Every day a dozen new polls come out. Few agree with one another. Many ask if there is even a point to having polls.
Yes, there is a point - it keeps pollsters busy, and it tends to make fools out of a lot of folks.
Seriously, though, any poll should be taken with at least several grains of salt. Many are formulated on voter turnout in a previous election, which may not hold true in THIS election. Demographics also change. And most polls, by design, poll more Democrats than Republicans. Furthermore, being conservative by nature, many Republicans simply will not participate in polls.
For comparison, the following is a list of the top 23 polling sources, and how they ranked in accuracy in 2008
1. Rasmussen
1. Pew
2. YouGov/Polimetrix
3. Harris Interactive
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance)
5. Diageo/Hotline
5. ARG
6. CNN
6. Ipsos/McClatchy
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000
8. AP/Yahoo/KN
9. Democracy Corps (D)
10. FOX
11. Economist/YouGov
12. IBD/TIPP
13. NBC/WSJ
14. ABC/Post
15. Marist College
16. CBS
17. Gallup
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby
19. CBS/Times
20. Newsweek
As you can see, most of the worst pollsters are also the most prolific, and the ones most apt to be found in the liberal media, because they are produced BY the liberal media. Of all 23, only two were accurate almost to a fault - Rasmussen and Pew. Today's Rasmussen poll shows Obama and Romney in a virtual dead heat at 48-46, in that order. Contrary to most other polls, Rasmussen has Romney ahead in NH, Colorado, & Iowa.
/
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Is Spanking A Form Of Child Abuse?
Some states are passing laws that effectively make it child abuse to spank a child. The question is what type of discipline is acceptable?
Frankly, the government needs to stay out of child rearing, since they fail at everything they touch, and no government will care more about a child than the parent, nor does the government have to put up with an unruly, undisciplined child. That said...
Child abuse occurs when the discipline being applied would be severe enough to cause a lasting physical or emotional injury [NOTE: the occasional swat or spanking meted out properly will not cause either). If you break the skin, break a bone, or leave a scar, the discipline has gone too far. And even lesser disciplinary methods, such as spanking, can be considered child abuse IF the discipline is unwarranted or is used more often than necessary - spanking a child mercilessly every day "just in case he did something you have not found out about yet" is completely out of the question.
But let's look ar spanking, or swatting a child for discipline...
We can start with the Bible, which clearly states "Spare the rod, spoil the child." On this basis alone, the state should not interfere in spanking because it is a religious tenet. But that begs the question, WHY is it a religious tenet, and WHY do parents often spank a child as if it were an automatic disciplinary instinct?
Because it IS instinct. Man is an animal, literally. And if you have ever spent any time in nature (you know, the real world), you will have noticed that all animals use physical discipline to teach their young. A Mama bear will swat her cub so hard he will roll for 20 feet. A lioness will do the same. Even the mild-mannered rabbit will kick its young, to teach them when an action is wrong or dangerous. It is a survival mechanism. If our young do not fear the consequences of a certain act that could harm them, they will have less chance of survival.
There's an old saying (it got old because it's true) that you always hurt the one you love. That's because if you love them, you would rather hurt them a little in order to keep them from greater harm. If a spanking will teach a child not to play in the road, it could help keep him alive.
Of course, some bleeding heart, mindless liberals will try to tell you that you could accomplish the same thing by simply talking to the child. Hogwash! If that were true, then Dr. Spock's kid would likely not have ended up committing suicide. Dr. Spock espoused the theory that physical discipline is always wrong, and unnecessary. Apparently, there is something wrong with that theory if his own child was unable to cope with life.
Talking to a child as a method of "discipline" may make the parent feel better, but it does nothing to help the child become a strong, stable adult.
If you have to swat a child more than a few times in the child's life, you are either overdoing it, or the child is a demon that needs military (or reform) school. And if you never have a need to discipline your child, consider yourself blessed.
/
Frankly, the government needs to stay out of child rearing, since they fail at everything they touch, and no government will care more about a child than the parent, nor does the government have to put up with an unruly, undisciplined child. That said...
Child abuse occurs when the discipline being applied would be severe enough to cause a lasting physical or emotional injury [NOTE: the occasional swat or spanking meted out properly will not cause either). If you break the skin, break a bone, or leave a scar, the discipline has gone too far. And even lesser disciplinary methods, such as spanking, can be considered child abuse IF the discipline is unwarranted or is used more often than necessary - spanking a child mercilessly every day "just in case he did something you have not found out about yet" is completely out of the question.
