easier and safer for criminals to ply their trade by taking guns away from citizens who have been made defenseless.
Anyone who doubts this need only look at the statistics of gun deaths per 100,000 population in every area where gun laws are strict (Sweden, Chicago, Washington D.C. etc.) and comparing those to the same rate of gun deaths in areas where guns laws are lax. Sweden has the strictest gun control laws on Earth - and has the highest rate of murder by firearms of any nation, war notwithstanding.
More people are mudered on a weekend in Chicago than in an entire week in Baghdad.
As is true with many things in life, things are not as they appear.It would seem that controlling guns would reduce gun crime, but it has the opposite effect in reality. We should learn our lessons from life. For example, most people believe pain is a bad thing. But the reality is that pain is a good thing - it tells you when something is wrong so you can get it fixed. Without pain, people would bleed to death, not knowing they have been injured. They would die of every disease, not knowing they are infected.
Things are seldom what they appear to be. And gun control is not what it appears to be.
/
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Chick-Fil-A, Gays, Tyrants and the DNC
Some interesting items on the "back pages" of today's news.
First up, the Democaratic National Committee vowed last year to ban all corporate funding for the Democratic convention. But organizers in Charlotte quietly set up a nonprofit entity to rake in corporate special-interest cash. Bank of America and Wells Fargo are just two of the Biggies to have sent checks to New American City Inc., a non-profit entity being run by top officials on the convention host committee. Corporate money is bankrolling operations in direct support of the convention, including paying the salaries of the 41 full-time host committee employees, their health insurance and for the offices where they work.
And this is FUNNY! Organizers say they are being true to their ban on corporate funding "because none of the corporate money will be spent on events inside the sports arena and stadium." As Dan Murrey, executive director of the host committee said, "I guess it comes down to how you define `the convention.'"
Didn't Bill Clinton, another Democrat, use that same tactic when he said, "It all depends on what the definition of "IS" is?"
Those Democrats can lie right to your face and, keeping a straight face, insist they are telling the truth.
Next on today's "news" agenda, the mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino (D) is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city after the company's president spoke out publicly against gay marriage. It seems that yet another Democrat has no use for the Constitution, i.e. the right to free speech and expression.
The restaurant's president did not indicate they would discriminate against anyone, even gays. He only said he does not believe the gay lifestyle is in keeping with his religious beliefs.
Menino, like most liberal Democrats, needs to stop ignoring the Constitution whenever it serves their purpose to do so.
If people do not want to patronize Chick-Fil-A because of its presidents views on the gay lifestyle, then they can refuse to eat there. But it is not for Menino or any other tyrant to take away the choice.
/
First up, the Democaratic National Committee vowed last year to ban all corporate funding for the Democratic convention. But organizers in Charlotte quietly set up a nonprofit entity to rake in corporate special-interest cash. Bank of America and Wells Fargo are just two of the Biggies to have sent checks to New American City Inc., a non-profit entity being run by top officials on the convention host committee. Corporate money is bankrolling operations in direct support of the convention, including paying the salaries of the 41 full-time host committee employees, their health insurance and for the offices where they work.
And this is FUNNY! Organizers say they are being true to their ban on corporate funding "because none of the corporate money will be spent on events inside the sports arena and stadium." As Dan Murrey, executive director of the host committee said, "I guess it comes down to how you define `the convention.'"
Didn't Bill Clinton, another Democrat, use that same tactic when he said, "It all depends on what the definition of "IS" is?"
Those Democrats can lie right to your face and, keeping a straight face, insist they are telling the truth.
Next on today's "news" agenda, the mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino (D) is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city after the company's president spoke out publicly against gay marriage. It seems that yet another Democrat has no use for the Constitution, i.e. the right to free speech and expression.
The restaurant's president did not indicate they would discriminate against anyone, even gays. He only said he does not believe the gay lifestyle is in keeping with his religious beliefs.
Menino, like most liberal Democrats, needs to stop ignoring the Constitution whenever it serves their purpose to do so.
If people do not want to patronize Chick-Fil-A because of its presidents views on the gay lifestyle, then they can refuse to eat there. But it is not for Menino or any other tyrant to take away the choice.
/
Janet Napolitano (Home Security) Has Got To Go
It has been brought to attention that the head of Homeland Security, Janet Naploitano, is either inept and incompetent or simply does not care about our security. Here are just the latest findings:
1) She does not believe Fast & Furious was an issue worthy of the attention of Homeland Security
2) She stated that the drones flyoing over American skies are not a concern of Homeland Security, even though it has been proved that the drones can be hacked and used by terrorists
3) It came to light at a Congressional hearing on Wednesday that illegal immigrants who are ALSO on the "No Fly List' are not being vetted at flight schools, and can still get a license to fly. When asked, Napolitano was in denial, saying, "It has been taken care of", when in fact it was still happening on Thursday.
Napolitano is not taking our security seriously, and appears to only be interested in being another brain-dead figurehead that doesn't actually want to DO anything. She hasw become just another Washington politician. An empty suit. That is not what we need in charge of Homeland Security.
/
1) She does not believe Fast & Furious was an issue worthy of the attention of Homeland Security
2) She stated that the drones flyoing over American skies are not a concern of Homeland Security, even though it has been proved that the drones can be hacked and used by terrorists
3) It came to light at a Congressional hearing on Wednesday that illegal immigrants who are ALSO on the "No Fly List' are not being vetted at flight schools, and can still get a license to fly. When asked, Napolitano was in denial, saying, "It has been taken care of", when in fact it was still happening on Thursday.
Napolitano is not taking our security seriously, and appears to only be interested in being another brain-dead figurehead that doesn't actually want to DO anything. She hasw become just another Washington politician. An empty suit. That is not what we need in charge of Homeland Security.
/
Friday, July 20, 2012
What Do You Think of THIS Proposed Tax????
A California transportation agency recently proposed what could become the most unpopular tax of all time: A tax for simply driving your car.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission of San Francisco is behind the idea and has said that the tax would work by installing mandatory GPS units into cars to track the miles that they travel. The vehicle owners would then be charged accordingly.
If you are not outraged, then you must be dead. There are SO many things wrong with this.
First, the tax, itself. In a country where we are supposedly free to come and go as we please, we would now be charged a tax. A tax to visit your kid in college, or a sick Mom. A tax to go on vacation - or even to go to work!
Next: GPS doesn't just tell the number of miles - it would also allow the government to track every place you go, when you go and how often. A clear violation of privacy, not to mention a violation of the Constitution - it could end up being used in court against you - you would virtually be testifying against yourself. Moreover, this information in the wrong hands could be used against you in any number of ways. It is spying, clear and simple.
And then there is the unfairness of it. People who live in the city and use public transportation get off scot free, but the poor sap who has to commute 50 miles one way will get socked twice - first, the cost of gas, and then the "driving tax". We often do not get to choose how far our place of employment will be from our home.
But leave it to the brain-dead, socialist liberals of California, and most especially San Francisco (Pelosi's home town) to try something like this. There are two ways to address financial shortfalls - cut spending or increase income. And liberals always refuse to even consider cutting spending - they would rather drive their bus into the ocean than give up all those worthless little "freebies" they give themselves. To them, the only answer is to steal from the people so they can keep their silly little projects going and pay for all the stupid, meaningless tripe like tunnels for turtles and free college for illegal immigrants.
/
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission of San Francisco is behind the idea and has said that the tax would work by installing mandatory GPS units into cars to track the miles that they travel. The vehicle owners would then be charged accordingly.
If you are not outraged, then you must be dead. There are SO many things wrong with this.
First, the tax, itself. In a country where we are supposedly free to come and go as we please, we would now be charged a tax. A tax to visit your kid in college, or a sick Mom. A tax to go on vacation - or even to go to work!
Next: GPS doesn't just tell the number of miles - it would also allow the government to track every place you go, when you go and how often. A clear violation of privacy, not to mention a violation of the Constitution - it could end up being used in court against you - you would virtually be testifying against yourself. Moreover, this information in the wrong hands could be used against you in any number of ways. It is spying, clear and simple.
And then there is the unfairness of it. People who live in the city and use public transportation get off scot free, but the poor sap who has to commute 50 miles one way will get socked twice - first, the cost of gas, and then the "driving tax". We often do not get to choose how far our place of employment will be from our home.
But leave it to the brain-dead, socialist liberals of California, and most especially San Francisco (Pelosi's home town) to try something like this. There are two ways to address financial shortfalls - cut spending or increase income. And liberals always refuse to even consider cutting spending - they would rather drive their bus into the ocean than give up all those worthless little "freebies" they give themselves. To them, the only answer is to steal from the people so they can keep their silly little projects going and pay for all the stupid, meaningless tripe like tunnels for turtles and free college for illegal immigrants.
/
The Aurora Colorado Shootings
As you likely know, some nutcase shot up a Century Cinema in Aurora Colorado, killing at least a dozen people. Our hearts go out to the families and friendsof the victims, but it is unfortunate that many anti-gun leftists will try to use this to push gun control. And despite what they think (and erroneously claim), gun control only makes things worse.
Here are some sobering facts:
1) Washington D.C. has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. They also have the highest murder rate by firearms in the nation
2) There were more murders by firearms in the city of Chicago in just the last 2 weeks of March (26 dead, 80 wounded) than there were in any ENTIRE STATE
3) The entire state of Colorado averages 5 gun-related deaths per month. The CITY of Chicago averages 35 per month.
If a person actually checks the true statistics nationwide, they will find the the highest number per 100,000 population for gun-related deaths are in the same places that have the strictest gun control laws. Meanwhile, states with minimal or no gun control laws (ID has a rate of .077 per 100,000 - almost NO gun-related deaths) have the lowest murder rate by guns.
Examples - lax gun laws:
MAINE: .084/100,000
IDAHO: .077/100,000
COLORADO: 1.28/100,000
Compare to strict gun laws:
MARYLAND: 5.11/100,000
DELAWARE: 4.26/100,000
CALIFORNIA: 3.37/100/000
It is also interesting to note that on Dec 11, 1990, there was a multi-car pile-up in Calhoun, Tennessee that claimed the same number of lives - 12. I did not hear anyone on the left calling for a ban on automobiles. In fact, more people die in auto accidents than from all firearms.
Gun control has unintended consequences. First and foremost, criminals are more apt to perform their acts where they know the general public is unarmed. After all, crooks don't want to get shot and prefer easy targets, and gun laws create easy targets. In addition, criminals who would kill a person are not going to sweat gun laws, and gun laws will not stop them from having guns - just look at Chicago or D.C. Ergo, gun control does not stop gun crime, and only serves to make the rest of us easy prey.
Take note - predators always pick on the easy prey - the old, the sick, the weak. Criminals are predators, and an unarmed populace is seen as weak. Prey!
As a side note of concern, though I am not surprised that ABC's first thought would be to try and tie this shooter to the Tea Party (they had to actually CHECK on that), I am disappointed that the mainstream media no longer has any sense of objectivity. Brian Ross first reported that Holmes appeared to be a Tea Party member, but later retracted that. But the concern lies in the fact that they would have to actively check the Tea Party membership rolls. Why? The only reason to do that is a hope that they could tie him to the Tea Party. After all, if they were being objective, they should have ALSO checked to see if he was with Occupy Wall Street, but that was never checked because they did not want to tie him to that.
/
Here are some sobering facts:
1) Washington D.C. has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. They also have the highest murder rate by firearms in the nation
2) There were more murders by firearms in the city of Chicago in just the last 2 weeks of March (26 dead, 80 wounded) than there were in any ENTIRE STATE
3) The entire state of Colorado averages 5 gun-related deaths per month. The CITY of Chicago averages 35 per month.
If a person actually checks the true statistics nationwide, they will find the the highest number per 100,000 population for gun-related deaths are in the same places that have the strictest gun control laws. Meanwhile, states with minimal or no gun control laws (ID has a rate of .077 per 100,000 - almost NO gun-related deaths) have the lowest murder rate by guns.
Examples - lax gun laws:
MAINE: .084/100,000
IDAHO: .077/100,000
COLORADO: 1.28/100,000
Compare to strict gun laws:
MARYLAND: 5.11/100,000
DELAWARE: 4.26/100,000
CALIFORNIA: 3.37/100/000
It is also interesting to note that on Dec 11, 1990, there was a multi-car pile-up in Calhoun, Tennessee that claimed the same number of lives - 12. I did not hear anyone on the left calling for a ban on automobiles. In fact, more people die in auto accidents than from all firearms.
Gun control has unintended consequences. First and foremost, criminals are more apt to perform their acts where they know the general public is unarmed. After all, crooks don't want to get shot and prefer easy targets, and gun laws create easy targets. In addition, criminals who would kill a person are not going to sweat gun laws, and gun laws will not stop them from having guns - just look at Chicago or D.C. Ergo, gun control does not stop gun crime, and only serves to make the rest of us easy prey.