But let's look ar spanking, or swatting a child for discipline...
We can start with the Bible, which clearly states "Spare the rod, spoil the child." On this basis alone, the state should not interfere in spanking because it is a religious tenet. But that begs the question, WHY is it a religious tenet, and WHY do parents often spank a child as if it were an automatic disciplinary instinct?
Because it IS instinct. Man is an animal, literally. And if you have ever spent any time in nature (you know, the real world), you will have noticed that all animals use physical discipline to teach their young. A Mama bear will swat her cub so hard he will roll for 20 feet. A lioness will do the same. Even the mild-mannered rabbit will kick its young, to teach them when an action is wrong or dangerous. It is a survival mechanism. If our young do not fear the consequences of a certain act that could harm them, they will have less chance of survival.
There's an old saying (it got old because it's true) that you always hurt the one you love. That's because if you love them, you would rather hurt them a little in order to keep them from greater harm. If a spanking will teach a child not to play in the road, it could help keep him alive.
Of course, some bleeding heart, mindless liberals will try to tell you that you could accomplish the same thing by simply talking to the child. Hogwash! If that were true, then Dr. Spock's kid would likely not have ended up committing suicide. Dr. Spock espoused the theory that physical discipline is always wrong, and unnecessary. Apparently, there is something wrong with that theory if his own child was unable to cope with life.
Talking to a child as a method of "discipline" may make the parent feel better, but it does nothing to help the child become a strong, stable adult.
If you have to swat a child more than a few times in the child's life, you are either overdoing it, or the child is a demon that needs military (or reform) school. And if you never have a need to discipline your child, consider yourself blessed.
/
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Why Obama Wants Power To Shut Down The Internet
As I write this, Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano is secretly drafting an Executive Order for President Obama that would give him the unilateral power to shut down the internet in America. Supporters say this protects America from "foreign hackers" who would use the internet to harm us. But that excuse is bogus - the worst thing hackers could do is hack information, or give a virus, and neither is such a national security issue as to warrant a complete shut-down of the internet. So, what IS the reason Obama wants this power?
All we need to do is recall what happened in Egypt and other nations during the "Arab Spring". The people who rose up and overthrew their governments did so with the help of the internet - Tweeting, texting etc. The internet allowed the people to organize. Without the internet, they would have failed.
Now fast forward to November 2012. What if Obama loses, but decides he does not want to leave? After all, he still controls the military for another 2 months. And if he has the power to shut down communications, the people would find it nearly impossible to organize and rise up effectively.
Obama would have control of the military, and all communications. He has his socialist friends in almost every office and agency, all committed to him. So tell me, exactly WHAT would stop him from hijacking the government and pulling off a real coup d'etat? No other leader in the history of the world has ever had the power he would have!
I am not saying he WOULD use the power that way. But he COULD. And over the last 4 years, his attitude has been one of tryanny, not leadership - by-passing Congress with Executive Orders (some of which are illegal) and taking matters into his own hands. Why would he suddenly just "give up" if he loses in November?
Just sayin'...
We, the People need to stop this unwarranted and dangerous seizure of total power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
/
All we need to do is recall what happened in Egypt and other nations during the "Arab Spring". The people who rose up and overthrew their governments did so with the help of the internet - Tweeting, texting etc. The internet allowed the people to organize. Without the internet, they would have failed.
Now fast forward to November 2012. What if Obama loses, but decides he does not want to leave? After all, he still controls the military for another 2 months. And if he has the power to shut down communications, the people would find it nearly impossible to organize and rise up effectively.
Obama would have control of the military, and all communications. He has his socialist friends in almost every office and agency, all committed to him. So tell me, exactly WHAT would stop him from hijacking the government and pulling off a real coup d'etat? No other leader in the history of the world has ever had the power he would have!
I am not saying he WOULD use the power that way. But he COULD. And over the last 4 years, his attitude has been one of tryanny, not leadership - by-passing Congress with Executive Orders (some of which are illegal) and taking matters into his own hands. Why would he suddenly just "give up" if he loses in November?
Just sayin'...
We, the People need to stop this unwarranted and dangerous seizure of total power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
/
The Need For A Constitutional Amendment
Over the last 50 years (since the liberal Warren Court kicked God out of the public square), there has been an unceasing attack on religion in America, led by anti-American forces like the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion foundation. These groups have actually reversed the 1st Amendment which states "Congress shall make NO LAW" infringing the freedom of religion or the practice thereof. They have used the supposed "separation of church and state" argument (which is NOT in the Constitution) to limit the freedom that the Constitution says shall not be limited.
Limiting religious rights is causing great harm to the American society. If this attack is not curbed, it will successfully bring an end to Christianity within another generation, and leave believers to practice secretly in the dark - which is exactly what caused our ancestors to leave Europe and come to this country 500 years ago. Religious persecution. It is alive and well, right here in America.
Congress should propose a new Constitutional Amendment that reads, "No local, state or federal government may interfere in any individual's right to practice their religion at any time or place of their choosing, nor enact any law prohibiting or restricting said right and it shall not constitute state support of said practice." If you believe in freedom of religion, please email this paragraph to your representatives and senators in Washington.
If you choose to wait, or hope others will do this for you, the constant erosion of our rights will make it impossible to do later. There will not be enough support.
This would restore religious freedom. We could pray in school if we so choose. We could invoke God's blessing at a public meeting. And these acts would not constitute government support of that religion - only support of the individual's right to practice it.
And there would be a great side benefit - it would give the shaft to the ACLU and Freedom From Religion fascists.
/
Limiting religious rights is causing great harm to the American society. If this attack is not curbed, it will successfully bring an end to Christianity within another generation, and leave believers to practice secretly in the dark - which is exactly what caused our ancestors to leave Europe and come to this country 500 years ago. Religious persecution. It is alive and well, right here in America.
Congress should propose a new Constitutional Amendment that reads, "No local, state or federal government may interfere in any individual's right to practice their religion at any time or place of their choosing, nor enact any law prohibiting or restricting said right and it shall not constitute state support of said practice." If you believe in freedom of religion, please email this paragraph to your representatives and senators in Washington.
If you choose to wait, or hope others will do this for you, the constant erosion of our rights will make it impossible to do later. There will not be enough support.
This would restore religious freedom. We could pray in school if we so choose. We could invoke God's blessing at a public meeting. And these acts would not constitute government support of that religion - only support of the individual's right to practice it.
And there would be a great side benefit - it would give the shaft to the ACLU and Freedom From Religion fascists.
/
Friday, September 21, 2012
Voter Empowerment Act - An Attempt To Hijack The Voting Booth
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced what she calls the "Voter Empowerment Act", in an attempt to shut down any state's efforts to require voter I.D. According to Gillibrand, this act would "protect voting rights" while "ensuring integrity" of the voting process. Of course, that is how she and fellow liberals are trying to sell it, but the simple fact remains that NOTHING in the act would prevent voter fraud, or prevent non-citizens from voting.
Here are the full details of the legislation, direct from Gillibrand's office:
Open access to the ballot box by:
Modernizing the voter registration system
Authorizing an online registration option
Authorizing same-day registration and permitting voters to update their registration data onsite
Providing additional tools to alleviate any additional burdens for people with disabilities
Requiring all universities that receive federal funds to offer and encourage voter registration to their students
Simplifying registration and ensuring that ballots from all military personnel serving overseas are counted
Ensure integrity of process by:
Authorizing funds for training poll workers and setting standards for polling place practices
Requiring provisional ballots be available and counted at all polling places
Prohibiting voter caging and designating it as a felony
Protecting against deceptive practices and intimidation
Protect accountability of result by:
Establishing a national voter hotline to ensure timely reporting and corrective action of voting related issues
Setting standards for voting machines to ensure accurate tabulation and confirmation of voter intent paper copy verification
Reauthorizing the Election Assistance Commission to ensure that the highest standards are being met nationwide to guarantee fair elections
Not only does the act NOT insure integrity of the process, it also allows people to register online - never being seen by the registration office personnel and never producing ANY proof of citizenship. In other words, every member of the Taliban in Afghanistan could register to vote in America.
It also requires all universities that receive federal funds to offer and encourage voter registration to their students. Did you notice that? It does not require any other publicly funded organization to encourage voter registration - only universities, whose students are young, inexperienced, and tend to be liberal. Why does Gillibrand's act not require that conservative organization encourage voter registration?