Take note - predators always pick on the easy prey - the old, the sick, the weak. Criminals are predators, and an unarmed populace is seen as weak. Prey!
As a side note of concern, though I am not surprised that ABC's first thought would be to try and tie this shooter to the Tea Party (they had to actually CHECK on that), I am disappointed that the mainstream media no longer has any sense of objectivity. Brian Ross first reported that Holmes appeared to be a Tea Party member, but later retracted that. But the concern lies in the fact that they would have to actively check the Tea Party membership rolls. Why? The only reason to do that is a hope that they could tie him to the Tea Party. After all, if they were being objective, they should have ALSO checked to see if he was with Occupy Wall Street, but that was never checked because they did not want to tie him to that.
/
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Will This Really Be A Close Election?
I am about to make another prediction (my predictions are running at 87% correct over the last 5 years). I predict that, contrary to EVERY poll and EVERY pundit, I think Romney will beat Obama by a substantial margin.
The arrogance and socialist-like policies of the current administration, along with the deteriorating economy and many of the administrations "fictions" (otherwise known as "lies") are catching up to them. And in that, I believe a lot of Americans - Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and, yes, even some Democrats - who are not "registered voters" or "likely voters" will get around to registering and voting in an attempt to stop the destruction. Almost no one except socialists and communists like where we are headed.
I think the polls are wrong because they do not include those millions who normally would just sit back and say, "Hell, my vote won't matter much, so I'll just go duck hunting that day."
I think we'll see a turnout on the right that will make the 2008 turnout of the left look pathetic.
I also believe that many of the "voters" who say they will vote for Obama actually will not. They might if they actually went to the polls, but I think many of them simply won't bother. The fire of "Hope and Change" that got out of control and burned down the economy is now just smouldering embers. When the fire is gone, people do not vote.
So, I repeat - I would wager Romney wins by at least 4%, and if he picks Rubio or West as his VP, that would go up to 5-6%.
/
The arrogance and socialist-like policies of the current administration, along with the deteriorating economy and many of the administrations "fictions" (otherwise known as "lies") are catching up to them. And in that, I believe a lot of Americans - Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and, yes, even some Democrats - who are not "registered voters" or "likely voters" will get around to registering and voting in an attempt to stop the destruction. Almost no one except socialists and communists like where we are headed.
I think the polls are wrong because they do not include those millions who normally would just sit back and say, "Hell, my vote won't matter much, so I'll just go duck hunting that day."
I think we'll see a turnout on the right that will make the 2008 turnout of the left look pathetic.
I also believe that many of the "voters" who say they will vote for Obama actually will not. They might if they actually went to the polls, but I think many of them simply won't bother. The fire of "Hope and Change" that got out of control and burned down the economy is now just smouldering embers. When the fire is gone, people do not vote.
So, I repeat - I would wager Romney wins by at least 4%, and if he picks Rubio or West as his VP, that would go up to 5-6%.
/
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Will ObamaCare Make Full-Time Jobs Obsolete?
One of the lesser known issues created by ObamaCare is the part that says once an employer reaches 50 or more employees, they MUST either provide (expensive) health insurance for all, OR pay a stiff penalty per employee.
And more and more businesses have found a way around this - to hire only part-time employees, or employees from a temp agency. This is because the ObamaCare stipulation applies to full-time positions, only.
So pull up your pants, folks, and brace yourselves - it will become increasingly difficult to find a full-time job as long as ObamaCare is on the books. Since health insurance per employee runs about $15,000-$20,000 per year, don't expect many employers to want to pay that price when they can simply convert to part-time, temps and subcontractors, and let their employees go on the government "Medicaid" plan.
This also means that millions of employees will lose their current insurance and be forced onto Medicaid, contrary to what the Democrats promised us.
If you are a working stiff - doesn't matter if you are Republican or Democrat - you need to take this seriously. Very seriously.
/
And more and more businesses have found a way around this - to hire only part-time employees, or employees from a temp agency. This is because the ObamaCare stipulation applies to full-time positions, only.
So pull up your pants, folks, and brace yourselves - it will become increasingly difficult to find a full-time job as long as ObamaCare is on the books. Since health insurance per employee runs about $15,000-$20,000 per year, don't expect many employers to want to pay that price when they can simply convert to part-time, temps and subcontractors, and let their employees go on the government "Medicaid" plan.
This also means that millions of employees will lose their current insurance and be forced onto Medicaid, contrary to what the Democrats promised us.
If you are a working stiff - doesn't matter if you are Republican or Democrat - you need to take this seriously. Very seriously.
/
Monday, July 16, 2012
5% Internet Tax Will Cost You At Least 10%
Now the inept, incomptent politicians want to force a 5% sales tax on all online purchases, even if you live in a state with no sales tax. They try to tell you, "Hey, it's only 5%." Bull!
Consider the reality (which politicians never bother to do) --- company A buys supplies online. Their costs go up 5%, so they have to increase the costs to their customers accordingly. In some cases, those customers are other businesses. Since the cost to Company B has gone up 5% PLUS the new 5% tax on THEIR purchase, their cost is up 10%, which must be passed on to the customer. Now the customer has to pay that 10% cost increase PLUS the 5% tax on HIS purchase.
In most cases, your prices could rise 10%, but in some cases where the product you buy passes through several vendors (resellers) before being sold to you, the price increase could be much more than 10%
Take my own business, for example. I buy 100% of my supplies and equipment online. Most of those vendors are resellers, so they had to pay the 5% tax and they pass that increase - plus my own 5% tax - onto my price. So I will pay 10% more in many cases. So, I will need to increase the price of my products by 10%. And on top of that 10% increase, I will still have to tack on the 5% sales tax. So, my customers will be paying about 15% more for my stuff.
I don't like that one bit. But neither can I do anything about it.
And if our politicians don't have a clue as to the damage this will do to the weak economy, then we need to replace them with people whose I.Q. is at least as high as the number of fingers on their hands.
/
Consider the reality (which politicians never bother to do) --- company A buys supplies online. Their costs go up 5%, so they have to increase the costs to their customers accordingly. In some cases, those customers are other businesses. Since the cost to Company B has gone up 5% PLUS the new 5% tax on THEIR purchase, their cost is up 10%, which must be passed on to the customer. Now the customer has to pay that 10% cost increase PLUS the 5% tax on HIS purchase.
In most cases, your prices could rise 10%, but in some cases where the product you buy passes through several vendors (resellers) before being sold to you, the price increase could be much more than 10%
Take my own business, for example. I buy 100% of my supplies and equipment online. Most of those vendors are resellers, so they had to pay the 5% tax and they pass that increase - plus my own 5% tax - onto my price. So I will pay 10% more in many cases. So, I will need to increase the price of my products by 10%. And on top of that 10% increase, I will still have to tack on the 5% sales tax. So, my customers will be paying about 15% more for my stuff.
I don't like that one bit. But neither can I do anything about it.
And if our politicians don't have a clue as to the damage this will do to the weak economy, then we need to replace them with people whose I.Q. is at least as high as the number of fingers on their hands.
/
Is Sen. Patty Murray (D) Really That Dense?
Apparently. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) stated that if the Democrats cannot have their way, they would force all Americans into a $600 billion tax hike January 1. And she also said that the Democrats would lay it on the Republicans!
Here are a couple of problems with this Senator's idiotic atatement:
First, by making that statement she just GUARANTEED that businesses will not hire anyone before January, and she has just scared the living sh*t outta consumers and the general public. If she is so stupid as to think such a threat would not throw ice on the economy, then she is dumber than a box of rocks.
Second, though they will try to spin this to blame the Republicans, we, the People are not as stupid as she is. If the Republicans pass the extension of the tax cuts, but the Democrats shoot it down, WHO do you think the people will blame? It matters not that the Republicans refuse to give in on taxing job creators. All that will matter to the folks is that threy are now paying a lot more taxes, and it could have been avoided. But the Democrats shot it down.
I don't know about you, but I am getting really tired of the Democrats acting like a bunch of spoiled 2 year-olds. "Do it my way or I'll take the ball and go home." Like running away and leaving the state in Wisconsin because they couldn't get their way. Like forcing stupid, failed recalls because they don't get their way. Hitting every American with higher taxes because they don't get their way. Walking out on Holder's Contempt of Congress vote.
When was the last time you saw Republicans act so childish?
But what is worse than a bunch of cry-baby Democrats is the fact that so many uninformed Americans keep putting them in office!
/
Here are a couple of problems with this Senator's idiotic atatement:
First, by making that statement she just GUARANTEED that businesses will not hire anyone before January, and she has just scared the living sh*t outta consumers and the general public. If she is so stupid as to think such a threat would not throw ice on the economy, then she is dumber than a box of rocks.
Second, though they will try to spin this to blame the Republicans, we, the People are not as stupid as she is. If the Republicans pass the extension of the tax cuts, but the Democrats shoot it down, WHO do you think the people will blame? It matters not that the Republicans refuse to give in on taxing job creators. All that will matter to the folks is that threy are now paying a lot more taxes, and it could have been avoided. But the Democrats shot it down.
I don't know about you, but I am getting really tired of the Democrats acting like a bunch of spoiled 2 year-olds. "Do it my way or I'll take the ball and go home." Like running away and leaving the state in Wisconsin because they couldn't get their way. Like forcing stupid, failed recalls because they don't get their way. Hitting every American with higher taxes because they don't get their way. Walking out on Holder's Contempt of Congress vote.
When was the last time you saw Republicans act so childish?
But what is worse than a bunch of cry-baby Democrats is the fact that so many uninformed Americans keep putting them in office!
/
"You Did Not Build Your Business Yourself"
This has to be the stupidest - and most ignorant - remark Obama has ever made. He says if you built a business, you did not do it on your own.
He's full of you-know-what!
He says, "You needed the roads, the bridges etc...." Sure - but EVERYONE has access to those. You did not succeed BECAUSE of them. And in case he forgot - my taxes BUILT my share of the roads and bridges! I PAID FOR THEM! If not for successful businesses, which pay 68% of all taxes, there would not BE any roads and bridges.
Here's a fact for the Moron-In-Chief: I own a business and I DID build it myself. I did not get ANY help from ANYONE - especially not the government. In 1990 I was homeless. I owned NOTHING. I busted my butt and created my own business, all by my little self. I wrote a book. And then I marketed the book myself, without any agent or publisher. I agented myself, and self-published. I did it all - right down to shipping the books to the people who ordered them. And my business thrived - in SPITE of government intervention, excessive taxes and regulations.
I really wish this jerk would stop belittling everyone, and dividing us. His war on women, war on the wealthy, war on banks, war on Wall Street, and now this garbage.
But what can we expect from someone who never OWNED a business, never BUILT a business, and never even WORKED in a business in his whole life? Yet, he tries to tell "the folks" that he is just like "regular folks."
BS.
/
He's full of you-know-what!
He says, "You needed the roads, the bridges etc...." Sure - but EVERYONE has access to those. You did not succeed BECAUSE of them. And in case he forgot - my taxes BUILT my share of the roads and bridges! I PAID FOR THEM! If not for successful businesses, which pay 68% of all taxes, there would not BE any roads and bridges.
Here's a fact for the Moron-In-Chief: I own a business and I DID build it myself. I did not get ANY help from ANYONE - especially not the government. In 1990 I was homeless. I owned NOTHING. I busted my butt and created my own business, all by my little self. I wrote a book. And then I marketed the book myself, without any agent or publisher. I agented myself, and self-published. I did it all - right down to shipping the books to the people who ordered them. And my business thrived - in SPITE of government intervention, excessive taxes and regulations.
I really wish this jerk would stop belittling everyone, and dividing us. His war on women, war on the wealthy, war on banks, war on Wall Street, and now this garbage.
But what can we expect from someone who never OWNED a business, never BUILT a business, and never even WORKED in a business in his whole life? Yet, he tries to tell "the folks" that he is just like "regular folks."
BS.
/
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Does "God Particle" End Debate On Religion?
OK, so science may have found a particle they refer to as the "God Particle". And some say that means religion is now obsolete. In fact, some idiot theoretical physicist from Arizona State University named Lawrence M. Krauss says yes - we no longer need any "God", and He does not exist.
Hooey!
These moronic atheists who think they are so smart just drive me nuts with their stupidity. OK, so maybe there is such a particle, and it may be the basis of the universe. So what? To ignorant people like Krauss I simply would ask, "OK, wise guy, tell me - who created the God particle? Where did IT come from?"
This reminds me of the story about how science finally replicates what God did - create a human life from the dust of the Earth. The scientist tells God, "We don't need you anymore - we can create life."
And God says, "OK - show me."
So the scientist picks up a handful of earth to start.
God interrupts and says, "Oh no, buddy - make your own earth."
-----
Maybe there was a Big Bang, and perhaps there is a minute particle that is responsible for the Big Bang. That still does nothing to suggest there is no God. It's just like the big, gaping hole in the theorty of evolution - even if evolution occurs, we had to evolve from SOMETHING. So, where did that "something" come from".