This act would be laughable if not for being so dangerous. It only goes to prove that Gillibrand and her cohorts are not interested in fair elections in which only citizens can vote. What they really want is elections where only liberals and non-citizens can vote.
If you value the integrity of the polling booth, I would suggest you contact your Representatives and Senators to reject this dangerous, partisan bill.
/
Here are the full details of the legislation, direct from Gillibrand's office:
Open access to the ballot box by:
Modernizing the voter registration system
Authorizing an online registration option
Authorizing same-day registration and permitting voters to update their registration data onsite
Providing additional tools to alleviate any additional burdens for people with disabilities
Requiring all universities that receive federal funds to offer and encourage voter registration to their students
Simplifying registration and ensuring that ballots from all military personnel serving overseas are counted
Ensure integrity of process by:
Authorizing funds for training poll workers and setting standards for polling place practices
Requiring provisional ballots be available and counted at all polling places
Prohibiting voter caging and designating it as a felony
Protecting against deceptive practices and intimidation
Protect accountability of result by:
Establishing a national voter hotline to ensure timely reporting and corrective action of voting related issues
Setting standards for voting machines to ensure accurate tabulation and confirmation of voter intent paper copy verification
Reauthorizing the Election Assistance Commission to ensure that the highest standards are being met nationwide to guarantee fair elections
Not only does the act NOT insure integrity of the process, it also allows people to register online - never being seen by the registration office personnel and never producing ANY proof of citizenship. In other words, every member of the Taliban in Afghanistan could register to vote in America.
It also requires all universities that receive federal funds to offer and encourage voter registration to their students. Did you notice that? It does not require any other publicly funded organization to encourage voter registration - only universities, whose students are young, inexperienced, and tend to be liberal. Why does Gillibrand's act not require that conservative organization encourage voter registration?
This act would be laughable if not for being so dangerous. It only goes to prove that Gillibrand and her cohorts are not interested in fair elections in which only citizens can vote. What they really want is elections where only liberals and non-citizens can vote.
If you value the integrity of the polling booth, I would suggest you contact your Representatives and Senators to reject this dangerous, partisan bill.
/
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Source of My Information
Someone (a liberal, of course) asked where I get my information. It seems he thinks I don't have a clue. So let me be clear...
I get my information from my own personal research of the subject at hand. To be fair, I check the news from both liberal and conservative sources, and compare them to find the points of difference. I then research those points further, checking facts from government agencies such as the IRS, Labor Department, Congressional Record etc., and fact-checking organizations like FactCheck. I seek out actual audio and video sources. Only when I can authenticate the facts do I then write a post, or send a Tweet.
If you read it here as factual news, you can take it to the bank. As for personal editorials, they may be my personal opinion, but even they are founded from the facts I have dug up.
You can disagree with what I post, but you would play Hell trying to dispute the facts.
So, if a person cannot handle the truth, or refuses to believe the truth, that person should read Media Matters or Huffington Post, instead. But be forewarned - I, too, read those, in an effort to get BOTH sides. If a person only wants one side, then they have a problem that no blog can help them with.
/
I get my information from my own personal research of the subject at hand. To be fair, I check the news from both liberal and conservative sources, and compare them to find the points of difference. I then research those points further, checking facts from government agencies such as the IRS, Labor Department, Congressional Record etc., and fact-checking organizations like FactCheck. I seek out actual audio and video sources. Only when I can authenticate the facts do I then write a post, or send a Tweet.
If you read it here as factual news, you can take it to the bank. As for personal editorials, they may be my personal opinion, but even they are founded from the facts I have dug up.
You can disagree with what I post, but you would play Hell trying to dispute the facts.
So, if a person cannot handle the truth, or refuses to believe the truth, that person should read Media Matters or Huffington Post, instead. But be forewarned - I, too, read those, in an effort to get BOTH sides. If a person only wants one side, then they have a problem that no blog can help them with.
/
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
We Have A Right To Know...
Americans have a right to know about the things that do, or will affect us, and the government has an OBLIGATION to answer to us. But they choose not to.
We have a right to know:
What is the government covering up what happened in Libya? The government has stated they will not tell us.
Why is Attorney General Holder hiding the files on Fast & Furious?
Why did Obama give Holder cover by claiming Exective Privilege?
Why is the Department of Justice working closely with the uber-liberal socialist group, Media Matters and George Soros
Why is the Obama administration in secret negotiations with Egypt to release the "Blind Sheik", responsible for the first bombing of the World Trade Center and do so AFTER the election?