To all the atheists and ignorant "scientists" out there - don't get caught up into thinking that everything is one-sided - that things are either this or that. You can have evolution AND Creation. Creation is just that - the beginning. From there, perhaps evolution takes over to help us adapt to a changing world. One does not negate the other, nor does either one have to exist exclusive of the other.
Science does not even know what is on the bottom of the ocean. Yet they pretend to know that there is no God. Lest we forget, science once taught the Earth was flat (while the Bible had ALWAYS taught it was a globe, in Genesis).
/
Hooey!
These moronic atheists who think they are so smart just drive me nuts with their stupidity. OK, so maybe there is such a particle, and it may be the basis of the universe. So what? To ignorant people like Krauss I simply would ask, "OK, wise guy, tell me - who created the God particle? Where did IT come from?"
This reminds me of the story about how science finally replicates what God did - create a human life from the dust of the Earth. The scientist tells God, "We don't need you anymore - we can create life."
And God says, "OK - show me."
So the scientist picks up a handful of earth to start.
God interrupts and says, "Oh no, buddy - make your own earth."
-----
Maybe there was a Big Bang, and perhaps there is a minute particle that is responsible for the Big Bang. That still does nothing to suggest there is no God. It's just like the big, gaping hole in the theorty of evolution - even if evolution occurs, we had to evolve from SOMETHING. So, where did that "something" come from".
To all the atheists and ignorant "scientists" out there - don't get caught up into thinking that everything is one-sided - that things are either this or that. You can have evolution AND Creation. Creation is just that - the beginning. From there, perhaps evolution takes over to help us adapt to a changing world. One does not negate the other, nor does either one have to exist exclusive of the other.
Science does not even know what is on the bottom of the ocean. Yet they pretend to know that there is no God. Lest we forget, science once taught the Earth was flat (while the Bible had ALWAYS taught it was a globe, in Genesis).
/
"Middle Out, Bottom Up Economics" - HUH?
Now there is no doubt why we are in an economic disaster - the clown steering this ship of state knows nothing at all about steering a Go-Kart let alone a ship.
Yesterday he told a crowd that he believes in "middle out and bottom up economics." That's like believing in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy - it doesn't exist, and cannot exist.
Certainly, a healthy economy requires a healthy middle class. But why doesn't that idiot stop to think about what it is that MAKES the middle class healthy?
It's JOBS, and SALARIES. And where do jobs and salaries come from? The top. Even government jobs and salaries come from the top because they are paid via taxes, and every penny of tax comes from the top 50%
Obama and other Marxists believe that if the wealth is in the hands of the middle or lower classes, that will make the economy work. But that is where they stop thinking. They never bother to ask where that wealth will COME from in the first place. They do not understand that wealth is not money - money is but a representation of wealth, like poker chips. Wealth is products and services - stuff!
Wealth can only be created by creating products or providing services. If you are not doing that, you are not creating wealth. Instead, you are only moving the wealth around, which only simulates wealth creation, but is not wealth creation.
The short take - when you build something, you have ADDED something to the economy. If you build nothing, you add nothing. When the government takes from the rich (via taxes) and gives to the lower classes (various welfare and entitlements), nothing is created - the money is just being moved. And the wealth is STILL coming from the top. Trickle down economics. This was the basis of economist Milton Friedman's work that earned him the Nobel Prize in Economics.
But Obama does not care. He thinks he's smarter than EVERYONE. In reality, he is actually pretty ignorant if he does not even understand that you cannot create wealth by simply moving it around.
Most of us learned that in Kindergarten. If you have 2 apples and Joey has none, and you give Joey one of your apples, how many apples do you have left? But the real question that is implied is, "How many apples are still there?" No matter how you divvy up the apples, the number of apples remains the same - nothing added to the "pool" of apples. No wealth created. The apples get eaten, or rot, and then there are none. Not for you, not for Joey.
But again, Obama does not care. All he sees is that both you and Joey have one apple. That's "fair". But what happens if no one is growing more apples? You and Joey eat yours, or they eventually rot. They need to be replaced to keep you from going hungry. Products and services need to keep being created or the economy stagnates and dies.
But who grows the apples? People who are wealthy enough to own land, equipment, pay salaries and marketing costs. THAT is where the wealth is coming from.
So, our economy is sick, and if we do not get someone qualified to steer this ship soon, it could die altogether, as is happening throughout Europe and Greece.
If you want a strong middle class, we need to let the rich do what only the rich can do - create products, which creates jobs, which creates salaries and a strong middle class. The government CANNOT do that because all of THEIR wealth is taken from the people, not created by creating goods and services.
Obama tells us that the rich are the enemy of the middle class, which is so absurd! The rich CREATE the middle class, and NEED the middle class.Bill Gates of Microsoft only makes money if he has people working for him and paying them. Do you really think he is out to destroy the very people he relies on to make Microsoft work? But that is the screwy logic Obama uses - he needs you to believe the rich are the enemy because he needs your fear to guide you to vote for Obama in November.
The rich create the wealth. The government can only shuffle it around, and in doing so, stifles the creation of wealth by taking away the money that the wealth creators need for creating ever more products and services.
/
Yesterday he told a crowd that he believes in "middle out and bottom up economics." That's like believing in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy - it doesn't exist, and cannot exist.
Certainly, a healthy economy requires a healthy middle class. But why doesn't that idiot stop to think about what it is that MAKES the middle class healthy?
It's JOBS, and SALARIES. And where do jobs and salaries come from? The top. Even government jobs and salaries come from the top because they are paid via taxes, and every penny of tax comes from the top 50%
Obama and other Marxists believe that if the wealth is in the hands of the middle or lower classes, that will make the economy work. But that is where they stop thinking. They never bother to ask where that wealth will COME from in the first place. They do not understand that wealth is not money - money is but a representation of wealth, like poker chips. Wealth is products and services - stuff!
Wealth can only be created by creating products or providing services. If you are not doing that, you are not creating wealth. Instead, you are only moving the wealth around, which only simulates wealth creation, but is not wealth creation.
The short take - when you build something, you have ADDED something to the economy. If you build nothing, you add nothing. When the government takes from the rich (via taxes) and gives to the lower classes (various welfare and entitlements), nothing is created - the money is just being moved. And the wealth is STILL coming from the top. Trickle down economics. This was the basis of economist Milton Friedman's work that earned him the Nobel Prize in Economics.
But Obama does not care. He thinks he's smarter than EVERYONE. In reality, he is actually pretty ignorant if he does not even understand that you cannot create wealth by simply moving it around.
Most of us learned that in Kindergarten. If you have 2 apples and Joey has none, and you give Joey one of your apples, how many apples do you have left? But the real question that is implied is, "How many apples are still there?" No matter how you divvy up the apples, the number of apples remains the same - nothing added to the "pool" of apples. No wealth created. The apples get eaten, or rot, and then there are none. Not for you, not for Joey.
But again, Obama does not care. All he sees is that both you and Joey have one apple. That's "fair". But what happens if no one is growing more apples? You and Joey eat yours, or they eventually rot. They need to be replaced to keep you from going hungry. Products and services need to keep being created or the economy stagnates and dies.
But who grows the apples? People who are wealthy enough to own land, equipment, pay salaries and marketing costs. THAT is where the wealth is coming from.
So, our economy is sick, and if we do not get someone qualified to steer this ship soon, it could die altogether, as is happening throughout Europe and Greece.
If you want a strong middle class, we need to let the rich do what only the rich can do - create products, which creates jobs, which creates salaries and a strong middle class. The government CANNOT do that because all of THEIR wealth is taken from the people, not created by creating goods and services.
Obama tells us that the rich are the enemy of the middle class, which is so absurd! The rich CREATE the middle class, and NEED the middle class.Bill Gates of Microsoft only makes money if he has people working for him and paying them. Do you really think he is out to destroy the very people he relies on to make Microsoft work? But that is the screwy logic Obama uses - he needs you to believe the rich are the enemy because he needs your fear to guide you to vote for Obama in November.
The rich create the wealth. The government can only shuffle it around, and in doing so, stifles the creation of wealth by taking away the money that the wealth creators need for creating ever more products and services.
/
Saturday, July 14, 2012
On The Lighter Side (Food Police Take Note)
For those of you who watch what you eat, here's the final word on nutrition and health. It's a relief to know the truth after all those conflicting nutritional studies.
1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
3. The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans..
5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
CONCLUSION:
Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a ride
1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
3. The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans..
5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
CONCLUSION:
Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a ride
Paul Harvey Understands Tolerance Better Than Liberals
Pissin' off liberals and atheists one idiot at a time.
Paul Harvey says, "I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution. Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like
somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.
"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue. Yes, andthis is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian-Judeo principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect--somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome...
"But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer. Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do.
I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations. Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying. God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well..........just sue me. The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vastmajority don't care what they want. It is time the majority rules!
It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray.. you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance, you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right. But by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back. And we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all, especially those who denounce Him... God bless America, despite all her faults, she is still the greatest nation ofall..... God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God... " May this be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions. Keep looking up......In God WE Trust.
/
Paul Harvey says, "I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution. Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what's the big deal? It's not like
somebody is up there reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.
"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue. Yes, andthis is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian-Judeo principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect--somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer. If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit. When in Rome...
"But what about the atheists?" is another argument. What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer. Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do.
I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations. Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying. God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you, well..........just sue me. The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard, that the vastmajority don't care what they want. It is time the majority rules!
It's time we tell them, you don't have to pray.. you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance, you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right. But by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back. And we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all, especially those who denounce Him... God bless America, despite all her faults, she is still the greatest nation ofall..... God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God... " May this be the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions. Keep looking up......In God WE Trust.
/
10 "Feel Good" Lies - And Their Consequences
Americans tend to be optimistic. Unfortunately, that often leads to a readiness, even a willingness to believe in things that make us feel good - even if they are blatant lies. We tend to pay attention only to the visible effects, and ignore the unintended consequences.
Here are 10 of the greatest "feel good" lies that have duped too many of us.
FEEL GOOD LIE #10 - Subsidies like Cash for Clunkers (or any other subsidy) stimulates the economy.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE: You cannot stimulate the economy by destroying goods just so more have to be made to replace them. When someone buys a new car, he is only using money that he would have spent anyway - on computers, vacations, an ATV or even a new car. By paying him to buy a car instead of other things, you have not increased consumer spending, but you have successfully siphoned billions out of taxpayer's pockets, leaving them even less to spend. You are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Nothing more. And no true benefit comes from it. In fact, the majority of new cars purchased under Cash For Clunkers were foreign cars - the profits went to Japanese companies. The overall economic effect was minimal, but the cost was huge.
FEEL GOOD LIE #9 - The new "green" flourescent lightbulbs are good for the environment.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: They are far worse for the environment. FAR worse. First, these new bulbs require between 4 and 9 times more glass. Glass production requires extreme heat, produced by fossil fuels. In addition, these bulbs use mercury, one of the most toxic substances on Earth. If you break one, the government says you all but need a HazMat team to clean it up. And expired bulbs must be disposed of at a hazardous waste facilty - most people live at least a gallon of gas away from such a facility - one way! These bulbs are as "green" as a raging forest fire.
FEEL GOOD LIE #8 - Electric cars are better for the environment and the economy.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE: The truth be known, they are worse for the environment and the economy. For one thing, most electricity in this country is produced by burning coal. And simple basic physics teaches us that whenever you convert energy from one form to another, there is loss. In essence, we burn MORE coal if we use more electric cars. Furthermore, like Cash for Clunkers, the government uses taxpayer money to pay incentives for buying electric cars, which increases their ultimate overall cost and siphons money out of the economy via taxes to pay for this foolishness.
FEEL GOOD LIE #7 - Title 9 - the law that requires as many women as men involved in sports in any educational institution. While it sounds great, and fair, to have as many women as men in sports, there are serious flaws.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - It is rare to find as many women as men who desire to be involved in sports. The reason is as much genetic as anything else. Most sports require people getting banged up, and women prefer not to have that happen. Since the vast majority of sports are at least semi-violent, the vast majority of players will be male. In schools and universities across America, almost half of all sport programs in schools and universities had to be terminated in order to comply with Title 9 law. Instead of increasing the number of women in sports, Title 9 simply eliminated many sports because the law requires that an equal proportion of women be enrolled in sports or the sports had to stop. In fact, a championship Rugby team had to be disbanded due to Title 9, and we all lost something of value with that. Under Title 9, if there is not a single female willing to enter into sports, then all sports programs in that school must be terminated. It's the law.
FEEL GOOD LIE #6 - Every American should be able to own a home. So laws were passed that required banks to issue risky mortgages to people who could not otherwise buy a home.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - We all saw - and are still feeling - the results of this folly. Forcing banks to make risky loans also forced them to devise methods of doing it in a way that would "spread the risk". This gave birth to "derivatives" which became investment vehicles for companies like AIG. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at the heart of all these risky mortgages ended up buying many of them. And as was easy to predict, the people who bought the homes they could not afford defaulted. Foreclosures abound, markets crashed and the entire nation was nearly devastated economically. And to add more injury to this bad scene, the government blew another 800 billion on a "stimulus" bill they said would help dig us out of the hole they created. The hole just got bigger. The fact is, if a person cannot afford to pay for something, they should not be allowed to buy it on credit. Everyone gets hurt when they default. The government messed with the free market and caused it to fail. Had the government stayed out of it, not as many people would own homes, but this economic disaster would have been avoided. Thanks to government intervening in free markets, we all suffer because you cannot force people into the middle class. The middle class can only be created by individual effort, not freebies.
FEEL GOOD LIE #5 - Government can create jobs to stimulate growth.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - Every Democratic administration since Woodrow Wilson - and even a couple misguided Republican administrations - has pushed this phony idea. The only jobs government can produce are government jobs, which do nothing to stimulate growth because they are paid for from money taken out of the economy via taxes. Again, robbing Peter to pay Paul. If government pays businesses via incentives to hire in the private sector, again, those funds come from taxpayers - taking the money from one pocket and putting it in another. But there is an even more insidious consequence of government jobs - every person who becomes dependent upon the government, whether for their job, food stamps or anything else, those people become part of the problem because they are now obligated to "do what their boss tells them". Like freeloaders who pay no taxes and have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting for people who will take from the rich and give to the poor, government employees are in the same position. When 51% of the people are in that situation, the government has more power than the people, and that is when serfdom begins. Currently we are at 47%. Too close for comfort.
FEEL GOOD LIE #4 - We need to pay unemployment benefits for as long as it takes for people to find work. And it stimulates the economy.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - Sure sounds nice, doesn't it? But here's what is wrong with that line of thinking. For starters, most (about 80%) of people on unemployment do not even bother looking for work, for several reasons. One, it's more fun to go fishing and escape a daily grind. Two, If they can collect $400 a week from unemployment instead of $500 a week from working 40 hours a week and then having to subtract for gas, daycare etc., it's pretty much a no-brainer to just collect. Another problem is that the longer a person is unemployed - and encouraged to remain so - the less likely he or she will ever enter the workforce again. Employers shy away from any resume that shows no employment for more than 6 months, and working skills can get out-dated. And it does nothing to stimulate the economy - NOTHING. Some believe it helps the economy because it provides money that is then spent. But think about that - where did that money come from? It came from you and me, in taxes. If we had been able to keep that money, we would have spent it ourselves, supporting our own families. The money would have been spent either way. The only difference lies in WHO is doing the spending of WHO'S money. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe the person who earns the money should get the pleasure and benefit of spending it.
FEEL GOOD LIE #3 - Every American worker is entitled to a fair minimum wage.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE - Can hardly argue with that - or can we? While it certainly sounds laudable on the surface, there are dramatic and dangerous consequences. The reason is rather simple - money does not grow on trees. Every business has a certain amount allocated for salaries and benefits. If forced to increase salaries, they are also forced to lay people off because they cannot simply manufacture greenbacks out of thin air. Raising the minimum wage always - always - results in job losses. But it gets worse. The lower paying jobs are designed for entry level people, like teens, who have no experience. They work for less in exchange for an education in learning the business. And their wages go up as they gain experience and become more productive. By increasing minimum wage the government effectively eliminates entry level jobs. Employers simply hire only the more experienced people. This explains why the unemployment rate among the 18-22 age is 26%. If free markets were allowed to do their thing, everyone would get an appropriate wage, if only because of competition.
There is another unintended consequence to minimum wage laws - the cost of everything goes up. Employers, forced to pay more must now increase the cost of their products and services. So the net gain is essentially zero. If you get a $50 a week raise, but the cost of living increases by $50 a week because every business is giving raises and raising prices, then you gain nothing. Minimum wage laws are one of the biggest causes of price increases.
FEEL GOOD LIE #2 - Ethanol is good for the environment and the economy.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - this is one of the greatest lies ever told, and the second biggest boondoggle ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public - courtesy of Al Gore, who pushed ethanol in his quest to be president. He admitted in November that ethanol is bogus and he only pushed it through in order to win the votes of farmers. Now as to WHY it is a boondoggle...
First, ethanol costs $1.78 a gallon more to produce than gasoline. The government - you, as taxpayers - are subsidizing the ethanol industry to the tune of $1.78 per gallon. So, when you buy a dollar's worth of ethanol at the pump, you have actually paid $2.78 for it. In other words, if fuel is $3.00 per gallon and is 10% ethanol, you are actually paying close to $3.30 per gallon when you add in what you are paying to subsidize ethanol production.
Second, as farmers trample one another to grow corn and collect all those government sibsidies, less land is available for production of food. Food prices have risen substantially due to ethanol. And meat especially goes up, as most meat animals rely upon corn as feed. But the government is burning the corn in fuel tanks across the land. Only fools would burn their food supply.
Third, it isn't even good for the environment. Every study has shown that it takes almost 40% more fossil fuel to create ethanol than it takes to produce an equal amount of petroleum. One must factor in the fuel required to plant, fertilize and harvest. The fuel to transport to the ethanol plants. And the fuel to convert the corn into ethanol. Petroleum, folks, is more green than ethanol.
As for being good for the economy, nothing that is paid for with tax dollars siphoned out of the economy can possibly be good for the economy on a net gain basis.
FEEL GOOD LIE #1 - This is the "biggie" - the "Affordable Care Act", better known among sane, thinking people as Obamacare.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - Let's start with reducing costs. It does not. All studies and reports show that insurance rates are increasing - and must, in order to pay the increasing benefits required. And the cost of health care, itself increases due to a greater demand as 30 million more people seek care, but there is no increase in the number of caregivers or hospital rooms and equipment.
As for the promise that you could keep your current insurance, that has already been proved false as many providers have simply dropped customers rather than be on the hook for more costs. One major insurer dropped out the the business altogether. And many companies, unable to comply with the new requirements are dropping health insurance, forcing people into the government plan - at taxpayer expense.
Then there was the promise of better care. The truth is that more and more providers - doctors, clinics, pharmacies - have dropped medicare patients - they cannot afford them, and there will be way too many. While you may have a great little Medicare card, it is not apt to get you the care you need.
Then there are the so-called "death panels" that many say do not exist. Yet, in the months since this bill was passed, the FDA has banned two safe and somewhat effective cancer drugs simply because they are too expensive and the government does not want to pay for them. So, by bureaucratic decree to save money, people will be left to die. And in Arizona a young father scheduled for a life-saving liver transplant was refused by Medicare. He will die. If not a "death panel", then I am at a loss for a better name.
Over the last 100 years the American public has been duped over and over by an increasingly government of "progressives" in both parties. And it is destroying the very fabric that made America great - free markets and personal responsibility. If we want to save America, we as a People must learn to look to the unintended consequences, and then fire any lawmakers that refuse to listen to the will of a more informed populace.
/
Here are 10 of the greatest "feel good" lies that have duped too many of us.
FEEL GOOD LIE #10 - Subsidies like Cash for Clunkers (or any other subsidy) stimulates the economy.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE: You cannot stimulate the economy by destroying goods just so more have to be made to replace them. When someone buys a new car, he is only using money that he would have spent anyway - on computers, vacations, an ATV or even a new car. By paying him to buy a car instead of other things, you have not increased consumer spending, but you have successfully siphoned billions out of taxpayer's pockets, leaving them even less to spend. You are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Nothing more. And no true benefit comes from it. In fact, the majority of new cars purchased under Cash For Clunkers were foreign cars - the profits went to Japanese companies. The overall economic effect was minimal, but the cost was huge.
FEEL GOOD LIE #9 - The new "green" flourescent lightbulbs are good for the environment.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: They are far worse for the environment. FAR worse. First, these new bulbs require between 4 and 9 times more glass. Glass production requires extreme heat, produced by fossil fuels. In addition, these bulbs use mercury, one of the most toxic substances on Earth. If you break one, the government says you all but need a HazMat team to clean it up. And expired bulbs must be disposed of at a hazardous waste facilty - most people live at least a gallon of gas away from such a facility - one way! These bulbs are as "green" as a raging forest fire.
FEEL GOOD LIE #8 - Electric cars are better for the environment and the economy.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE: The truth be known, they are worse for the environment and the economy. For one thing, most electricity in this country is produced by burning coal. And simple basic physics teaches us that whenever you convert energy from one form to another, there is loss. In essence, we burn MORE coal if we use more electric cars. Furthermore, like Cash for Clunkers, the government uses taxpayer money to pay incentives for buying electric cars, which increases their ultimate overall cost and siphons money out of the economy via taxes to pay for this foolishness.
FEEL GOOD LIE #7 - Title 9 - the law that requires as many women as men involved in sports in any educational institution. While it sounds great, and fair, to have as many women as men in sports, there are serious flaws.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - It is rare to find as many women as men who desire to be involved in sports. The reason is as much genetic as anything else. Most sports require people getting banged up, and women prefer not to have that happen. Since the vast majority of sports are at least semi-violent, the vast majority of players will be male. In schools and universities across America, almost half of all sport programs in schools and universities had to be terminated in order to comply with Title 9 law. Instead of increasing the number of women in sports, Title 9 simply eliminated many sports because the law requires that an equal proportion of women be enrolled in sports or the sports had to stop. In fact, a championship Rugby team had to be disbanded due to Title 9, and we all lost something of value with that. Under Title 9, if there is not a single female willing to enter into sports, then all sports programs in that school must be terminated. It's the law.
FEEL GOOD LIE #6 - Every American should be able to own a home. So laws were passed that required banks to issue risky mortgages to people who could not otherwise buy a home.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - We all saw - and are still feeling - the results of this folly. Forcing banks to make risky loans also forced them to devise methods of doing it in a way that would "spread the risk". This gave birth to "derivatives" which became investment vehicles for companies like AIG. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at the heart of all these risky mortgages ended up buying many of them. And as was easy to predict, the people who bought the homes they could not afford defaulted. Foreclosures abound, markets crashed and the entire nation was nearly devastated economically. And to add more injury to this bad scene, the government blew another 800 billion on a "stimulus" bill they said would help dig us out of the hole they created. The hole just got bigger. The fact is, if a person cannot afford to pay for something, they should not be allowed to buy it on credit. Everyone gets hurt when they default. The government messed with the free market and caused it to fail. Had the government stayed out of it, not as many people would own homes, but this economic disaster would have been avoided. Thanks to government intervening in free markets, we all suffer because you cannot force people into the middle class. The middle class can only be created by individual effort, not freebies.
FEEL GOOD LIE #5 - Government can create jobs to stimulate growth.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - Every Democratic administration since Woodrow Wilson - and even a couple misguided Republican administrations - has pushed this phony idea. The only jobs government can produce are government jobs, which do nothing to stimulate growth because they are paid for from money taken out of the economy via taxes. Again, robbing Peter to pay Paul. If government pays businesses via incentives to hire in the private sector, again, those funds come from taxpayers - taking the money from one pocket and putting it in another. But there is an even more insidious consequence of government jobs - every person who becomes dependent upon the government, whether for their job, food stamps or anything else, those people become part of the problem because they are now obligated to "do what their boss tells them". Like freeloaders who pay no taxes and have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting for people who will take from the rich and give to the poor, government employees are in the same position. When 51% of the people are in that situation, the government has more power than the people, and that is when serfdom begins. Currently we are at 47%. Too close for comfort.
FEEL GOOD LIE #4 - We need to pay unemployment benefits for as long as it takes for people to find work. And it stimulates the economy.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - Sure sounds nice, doesn't it? But here's what is wrong with that line of thinking. For starters, most (about 80%) of people on unemployment do not even bother looking for work, for several reasons. One, it's more fun to go fishing and escape a daily grind. Two, If they can collect $400 a week from unemployment instead of $500 a week from working 40 hours a week and then having to subtract for gas, daycare etc., it's pretty much a no-brainer to just collect. Another problem is that the longer a person is unemployed - and encouraged to remain so - the less likely he or she will ever enter the workforce again. Employers shy away from any resume that shows no employment for more than 6 months, and working skills can get out-dated. And it does nothing to stimulate the economy - NOTHING. Some believe it helps the economy because it provides money that is then spent. But think about that - where did that money come from? It came from you and me, in taxes. If we had been able to keep that money, we would have spent it ourselves, supporting our own families. The money would have been spent either way. The only difference lies in WHO is doing the spending of WHO'S money. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe the person who earns the money should get the pleasure and benefit of spending it.