Why has Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu, but runs off to meet with Beyonce and Jay-Z?
Why did Obama invite the Muslim Brotherhood to the WH, but spurns the leader of Israel?
Why is Obama saying the world likes us more NOW, in spite of the worldwide protests against us?
Why is Obama doubling down on a foreign policy that caused all this uproar? We have a right to know. And if they will not tell us, we have an obligation to fire them in November. /
We have a right to know:
What is the government covering up what happened in Libya? The government has stated they will not tell us.
Why is Attorney General Holder hiding the files on Fast & Furious?
Why did Obama give Holder cover by claiming Exective Privilege?
Why is the Department of Justice working closely with the uber-liberal socialist group, Media Matters and George Soros
Why is the Obama administration in secret negotiations with Egypt to release the "Blind Sheik", responsible for the first bombing of the World Trade Center and do so AFTER the election?
Why has Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu, but runs off to meet with Beyonce and Jay-Z?
Why did Obama invite the Muslim Brotherhood to the WH, but spurns the leader of Israel?
Why is Obama saying the world likes us more NOW, in spite of the worldwide protests against us?
Why is Obama doubling down on a foreign policy that caused all this uproar? We have a right to know. And if they will not tell us, we have an obligation to fire them in November. /
Monday, September 17, 2012
Most Reporters & Journalists A Disgrace To The Profession
Absolutely disgusting and disgraceful! I'm talking about the so-called reporters and journalists of the lamestream media. Rather than do their J-O-B in an objective, honest manner, they instead waste everyone's time and do a disservice to the nation by playing "gotcha" politics and avoiding any discussion of the real issues of the day.
The world is on fire as I write this. Raging Islamists around the globe are burning our flags, burning Obama in effigy, burning our embassies and murdering people. The American economy has been in the tank so long that it's beginning to be considered the new normal. And 23 million people are out of work. These are REAL issues. These are the issues most sane Americans want to hear about from the candidates. And they want the media to get in there and press the candidates on these important issues.
But what do these pretenders of journalism do? They ignore the big issues, ignore that Obama is meeting with Letterman, Beyonce and Jay-Z instead of meeting with his Jobs Council or Netanyahu, and instead they ambush Romney on some minor statement (which, by the way, was true) that he made at a fundraiser concerning 47% of Americans are on government assistance.
To these morons who laughingly call themselves reporters and journalists, it is more important to sink Romney and protect Obama than to do their job. They are a complete disgrace to the profession, and what they are doing - and not doing - is as unAmerican as anything gets.
Romney wants to discuss and debate the big issues. The "press" is doing everything in their power to prevent him from doing so, for fear he might connect with the people. And that just would not do! They would rather fawn over their American Idol, Obama, and write about which Mexican dish is his favorite. Fiddling, while Rome burns.
The wrong people are unemployed!
The world is on fire as I write this. Raging Islamists around the globe are burning our flags, burning Obama in effigy, burning our embassies and murdering people. The American economy has been in the tank so long that it's beginning to be considered the new normal. And 23 million people are out of work. These are REAL issues. These are the issues most sane Americans want to hear about from the candidates. And they want the media to get in there and press the candidates on these important issues.
But what do these pretenders of journalism do? They ignore the big issues, ignore that Obama is meeting with Letterman, Beyonce and Jay-Z instead of meeting with his Jobs Council or Netanyahu, and instead they ambush Romney on some minor statement (which, by the way, was true) that he made at a fundraiser concerning 47% of Americans are on government assistance.
To these morons who laughingly call themselves reporters and journalists, it is more important to sink Romney and protect Obama than to do their job. They are a complete disgrace to the profession, and what they are doing - and not doing - is as unAmerican as anything gets.
Romney wants to discuss and debate the big issues. The "press" is doing everything in their power to prevent him from doing so, for fear he might connect with the people. And that just would not do! They would rather fawn over their American Idol, Obama, and write about which Mexican dish is his favorite. Fiddling, while Rome burns.
The wrong people are unemployed!
The Real Difference Between Republicans & Democrats
Many conservatives understand that Democrats intend to get as many people dependent upon government as possible. Democrats realize that people are more likely to vote for those who are giving them all the benefits, otherwise known as entitlements. Therefore, it is in the best interest of Democrats to create a larger class of poor, and to get as many middle class people on the dole as possible, in one form or another.