FEEL GOOD LIE #3 - Every American worker is entitled to a fair minimum wage.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE - Can hardly argue with that - or can we? While it certainly sounds laudable on the surface, there are dramatic and dangerous consequences. The reason is rather simple - money does not grow on trees. Every business has a certain amount allocated for salaries and benefits. If forced to increase salaries, they are also forced to lay people off because they cannot simply manufacture greenbacks out of thin air. Raising the minimum wage always - always - results in job losses. But it gets worse. The lower paying jobs are designed for entry level people, like teens, who have no experience. They work for less in exchange for an education in learning the business. And their wages go up as they gain experience and become more productive. By increasing minimum wage the government effectively eliminates entry level jobs. Employers simply hire only the more experienced people. This explains why the unemployment rate among the 18-22 age is 26%. If free markets were allowed to do their thing, everyone would get an appropriate wage, if only because of competition.
There is another unintended consequence to minimum wage laws - the cost of everything goes up. Employers, forced to pay more must now increase the cost of their products and services. So the net gain is essentially zero. If you get a $50 a week raise, but the cost of living increases by $50 a week because every business is giving raises and raising prices, then you gain nothing. Minimum wage laws are one of the biggest causes of price increases.
FEEL GOOD LIE #2 - Ethanol is good for the environment and the economy.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - this is one of the greatest lies ever told, and the second biggest boondoggle ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public - courtesy of Al Gore, who pushed ethanol in his quest to be president. He admitted in November that ethanol is bogus and he only pushed it through in order to win the votes of farmers. Now as to WHY it is a boondoggle...
First, ethanol costs $1.78 a gallon more to produce than gasoline. The government - you, as taxpayers - are subsidizing the ethanol industry to the tune of $1.78 per gallon. So, when you buy a dollar's worth of ethanol at the pump, you have actually paid $2.78 for it. In other words, if fuel is $3.00 per gallon and is 10% ethanol, you are actually paying close to $3.30 per gallon when you add in what you are paying to subsidize ethanol production.
Second, as farmers trample one another to grow corn and collect all those government sibsidies, less land is available for production of food. Food prices have risen substantially due to ethanol. And meat especially goes up, as most meat animals rely upon corn as feed. But the government is burning the corn in fuel tanks across the land. Only fools would burn their food supply.
Third, it isn't even good for the environment. Every study has shown that it takes almost 40% more fossil fuel to create ethanol than it takes to produce an equal amount of petroleum. One must factor in the fuel required to plant, fertilize and harvest. The fuel to transport to the ethanol plants. And the fuel to convert the corn into ethanol. Petroleum, folks, is more green than ethanol.
As for being good for the economy, nothing that is paid for with tax dollars siphoned out of the economy can possibly be good for the economy on a net gain basis.
FEEL GOOD LIE #1 - This is the "biggie" - the "Affordable Care Act", better known among sane, thinking people as Obamacare.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - Let's start with reducing costs. It does not. All studies and reports show that insurance rates are increasing - and must, in order to pay the increasing benefits required. And the cost of health care, itself increases due to a greater demand as 30 million more people seek care, but there is no increase in the number of caregivers or hospital rooms and equipment.
As for the promise that you could keep your current insurance, that has already been proved false as many providers have simply dropped customers rather than be on the hook for more costs. One major insurer dropped out the the business altogether. And many companies, unable to comply with the new requirements are dropping health insurance, forcing people into the government plan - at taxpayer expense.
Then there was the promise of better care. The truth is that more and more providers - doctors, clinics, pharmacies - have dropped medicare patients - they cannot afford them, and there will be way too many. While you may have a great little Medicare card, it is not apt to get you the care you need.
Then there are the so-called "death panels" that many say do not exist. Yet, in the months since this bill was passed, the FDA has banned two safe and somewhat effective cancer drugs simply because they are too expensive and the government does not want to pay for them. So, by bureaucratic decree to save money, people will be left to die. And in Arizona a young father scheduled for a life-saving liver transplant was refused by Medicare. He will die. If not a "death panel", then I am at a loss for a better name.
Over the last 100 years the American public has been duped over and over by an increasingly government of "progressives" in both parties. And it is destroying the very fabric that made America great - free markets and personal responsibility. If we want to save America, we as a People must learn to look to the unintended consequences, and then fire any lawmakers that refuse to listen to the will of a more informed populace.
/
Who Is The Real Outsourcer Of American Jobs
Mr Obama says it is Romney, because Romney once headed Bain Capital. Bain Capital sometimes invested in businesses that employed people outside the U.S.
Romney says it is Obama because Obama and his bunch have sent more jobs overseas than anyone else.
Some facts to chew on...
Romney left Bain before there was any outsourcing, according to numerous independent fact checkers, as well as the big shots still at Bain - some of whom are Obama supporters. And they all state Romney was long gone before outsourcing. But to the Obama campaign, the facts do not matter. Gotta remember Obama is a Chicago politician - famous for their mobster tactics.
But even if Romney DID get involved in outsourcing while running Bain, it would be because it was necessary for doing his job - his job was to maximize profits for his investors. It was not Bain's job to create American jobs. It was their job to make money. Both Bain and Romney were VERY successful. And frankly, I would feel a lot better having someone in the White House that does what it takes to succeed - as president, his job would be to create jobs. He would be just as successful at that, because Romney is someone who succeeds in whatever he is tasked with doing. His record proves that.
On the other hand, it is common knowledge that the guys on Obama's Jobs Council - including Jeffrey Immelt of GE - have all outsourced jobs in record numbers. All those curly-que light bulbs produced by GE - yep, they are all made overseas. And even $29 billion of the "stimulus" funds went to create jobs overseas, including money for Fiskars, a Scandinavian auto maker. Some stimulus funds even went to India and China. Even Obama's vacation was outsourced to Spain last year.
I find it to be very disturbing that so many Americans are still allowing themselves to be duped by the golden, lying tongue of our Amateur-In-Chief. He lies about the economy, about jobs, about outsourcing. He lied when he said Obamacare was not a tax. He lied when he said 87 times that no one earning less than $250,000 would see their taxes go up one dime. He lied when he said the stimulus would get the unemployment rate below 8%. In fact, just about the only thing he did has not lied about is his determination to "fundamentally change America." No, not just change it, or change its direction. Nope. He said he would FUNDAMENTALLY change it, which means tearing down the old America and REPLACING it with his own vision of what it should be. And considering his "mentors" were people like Saul Alinsky, Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakan, his "vision" is nothing short of a people ruled by their elitist government. And THAT is a fundamental change. America was founded to be of, by and for the people. The fundamental change would mean of, by and for the government.
And he is doing it!
I think we need to stop him before it's too late. Kick him and his Marxist cohorts and policies to the curb, where they can be washed down into the sewer where they belong. Come November, America has a real choice to make - either we want to run the government and our own destinies, or we want the government to rule over us, and choose our destinies for us.
Every single informed American needs to get out and vote in November. The uninformed should stay home - if they don't know what's going on, they have no business voting. That's what got us into the mess we're in - the Democrats and ACORN dragged every uninformed, drug-impaired welfare bum into the voting booths in '08 and conned them into voting for Democrats. That's almost as bad as getting chimps to vote. Most of them do not even know who the candidate are, or who George Washington was. They simply are not qualified to vote. And that is what liberals count on. Marx called then "useful idiots".
/
Romney says it is Obama because Obama and his bunch have sent more jobs overseas than anyone else.
Some facts to chew on...
Romney left Bain before there was any outsourcing, according to numerous independent fact checkers, as well as the big shots still at Bain - some of whom are Obama supporters. And they all state Romney was long gone before outsourcing. But to the Obama campaign, the facts do not matter. Gotta remember Obama is a Chicago politician - famous for their mobster tactics.
But even if Romney DID get involved in outsourcing while running Bain, it would be because it was necessary for doing his job - his job was to maximize profits for his investors. It was not Bain's job to create American jobs. It was their job to make money. Both Bain and Romney were VERY successful. And frankly, I would feel a lot better having someone in the White House that does what it takes to succeed - as president, his job would be to create jobs. He would be just as successful at that, because Romney is someone who succeeds in whatever he is tasked with doing. His record proves that.
On the other hand, it is common knowledge that the guys on Obama's Jobs Council - including Jeffrey Immelt of GE - have all outsourced jobs in record numbers. All those curly-que light bulbs produced by GE - yep, they are all made overseas. And even $29 billion of the "stimulus" funds went to create jobs overseas, including money for Fiskars, a Scandinavian auto maker. Some stimulus funds even went to India and China. Even Obama's vacation was outsourced to Spain last year.
I find it to be very disturbing that so many Americans are still allowing themselves to be duped by the golden, lying tongue of our Amateur-In-Chief. He lies about the economy, about jobs, about outsourcing. He lied when he said Obamacare was not a tax. He lied when he said 87 times that no one earning less than $250,000 would see their taxes go up one dime. He lied when he said the stimulus would get the unemployment rate below 8%. In fact, just about the only thing he did has not lied about is his determination to "fundamentally change America." No, not just change it, or change its direction. Nope. He said he would FUNDAMENTALLY change it, which means tearing down the old America and REPLACING it with his own vision of what it should be. And considering his "mentors" were people like Saul Alinsky, Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakan, his "vision" is nothing short of a people ruled by their elitist government. And THAT is a fundamental change. America was founded to be of, by and for the people. The fundamental change would mean of, by and for the government.
And he is doing it!
I think we need to stop him before it's too late. Kick him and his Marxist cohorts and policies to the curb, where they can be washed down into the sewer where they belong. Come November, America has a real choice to make - either we want to run the government and our own destinies, or we want the government to rule over us, and choose our destinies for us.
Every single informed American needs to get out and vote in November. The uninformed should stay home - if they don't know what's going on, they have no business voting. That's what got us into the mess we're in - the Democrats and ACORN dragged every uninformed, drug-impaired welfare bum into the voting booths in '08 and conned them into voting for Democrats. That's almost as bad as getting chimps to vote. Most of them do not even know who the candidate are, or who George Washington was. They simply are not qualified to vote. And that is what liberals count on. Marx called then "useful idiots".
/
Friday, July 13, 2012
Fair - According To Obama Democrats
Well, now there is no confusion - the democrats have finally made it clear as to what they think is fair.
Today, democrats came out with this little gem - "If you are a working person, you should get used to the idea of working until age 70."
Pretty innocuous on the surface. But think about what ELSE they are saying. "Get your food stamps here; apply for disability. If you don't want to work, the government will take care of you. Free housing; free insurance..."
So, on the one hand they tell loafers not to worry - the Nanny State will take good care of them. But to working stiffs, they say, "You will have to bust your butt until you die so we can give these people over here a free ride."
Yep - that's fair - according to democrats.
Maybe it's time we started calling the working class what the Democrats really think they are - the slave class that does the work and pays the bills while the lazy, shiftless "Massas" sit back and get a free ride..
/
Today, democrats came out with this little gem - "If you are a working person, you should get used to the idea of working until age 70."
Pretty innocuous on the surface. But think about what ELSE they are saying. "Get your food stamps here; apply for disability. If you don't want to work, the government will take care of you. Free housing; free insurance..."
So, on the one hand they tell loafers not to worry - the Nanny State will take good care of them. But to working stiffs, they say, "You will have to bust your butt until you die so we can give these people over here a free ride."
Yep - that's fair - according to democrats.
Maybe it's time we started calling the working class what the Democrats really think they are - the slave class that does the work and pays the bills while the lazy, shiftless "Massas" sit back and get a free ride..
/
Obama's "Biggest Regret" Is Not Telling A Better Story? REALLY?
When asked what his biggest regret was, Obama said, "Not telling a better story."
Hey Bubba, why not try THESE regrets on for size...
I regret so many people have lost their jobs
I regret I could not increase jobs a lot more
I regret the number of people on food stamps has doubled
I regret increasing the debt by $5 trillion without making things better
I regret blowing $700 billion taxpayer bucks on bankrupt green companies
I regret spending 18 months on health care when I should have concentrated on the economy and jobs
I can think of a hundred things you SHOULD regret, Mr. President.
Come to think of it - perhaps you should regret that John McCain lost...
/
Hey Bubba, why not try THESE regrets on for size...
I regret so many people have lost their jobs
I regret I could not increase jobs a lot more
I regret the number of people on food stamps has doubled
I regret increasing the debt by $5 trillion without making things better
I regret blowing $700 billion taxpayer bucks on bankrupt green companies
I regret spending 18 months on health care when I should have concentrated on the economy and jobs
I can think of a hundred things you SHOULD regret, Mr. President.
Come to think of it - perhaps you should regret that John McCain lost...
/
GOOGLE's Greed Costs Many Thousands of Jobs
I have often written how Google abuses its power and influence in an effort to reshape the entire world into what IT wants, and for its own profit. Here is perhaps the best proof of all.
In 2011, and again in 2012, Google unleashed new, destructive algorithms for their search engine. I'll try to use layman's terms to explain.
Millions of businesses use Search Engine Optimization to get their websites listed in the Top 10 for the search terms they use to draw visitors. For example, a company that offers weight loss treatments would optimize their site to rank well for the search term WEIGHT LOSS.
Those millions of businesses employ many millions of people. So, if the business loses its ranking so web surfers cannot find their web page, they lose a lot of business - often forcing them out of business. This, in turn, causes a lot of unemployment.
The problem in Google's eys is that businesses who get high rankings do not need to use Google Adwords Pay-Per-Click. Google figured that if they destroyed the "natural" rankings of so many businesses, those businesses would have to then PAY Google Adwords to get back on page 1.
So, Google unleashed what was named PANDA, and that disrupted the natural search results, forcing millions of businesses to use pay-per-click. Either that, or go out of business. But what this also did was ruin the search results being provided by Google - no longer was it possible to get honest, natural results when you do a search. This cheats the search user as well as the businesses.
In 2012, Google went a LOT further and set loose PENGUIN. This algo change was a hundred times more disruptive. Now, Google search results are almost useless - you get results according to what Google wants you to see, rather than honest businesses that earned a good reputation and therefore were well ranked. The search results are now crap, and millions of people lose their jobs, or businesses lose income - all so Google can boost their own profits ever higher.
All of the Panda and Penguin updates so far in 2012 have been about one thing: Making more money and achieving corporate/share-holder growth targets for Google. By turning the natural rankings upside down and thus collapsing the cash-flow of so many businesses, Google has immediately increased global AdWords spend (and individual bid-prices along with it unfortunately) and caused massive job losses.
And no one can do a thing about it. Except...
Stop using Google. Use BING, instead. Bing results are honest and still natural - you will get more meaningful results. Current Google search results are now the lowest quality they have ever been. The volume of bland sites with little or no useful information that are now ranking is quite simply astounding. And I would strongly recommend that you try out Bing for your own personal searches now; as I think you'll quickly find the returned results far more useful than the majority of rubbish that comes back from Google.
No company - Hell, no GOVERNMENT - should have that kind of power of people.
/And Google abuses their power - they started the Egyptian uprising (by their own admission) which has resulted in the Muslim Brotherhood takeover. They destroy honest businesses just to make another buck. They don't give a hoot that the folks using Google are being conned with unnatural search results. They have been found to have illegally tapped into peoples WiFi all over the country as they created their "street views". And now they are using drones to spy on everyone - they can even look into your windows!
In 2011, and again in 2012, Google unleashed new, destructive algorithms for their search engine. I'll try to use layman's terms to explain.
Millions of businesses use Search Engine Optimization to get their websites listed in the Top 10 for the search terms they use to draw visitors. For example, a company that offers weight loss treatments would optimize their site to rank well for the search term WEIGHT LOSS.
Those millions of businesses employ many millions of people. So, if the business loses its ranking so web surfers cannot find their web page, they lose a lot of business - often forcing them out of business. This, in turn, causes a lot of unemployment.
The problem in Google's eys is that businesses who get high rankings do not need to use Google Adwords Pay-Per-Click. Google figured that if they destroyed the "natural" rankings of so many businesses, those businesses would have to then PAY Google Adwords to get back on page 1.
So, Google unleashed what was named PANDA, and that disrupted the natural search results, forcing millions of businesses to use pay-per-click. Either that, or go out of business. But what this also did was ruin the search results being provided by Google - no longer was it possible to get honest, natural results when you do a search. This cheats the search user as well as the businesses.
In 2012, Google went a LOT further and set loose PENGUIN. This algo change was a hundred times more disruptive. Now, Google search results are almost useless - you get results according to what Google wants you to see, rather than honest businesses that earned a good reputation and therefore were well ranked. The search results are now crap, and millions of people lose their jobs, or businesses lose income - all so Google can boost their own profits ever higher.
All of the Panda and Penguin updates so far in 2012 have been about one thing: Making more money and achieving corporate/share-holder growth targets for Google. By turning the natural rankings upside down and thus collapsing the cash-flow of so many businesses, Google has immediately increased global AdWords spend (and individual bid-prices along with it unfortunately) and caused massive job losses.
And no one can do a thing about it. Except...
Stop using Google. Use BING, instead. Bing results are honest and still natural - you will get more meaningful results. Current Google search results are now the lowest quality they have ever been. The volume of bland sites with little or no useful information that are now ranking is quite simply astounding. And I would strongly recommend that you try out Bing for your own personal searches now; as I think you'll quickly find the returned results far more useful than the majority of rubbish that comes back from Google.
No company - Hell, no GOVERNMENT - should have that kind of power of people.
/And Google abuses their power - they started the Egyptian uprising (by their own admission) which has resulted in the Muslim Brotherhood takeover. They destroy honest businesses just to make another buck. They don't give a hoot that the folks using Google are being conned with unnatural search results. They have been found to have illegally tapped into peoples WiFi all over the country as they created their "street views". And now they are using drones to spy on everyone - they can even look into your windows!
Thursday, July 12, 2012
The Far Left - Unpatriotic?
Absolutely! I have been documenting hundreds of cases and events that show a lack of patriotism, and in nearly every case it happened in bastions of liberal thought. Take this most recent example, from the bluest of the blue states, Massachusetts..
WRENTHAM, Mass. — Residents of a Massachusetts public housing complex are outraged that the town's housing agency has banned the display of U.S. flags outside their homes.
The Wrentham Housing Authority notified residents of the policy through an UNSIGNED letter taped to their doors Wednesday. The WHA refused to comment.
All over America, among the liberal elitists and usually in bastions of liberal lunacy (New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, California, Colorado, Vermont, Connecticut) unpatriotic thoughts, words and actions are prevailing. Can't fly the flag. Burn the flag. Wear the flag upside down. Trash America but praise Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Laud the murderous Mao Tse-Tung and Che Gueverra as heroes. Complain that America is using tyranny and colonialism.
I'm getting really tired of those snotty, ignorant loons. Very few are actually of high intellect, and fewer still have any clue of what is true.
Here's a truth for ya - if you don't like America, get the Hell out! No one is holding you here against your will. A person should always go where they are appreciated - and unpatriotic clowns are not appreciated in America.
/
WRENTHAM, Mass. — Residents of a Massachusetts public housing complex are outraged that the town's housing agency has banned the display of U.S. flags outside their homes.
The Wrentham Housing Authority notified residents of the policy through an UNSIGNED letter taped to their doors Wednesday. The WHA refused to comment.
All over America, among the liberal elitists and usually in bastions of liberal lunacy (New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, California, Colorado, Vermont, Connecticut) unpatriotic thoughts, words and actions are prevailing. Can't fly the flag. Burn the flag. Wear the flag upside down. Trash America but praise Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Laud the murderous Mao Tse-Tung and Che Gueverra as heroes. Complain that America is using tyranny and colonialism.
I'm getting really tired of those snotty, ignorant loons. Very few are actually of high intellect, and fewer still have any clue of what is true.
Here's a truth for ya - if you don't like America, get the Hell out! No one is holding you here against your will. A person should always go where they are appreciated - and unpatriotic clowns are not appreciated in America.
/
Romney, Obama and Wealth
I find it inconsistent that the Democrats are trying to slam Romney for his wealth when Obams has his fundraisers with the uber-wealthy Wintours and George Clooney types, and calls upon Wall Street fat cats for and private equity folks contributions.
What bothers me about Obama's message is that we should only want someone who has not been successful to run for president. Is that what we want? A loser? You can't be successful and run the country? I don't know how Democrats really feel about it but I want somebody who has been successful to run my country. And few people have been more successful in more endeavors than Romney.
And I'm so tired of hearing that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. Yeah we are. According to the IRS, the top 5% of earners in this country are paying over 40% of all taxes. The bottom 49% of workers pay nothing at all. And THAT is what is unfair. Just because they make less should not get them a free ride. But to say that wealthy individuals are not paying their fair is not only unfair, but delusional as well.
As Obama supporter Peebles said, attacking the wealthy for working hard, smart and being successful is "like going to school and the bullies picking on the A-students, calling them nerds and so forth. So, what do we want, a whole school of dummies?"
So now the Obama campaign takes it a step further and attacks Romney for a Swiss account and an offshore corporation. Um, last I heard, neither is illegal, and there has been not one iota of evidence to suggest he did not pay his fair share of taxes on that money. And even Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz and other Democratic leaders have similar holdings.
And I can guarantee that many of Obamas biggest supporters and donors have offshore accounts and holdings.
What it all boils down to is that Obama wants to demonize the wealthy and penalize their success - that is precisely what Saul Alinski and Karl Marx called for. So call it what you will - it still amounts to the same thing.
Now, on the one hand we have a candidate who succeeds in everything he tackles. On the other hand, we have a president who never accomplished anything of note, and those few things he has done since being elected has been a disaster. I would call a $15 trillion debt, 8.2% unemployment rate and a dead economy a lot of things, but I would NOT call it success.
But I still wish the Republicans would elect West/Rubio.
/
What bothers me about Obama's message is that we should only want someone who has not been successful to run for president. Is that what we want? A loser? You can't be successful and run the country? I don't know how Democrats really feel about it but I want somebody who has been successful to run my country. And few people have been more successful in more endeavors than Romney.
And I'm so tired of hearing that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. Yeah we are. According to the IRS, the top 5% of earners in this country are paying over 40% of all taxes. The bottom 49% of workers pay nothing at all. And THAT is what is unfair. Just because they make less should not get them a free ride. But to say that wealthy individuals are not paying their fair is not only unfair, but delusional as well.
As Obama supporter Peebles said, attacking the wealthy for working hard, smart and being successful is "like going to school and the bullies picking on the A-students, calling them nerds and so forth. So, what do we want, a whole school of dummies?"
So now the Obama campaign takes it a step further and attacks Romney for a Swiss account and an offshore corporation. Um, last I heard, neither is illegal, and there has been not one iota of evidence to suggest he did not pay his fair share of taxes on that money. And even Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz and other Democratic leaders have similar holdings.
And I can guarantee that many of Obamas biggest supporters and donors have offshore accounts and holdings.
What it all boils down to is that Obama wants to demonize the wealthy and penalize their success - that is precisely what Saul Alinski and Karl Marx called for. So call it what you will - it still amounts to the same thing.
Now, on the one hand we have a candidate who succeeds in everything he tackles. On the other hand, we have a president who never accomplished anything of note, and those few things he has done since being elected has been a disaster. I would call a $15 trillion debt, 8.2% unemployment rate and a dead economy a lot of things, but I would NOT call it success.
But I still wish the Republicans would elect West/Rubio.
/
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
So, You Want The Government To Control Health Care
A lot of folks believe that ObamaCare is a good thing. Most do not understand it includes 27 NEW taxes on the middle class, and removes a lot of patient and doctor choice. They also do not realize that by the government's own calculation, about 20 million who are happy with their current insurance will lose it. But that really is not the real issue. There is something else that should give a sane person cause to pause.
Medicare fraud currently costs taxpayers about $60,000,000,000 a year. Social Security Disability accounts for another $6,000,000,000 a year in fraud, while food stamps incur $750,000,000 a year in fraud. Those three programs, alone, cost taxpayers $67 billion a year! That's a chunk of change, no matter how rich you are.
The Health Care overhaul will control MUCH more of the American economy - one-sixth of the entire economy. Try as you might, you could never imagine the cost of the fraud to taxpayers.
Now I ask you - do you REALLY want to entrust YOUR health to a government that is so inept and incompetent that they pay $6000 for a $10 toilet seat and $400 for a 50 cent allen wrench? A government that hasn't been able to pass a budget in 3 years? A government who cannot run the Post Office at a profit while UPS and FedEx are making billions? A government that has been running Amtrak at a loss for 35 years?
Gimmee a break. I would not trust the government to put a band-aid on a skinned knee! The band-aid would cost $1500 and they would put it on the wrong knee - and do it long after the wonded knee has already healed.
/
Medicare fraud currently costs taxpayers about $60,000,000,000 a year. Social Security Disability accounts for another $6,000,000,000 a year in fraud, while food stamps incur $750,000,000 a year in fraud. Those three programs, alone, cost taxpayers $67 billion a year! That's a chunk of change, no matter how rich you are.
The Health Care overhaul will control MUCH more of the American economy - one-sixth of the entire economy. Try as you might, you could never imagine the cost of the fraud to taxpayers.
Now I ask you - do you REALLY want to entrust YOUR health to a government that is so inept and incompetent that they pay $6000 for a $10 toilet seat and $400 for a 50 cent allen wrench? A government that hasn't been able to pass a budget in 3 years? A government who cannot run the Post Office at a profit while UPS and FedEx are making billions? A government that has been running Amtrak at a loss for 35 years?
Gimmee a break. I would not trust the government to put a band-aid on a skinned knee! The band-aid would cost $1500 and they would put it on the wrong knee - and do it long after the wonded knee has already healed.
/
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Proof The Far Left Are Lunatics
I recently recieved a comment from someone who did not even have the courage to add his name to his hysterical rant. His final paragraph was
"Sadly, this incident is further proof that there are some on the right [Ed note: he's referring to me] who are attempting to block the Obamas at every turn, for one reason alone. They hate them unconditionally. They can blame their disdain on Obama being a "socialist" or "Communist" or whatever other ridiculous, extreme label they want to slap on our POTUS and his wife. But ultimately, the real word they can't stand -- and the real reason they're giving Michelle and Barack a hard time in America -- is "black." Enough with this hate speech and admit you can't stand that a black man is President. It's as pathetic and your disgraceful attempt to deny this fact!"
So, this clown thinks I am racist, and just cannot stand it that a black person is president. Seems these lunatics never even think that we may dislike Obama because of his dangerous policies. Oh, no - it MUST be his skin color. It CAN'T be the 8.2% unemployment rate, the $15 trillion debt, the higher taxes, the over-reach of his governance, his tendancy to do end-runs around Congress (and therefore, around Democracy). It can't have anything to do with helping Holder hide what happened in Fast & Furious, or all the new regulations (36,000+) that stifle business. Nope! Gotta be his color.
Well, I have a newsflash for this bigoted racist - I do not care the color of skin. It is common knowlege that MY "dream ticket" is Allen West/Marco Rubio. For benefit of the dolts on the far left who may not have noticed, neither is "white". So it's hard to swallow that somehow I am racist because I strongly disagree with the damage Obama is doing to America. Hey, lunatic, tell me - since YOU were opposed to Bush, are YOU a racist? Did you hate him because he was white? Isn't it telling that your hate for Bush was because of POLICIES, but my dislike for Obama must be because of his "color".
And it is a fact that most black people vote for Obama ONLY BECAUSE he is part black (in case the loons forgot, he is only 12% black). And we know this because 92% still plan on voting for him IN SPITE OF the black unemployment rate skyrocketing during his term, and despite his pro-gay marriage stance (most people of color are not in favor of gay marriage). If they are voting against their own best interests, then you know it's because of color, and not common sense.
The rest of this moron's rant was so bad, so filthy, so full f hate that I will not post it. They say the folks on the right are full of hate, but the vast majority of the hate seems to be coming from idiots like this, on the far left.
Open your eyes - in almost every instance of political violence, it is the left, the union thugs, the wide-eyed loons. In almost every instance of hate-filled rhetoric, it is coming from someone on the left.
New studies have shown that conservatives tend to be far happier than liberals. Maybe that explains a lot. Unhappy people often use violence and hate. Happy people don't waste time on such things.
Just for the record - the only thing in God's universe that I hate is evil. I do not hate any living person. But I do reserve the right to disagree with people, and to dislike them.
/
"Sadly, this incident is further proof that there are some on the right [Ed note: he's referring to me] who are attempting to block the Obamas at every turn, for one reason alone. They hate them unconditionally. They can blame their disdain on Obama being a "socialist" or "Communist" or whatever other ridiculous, extreme label they want to slap on our POTUS and his wife. But ultimately, the real word they can't stand -- and the real reason they're giving Michelle and Barack a hard time in America -- is "black." Enough with this hate speech and admit you can't stand that a black man is President. It's as pathetic and your disgraceful attempt to deny this fact!"
So, this clown thinks I am racist, and just cannot stand it that a black person is president. Seems these lunatics never even think that we may dislike Obama because of his dangerous policies. Oh, no - it MUST be his skin color. It CAN'T be the 8.2% unemployment rate, the $15 trillion debt, the higher taxes, the over-reach of his governance, his tendancy to do end-runs around Congress (and therefore, around Democracy). It can't have anything to do with helping Holder hide what happened in Fast & Furious, or all the new regulations (36,000+) that stifle business. Nope! Gotta be his color.
Well, I have a newsflash for this bigoted racist - I do not care the color of skin. It is common knowlege that MY "dream ticket" is Allen West/Marco Rubio. For benefit of the dolts on the far left who may not have noticed, neither is "white". So it's hard to swallow that somehow I am racist because I strongly disagree with the damage Obama is doing to America. Hey, lunatic, tell me - since YOU were opposed to Bush, are YOU a racist? Did you hate him because he was white? Isn't it telling that your hate for Bush was because of POLICIES, but my dislike for Obama must be because of his "color".
And it is a fact that most black people vote for Obama ONLY BECAUSE he is part black (in case the loons forgot, he is only 12% black). And we know this because 92% still plan on voting for him IN SPITE OF the black unemployment rate skyrocketing during his term, and despite his pro-gay marriage stance (most people of color are not in favor of gay marriage). If they are voting against their own best interests, then you know it's because of color, and not common sense.
The rest of this moron's rant was so bad, so filthy, so full f hate that I will not post it. They say the folks on the right are full of hate, but the vast majority of the hate seems to be coming from idiots like this, on the far left.
Open your eyes - in almost every instance of political violence, it is the left, the union thugs, the wide-eyed loons. In almost every instance of hate-filled rhetoric, it is coming from someone on the left.
New studies have shown that conservatives tend to be far happier than liberals. Maybe that explains a lot. Unhappy people often use violence and hate. Happy people don't waste time on such things.
Just for the record - the only thing in God's universe that I hate is evil. I do not hate any living person. But I do reserve the right to disagree with people, and to dislike them.
/
Dems Push Bogus Tax Relief For Small Business
They are at it again! The Democrats in the Senate are pushing what they call the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act. It would grant small businesses 10 percent tax breaks for expanding payrolls either through hiring or raises, and would extend for another year the 100 percent bonus depreciation that businesses can take on assets. The bill, which also contains a break on the alternative minimum tax for corporate taxpayers, would cost about $28 billion overall.
Here is why it is a red herring. The tax "break" is only for "expanding payroll". In other words, if you cough up $50k a year to hire a new employee, you get a mere 10% tax break. And there is no assurance that tax break will last - it probably expires, or will be removed at some point. Then the business is stuck with a $50,000 salary and no $5,000 tax break. As if the small business, even with the tax break, has the "extra" $45k a year to shell out.
Not only that, the President is pushing to INCREASE the tax on the same small businesses by not extending the Bush Tax Cuts for them. So it's a wash.
I own a small business (actually, a couple). There is no way that saving a dime of taxes if I spend a dollar would induce me to spend that dollar.
They had a liberal think tank determine that this bill would create almost a million jobs. No way! Business owners did not own successful businesses by being stupid, and falling for this would be stupid. Further, the think tank did the study using preliminary estimates from Congress' Joint Tax Committee. We all know how accurate the Joint Tax Committee has been! NOT.
The Democrats adamantly refuse to accept that there is only one way to get businesses hiring. You need to make the climate friendly to hiring. That means a lower corporate tax rate, and a reduction of regulations, and it must be LONG TERM - at least 5 years. Businesses plan in 5 year cycles. If uncertain what the taxes or regs will be during that time, they get nervous and reduce hiring and expansion. EVERY company that left the U.S. for "greener pastures" in China, India etc. did so because the tax rate is less and the regulations are not overbearing. Every one.
But to toss businesses a meatless bone is an insult.On the one hand I can keep my dollar. On the other hand, I can give to it someone as a raise and get 10 cents. Hm-m-m. A dollar in my pocket, or a dime.
Not a tough choice!
/
Here is why it is a red herring. The tax "break" is only for "expanding payroll". In other words, if you cough up $50k a year to hire a new employee, you get a mere 10% tax break. And there is no assurance that tax break will last - it probably expires, or will be removed at some point. Then the business is stuck with a $50,000 salary and no $5,000 tax break. As if the small business, even with the tax break, has the "extra" $45k a year to shell out.
Not only that, the President is pushing to INCREASE the tax on the same small businesses by not extending the Bush Tax Cuts for them. So it's a wash.
I own a small business (actually, a couple). There is no way that saving a dime of taxes if I spend a dollar would induce me to spend that dollar.
They had a liberal think tank determine that this bill would create almost a million jobs. No way! Business owners did not own successful businesses by being stupid, and falling for this would be stupid. Further, the think tank did the study using preliminary estimates from Congress' Joint Tax Committee. We all know how accurate the Joint Tax Committee has been! NOT.
The Democrats adamantly refuse to accept that there is only one way to get businesses hiring. You need to make the climate friendly to hiring. That means a lower corporate tax rate, and a reduction of regulations, and it must be LONG TERM - at least 5 years. Businesses plan in 5 year cycles. If uncertain what the taxes or regs will be during that time, they get nervous and reduce hiring and expansion. EVERY company that left the U.S. for "greener pastures" in China, India etc. did so because the tax rate is less and the regulations are not overbearing. Every one.
But to toss businesses a meatless bone is an insult.On the one hand I can keep my dollar. On the other hand, I can give to it someone as a raise and get 10 cents. Hm-m-m. A dollar in my pocket, or a dime.
Not a tough choice!
/
Monday, July 9, 2012
Should State Be Forced To Provide Benefits to Same Sex Partners?
Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit in regards to forcing the state to pay benefits to partners in same-sex couples.
Contrary to what the looney left and gay-rights activists want us to believe, this is not a case of "fairness". Here's why...
The current ruling forces the state to pay for benefits for same-sex partners - period. It does NOT state that they must be in a formal, licensed relationship such as marriage or a civil union. In other words, it could be two gay people passing in the night, with no committment to one another. To provide benefits to them without also provided the same benefits to any heterosexual couple just shacking up is what would be unfair. A hetero couple, unmarried, are not entitled to the benefits, so why should gays get special treatment?
Now, if they go to a state where they can marry and get married, or enter into a civil union, then I say, "Fine, let them get benefits," whether or not Arizona recognizes such committments. Otherwise, not on your life! If a hetero couple shacking up without benefit of a licensed committment are not entitled to spousal benefits, the same should be true for gays.
But as it stands, unmarried (uncommitted) gays can get spousal benefits, but unmarried heterosexuals cannot. And THAT is unfair.
/
Contrary to what the looney left and gay-rights activists want us to believe, this is not a case of "fairness". Here's why...
The current ruling forces the state to pay for benefits for same-sex partners - period. It does NOT state that they must be in a formal, licensed relationship such as marriage or a civil union. In other words, it could be two gay people passing in the night, with no committment to one another. To provide benefits to them without also provided the same benefits to any heterosexual couple just shacking up is what would be unfair. A hetero couple, unmarried, are not entitled to the benefits, so why should gays get special treatment?
Now, if they go to a state where they can marry and get married, or enter into a civil union, then I say, "Fine, let them get benefits," whether or not Arizona recognizes such committments. Otherwise, not on your life! If a hetero couple shacking up without benefit of a licensed committment are not entitled to spousal benefits, the same should be true for gays.
But as it stands, unmarried (uncommitted) gays can get spousal benefits, but unmarried heterosexuals cannot. And THAT is unfair.
/
The Great General Motors Scam
OK, so we bailed out GM. And now Mr Obama is touting the great success that GM is.
NOT!
GM's market share is down - a lot.
GM still owes taxpayers billions
7 out of every 10 GM cars is built outside the U.S. - talk about outsourcing!
And the government is buying up GM cars and trucks to build up its fleets - taxpayer money used to make GM look more profitable than it really is
It sure would be nice if JUST ONCE Mr. Obama would be honest with the American people. It seems every time he opens his mouth the Washington Post has to give him more "Pinocchio's" for all the lies.
/
NOT!
GM's market share is down - a lot.
GM still owes taxpayers billions
7 out of every 10 GM cars is built outside the U.S. - talk about outsourcing!
And the government is buying up GM cars and trucks to build up its fleets - taxpayer money used to make GM look more profitable than it really is
It sure would be nice if JUST ONCE Mr. Obama would be honest with the American people. It seems every time he opens his mouth the Washington Post has to give him more "Pinocchio's" for all the lies.
/
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Unemployment - "Step In The Right Direction?"
In a speech given on Friday, President Obama stated that 84,000 people found jobs last month, and that is "a step in the right direction."
But as is typical of liberal-speak, it's what they DON'T say that makes all the difference.
While 84,000 jobs were created, 85,000 people jumped on the disability rolls. And that does not even consider that we need at least 120,000 new jobs each month just to keep up with the growing population. And it takes 270,000 new jobs a month to show positive growth.
Since Obama took office, 2.6 million jobs have been created. And 3.1 million people got on disability - a net loss of a half million jobs.
And the population growth during Obamas term required over 5 million NEW, ADDITIONAL jobs. But Only 2.6 million were created.
The net result - a net loss of 2.9 million jobs just to keep pace with the population, and not allowing for any actual growth.
Mr. Obama may claim that is a "step in the right direction" because his policies seem to be intent on destroying capitalism so socialism can take hold in America. For him, losing jobs IS a step in the right direction. No president has ever done more to destroy the American way of life.
Mr. Obama has broken every promise he made but one. The one promise he has kept is to "fundamentally change America."
A strange thing - unemployment among blacks is now higher than at any time since slavery. Yet, they still want to vote for Obama. And that shows ignorance - to vote against your own best interests in order to vote for color. If people - regardless of color - were to vote on POLICIES rather than color or ideology, Mr. Obama would lose in a landslide.
/
But as is typical of liberal-speak, it's what they DON'T say that makes all the difference.
While 84,000 jobs were created, 85,000 people jumped on the disability rolls. And that does not even consider that we need at least 120,000 new jobs each month just to keep up with the growing population. And it takes 270,000 new jobs a month to show positive growth.
Since Obama took office, 2.6 million jobs have been created. And 3.1 million people got on disability - a net loss of a half million jobs.
And the population growth during Obamas term required over 5 million NEW, ADDITIONAL jobs. But Only 2.6 million were created.
The net result - a net loss of 2.9 million jobs just to keep pace with the population, and not allowing for any actual growth.
Mr. Obama may claim that is a "step in the right direction" because his policies seem to be intent on destroying capitalism so socialism can take hold in America. For him, losing jobs IS a step in the right direction. No president has ever done more to destroy the American way of life.
Mr. Obama has broken every promise he made but one. The one promise he has kept is to "fundamentally change America."
A strange thing - unemployment among blacks is now higher than at any time since slavery. Yet, they still want to vote for Obama. And that shows ignorance - to vote against your own best interests in order to vote for color. If people - regardless of color - were to vote on POLICIES rather than color or ideology, Mr. Obama would lose in a landslide.
/
Friday, July 6, 2012
A Better Definition Of "Social Justice"
RAPE! That's right, rape. That is what social justice is. Forcing someone to give up something that belongs to them, taking it by force. It is an assault, without the sex.
John has a lot of money, so take a bunch from him and give it to someone with less. Mary worked hard to be Valedictorian, but let's have FIVE Valedictorians, so those who did not do as well can "feel good". Meanwhile, Mary's efforts are lost in the shuffle, no longer special.
Bobby won the PineWood Derby because he built a faster car. But everyone gets a ribbon, so his win is not really recognized.
Joe Blow never bothered going to school, never cared to improve his lot in life. He overeats, consumes junk food and becomes unhealthy. So let's force others to pay for his medical care via Obamacare.
Those who espouse "social justice" try to use the bogus excuse that it is what Jesus would do. But that is untrue. In fact, Jesus often spoke AGAINST social justice, as in his parable of the talents, and the story of not sowing your seed on barren ground or among the brambles. And He ALWAYS made it a point that, in order to be worthy, the acts of kindness must be voluntary - you must do it because you WANT to, not because you are forced to.
Social justice is a kind of rape, plain and simple. After all, in order to ensure social justice, what about the person who has no significant other? Why, that's just not fair! George has three girlfriends, but Ken has none. Perhaps the government should take one of George's girlfriends away and force her to submit to Ken - all in the name of fairness, of course.
But would that not be rape?
There is only one "justice" - and it has nothing to do with "equality". It has to do with what is right. In the case of wealth, it is justice for those who earn it to keep what they want, give what they want, do what they want with what they earned.
Justoice is TRUE fairness, not the bogus fairness espoused by the "social justice" crowd. If I earn a dollar, it is fair that I should decide how I will spend it. If I make bad choices, it is fair for me to face the consequences of those choices.
Social Justice - nothing more than a liberal talking point used to legalize theft from one person to give to another. A refusal to accept the simple fact that in life there are winners AND losers. After all, if no one loses, then no one can win, either. What would you win?
Mother Nature tells us what is right and wrong. In nature, nothing can live unless something else dies. Nothing! In other words - winners and losers. Think about that. Every living thing consumes other living things, or the residue from other living things that have died. You live only because vegetables and meats die so you can get your caloric intake.
Liberals really need to get a grip on reality and understand that not only is it wrong to try and "fool Mother Nature", but it is also useless. Nature wins in the end.
/
/
John has a lot of money, so take a bunch from him and give it to someone with less. Mary worked hard to be Valedictorian, but let's have FIVE Valedictorians, so those who did not do as well can "feel good". Meanwhile, Mary's efforts are lost in the shuffle, no longer special.
Bobby won the PineWood Derby because he built a faster car. But everyone gets a ribbon, so his win is not really recognized.
Joe Blow never bothered going to school, never cared to improve his lot in life. He overeats, consumes junk food and becomes unhealthy. So let's force others to pay for his medical care via Obamacare.
Those who espouse "social justice" try to use the bogus excuse that it is what Jesus would do. But that is untrue. In fact, Jesus often spoke AGAINST social justice, as in his parable of the talents, and the story of not sowing your seed on barren ground or among the brambles. And He ALWAYS made it a point that, in order to be worthy, the acts of kindness must be voluntary - you must do it because you WANT to, not because you are forced to.
Social justice is a kind of rape, plain and simple. After all, in order to ensure social justice, what about the person who has no significant other? Why, that's just not fair! George has three girlfriends, but Ken has none. Perhaps the government should take one of George's girlfriends away and force her to submit to Ken - all in the name of fairness, of course.
But would that not be rape?
There is only one "justice" - and it has nothing to do with "equality". It has to do with what is right. In the case of wealth, it is justice for those who earn it to keep what they want, give what they want, do what they want with what they earned.
Justoice is TRUE fairness, not the bogus fairness espoused by the "social justice" crowd. If I earn a dollar, it is fair that I should decide how I will spend it. If I make bad choices, it is fair for me to face the consequences of those choices.
Social Justice - nothing more than a liberal talking point used to legalize theft from one person to give to another. A refusal to accept the simple fact that in life there are winners AND losers. After all, if no one loses, then no one can win, either. What would you win?
Mother Nature tells us what is right and wrong. In nature, nothing can live unless something else dies. Nothing! In other words - winners and losers. Think about that. Every living thing consumes other living things, or the residue from other living things that have died. You live only because vegetables and meats die so you can get your caloric intake.
Liberals really need to get a grip on reality and understand that not only is it wrong to try and "fool Mother Nature", but it is also useless. Nature wins in the end.
/
/
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Was Romney Really 47th Out Of 50 In Job Creation?
One of the most dishonest Democrat talking points that is really, REALLY irritating is their claim that while governor of MA, Romney was 47th out of 50 in job creation. This talking point is indicative of the immoral deception of the liberals, because it takes one fact out of context and makes it a story in and of itself. For those of you interested in the real story...
Throughout history, "full employment" is considered to be an unemployment rate between 4-5%. That's because at least 4% of the population simply will not, or cannot, work. In fact, the unemployment rate was less than 4% only 4 years since rates started being tracked in 1920, and those were during WWII and the 2 years following. That is understandable with so many people in the armed forces, and so many died.
So, any unemployment rate between 4-5% is "full employment". And when you reach full employment, it is IMPOSSIBLE to create more jobs, because there are no people to fill those jobs.
When Romney was governor of MA, he brought the unemployment rate to 4.6% (from a high of 6%) - full employment. Even Jesus could not have created many more jobs. And if you cannot create any more jobs because everyone is already working, you end up 47th of 50 in job creation (but as you will see from a study by Politifact, his term ended with MA 30th out of 50, not 47th).
So the real story - if you are 47th of 50 with an unemployment rate of 8%, you are doing lousy. But when you are 47th of 50 and you have full employment, you have done exceptionally well.
But the Democrats don't tell you that everyone in MA had a job. Nope! They would rather throw out a statistic taken out of context in order to mislead you.
In fact, Politifact checked the records and actually found that from December 2002 to December 2003, the job growth in Massachusetts was 51st highest nationally out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia -- in other words, dead last. The following year, it was 46th, then 40th, then in Romney’s final year in office -- December 2005 to December 2006 -- it was 30th in the nation. For each year Romney was in office, the unemployment rate went down - FAST.
That's what they do. Pay attention.
/
Throughout history, "full employment" is considered to be an unemployment rate between 4-5%. That's because at least 4% of the population simply will not, or cannot, work. In fact, the unemployment rate was less than 4% only 4 years since rates started being tracked in 1920, and those were during WWII and the 2 years following. That is understandable with so many people in the armed forces, and so many died.
So, any unemployment rate between 4-5% is "full employment". And when you reach full employment, it is IMPOSSIBLE to create more jobs, because there are no people to fill those jobs.
When Romney was governor of MA, he brought the unemployment rate to 4.6% (from a high of 6%) - full employment. Even Jesus could not have created many more jobs. And if you cannot create any more jobs because everyone is already working, you end up 47th of 50 in job creation (but as you will see from a study by Politifact, his term ended with MA 30th out of 50, not 47th).
So the real story - if you are 47th of 50 with an unemployment rate of 8%, you are doing lousy. But when you are 47th of 50 and you have full employment, you have done exceptionally well.
But the Democrats don't tell you that everyone in MA had a job. Nope! They would rather throw out a statistic taken out of context in order to mislead you.
In fact, Politifact checked the records and actually found that from December 2002 to December 2003, the job growth in Massachusetts was 51st highest nationally out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia -- in other words, dead last. The following year, it was 46th, then 40th, then in Romney’s final year in office -- December 2005 to December 2006 -- it was 30th in the nation. For each year Romney was in office, the unemployment rate went down - FAST.
That's what they do. Pay attention.
/
Obama & U.N. Trying To Overturn Right To Bear Arms
The United Nations is set to vote on an international treaty that would regulate firearms throughout the world. Every signatory to the treaty would then be required to regulate and register ALL guns.
President Obama is joining the U.N. in its effort to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and is set to sign the treaty. And while the U.S. will not be held to it until the Senate votes on it, bear in mind THAT vote will come during the Lame Duck session of Congress - where the Senate can do whatever it wants, especially the Senators who got voted out! With nothing left to lose, outgoing liberal senators would undoubtedly vote for the treaty.
Bear in mind, too, that under the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, once the U.S. is a signatory to a treaty, there is no getting out of it. It cannot be undone. Treaties become a virtual part of the Constitution.
It is also worth noting that almost every nation that has regulated and registered guns has eventually confiscated those guns. The primary purpose of gun registration is to know where they are when the time comes to collect and confiscate them.
This is not Obamas first attempt to take our guns away. And I STRONGLY suspect that someday we will learn that Fast & Furious was designed to curb and regulate guns, and a border guard and hundreds of Mexicans died for it.
/
President Obama is joining the U.N. in its effort to destroy the 2nd Amendment, and is set to sign the treaty. And while the U.S. will not be held to it until the Senate votes on it, bear in mind THAT vote will come during the Lame Duck session of Congress - where the Senate can do whatever it wants, especially the Senators who got voted out! With nothing left to lose, outgoing liberal senators would undoubtedly vote for the treaty.
Bear in mind, too, that under the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, once the U.S. is a signatory to a treaty, there is no getting out of it. It cannot be undone. Treaties become a virtual part of the Constitution.
It is also worth noting that almost every nation that has regulated and registered guns has eventually confiscated those guns. The primary purpose of gun registration is to know where they are when the time comes to collect and confiscate them.
This is not Obamas first attempt to take our guns away. And I STRONGLY suspect that someday we will learn that Fast & Furious was designed to curb and regulate guns, and a border guard and hundreds of Mexicans died for it.
/
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Democrats BackTrack on Voter ID When It Suits Them
Charlie Rangel (D) was declared the winner in the primary for his NY district, despite his many ethics violations in the House. It was discovered, however, that 15 percent of the precincts in the 13th--many in Washington Heights and the South Bronx where his opponent, Espaillat, a Dominican, was expected to perform well-- hadn't even been counted. This prompted Espaillat to reach out to the State Supreme Court, who is expected to a hold a hearing on the matter Monday afternoon.
But guess what? Suddenly the Democrats are concerned about voter fraud. An official for Rangel, while conceding that Rangel's lead will continue to drop, doubts the recount will reverse the outcome of the race. “A lot of them were probably Dominicans excited over Espaillat’s campaign who simply weren’t registered to vote or maybe not even citizens,” the strategist said. “Most of those ballots will be thrown out.”
Gee! Imagine that. When they stand to lose, they suddenly claim that it is due to the very voter fraud that the Democrats have been saying does not exist. And I would ask what makes "the strategist" think that "most of those ballots" for Espaillat were cast by illegals.
Watch out, Espaillat - if anyone takes their eye off the ball, Rangel's people will put the torch to many of your votes. We already know Rangel is a crook and will stop at nothing to retain power.
/
But guess what? Suddenly the Democrats are concerned about voter fraud. An official for Rangel, while conceding that Rangel's lead will continue to drop, doubts the recount will reverse the outcome of the race. “A lot of them were probably Dominicans excited over Espaillat’s campaign who simply weren’t registered to vote or maybe not even citizens,” the strategist said. “Most of those ballots will be thrown out.”
Gee! Imagine that. When they stand to lose, they suddenly claim that it is due to the very voter fraud that the Democrats have been saying does not exist. And I would ask what makes "the strategist" think that "most of those ballots" for Espaillat were cast by illegals.
Watch out, Espaillat - if anyone takes their eye off the ball, Rangel's people will put the torch to many of your votes. We already know Rangel is a crook and will stop at nothing to retain power.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)