Liberals - and this is clearly stated on HuffingtonPost, the uber-liberal blog - try to convince us otherwise. From HuffPost: "Many Americans don't pay federal income taxes, in part, because of deductions like the child tax credit.... Almost all of the "47 percent" do pay other federal taxes in the form of Social Security and Medicare payroll deductions and gas levies, as well as a variety of state and local sales and property taxes that aren't dependent on income."
Liberals hope people will buy that false narrative. Here are the facts they do NOT include in their argument that makes their argument pure nonsense:
1) Social Security and Medicare are not taxes - they are insurance. You pay in so you can collect later. Unlike entitlements like food stamps, Section 8 housing, welfare, WIC, fuel assistance etc., SS and Medicare are not freebies. They are not entitlements.
2) Anyone paying property taxes must own property, which means they probably get get a huge deduction (mortgage interest deduction) that far outweighs the property tax, itself. Not to mention that very, very few of the "lower 47%" own homes.
3) State, gas and other taxes do not matter for the simple reason that those people STILL do not pay income taxes (they get a free ride, which is a government benefit) and STILL receive other federal or state aid, such as food stamps or other welfare. The mere fact that they pay local taxes does not detract from the freebies they are getting - they still get the freebies. And people who get freebies do not want those freebies to stop, so they will vote for the party that keeps the gravy flowing.
So, despite how hard the liberals try to convince us otherwise, 47% of Americans do not pay income taxes and most of those collect other free benefits, as well. That makes them dependent upon Democrats, because it is Democrats that are the party of dependency.
The simple state of affairs is, as Confucious said, "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Democrats tend to give a man a fish, making the man dependent upon him to eat again tomorrow. Republicans tend to want to teach the man to fish, so he can be independent and never hunger again.
And therein lies the simple difference.
/
Liberals - and this is clearly stated on HuffingtonPost, the uber-liberal blog - try to convince us otherwise. From HuffPost: "Many Americans don't pay federal income taxes, in part, because of deductions like the child tax credit.... Almost all of the "47 percent" do pay other federal taxes in the form of Social Security and Medicare payroll deductions and gas levies, as well as a variety of state and local sales and property taxes that aren't dependent on income."
Liberals hope people will buy that false narrative. Here are the facts they do NOT include in their argument that makes their argument pure nonsense:
1) Social Security and Medicare are not taxes - they are insurance. You pay in so you can collect later. Unlike entitlements like food stamps, Section 8 housing, welfare, WIC, fuel assistance etc., SS and Medicare are not freebies. They are not entitlements.
2) Anyone paying property taxes must own property, which means they probably get get a huge deduction (mortgage interest deduction) that far outweighs the property tax, itself. Not to mention that very, very few of the "lower 47%" own homes.
3) State, gas and other taxes do not matter for the simple reason that those people STILL do not pay income taxes (they get a free ride, which is a government benefit) and STILL receive other federal or state aid, such as food stamps or other welfare. The mere fact that they pay local taxes does not detract from the freebies they are getting - they still get the freebies. And people who get freebies do not want those freebies to stop, so they will vote for the party that keeps the gravy flowing.
So, despite how hard the liberals try to convince us otherwise, 47% of Americans do not pay income taxes and most of those collect other free benefits, as well. That makes them dependent upon Democrats, because it is Democrats that are the party of dependency.
The simple state of affairs is, as Confucious said, "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Democrats tend to give a man a fish, making the man dependent upon him to eat again tomorrow. Republicans tend to want to teach the man to fish, so he can be independent and never hunger again.
And therein lies the simple difference.
/
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Our Narcissistic Amateur-In-Chief Strikes Again
Remember when President Obama asked newlyweds to give up their wedding gifts in favor of having their guests contribute to his re-election campaign (even though many of those guests would be Republican, no less)? That is narcissistic. But he has topped that one - the Obama Team is now asking people to gather up their stuff and hold yard sales, then donating the proceeds to his campaign. In a time when most people are hurting financially, he asks them to suffer more, for HIS sake. That is narcissistic.
And the mere fact that he even asks such things from "the folks" only goes to prove beyond any doubt that he is an amateur, and sullies the great office he was elected to.
If you have any doubt that Obama suffers from NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) and has no right to hold public office where his first concern should be the public, and not himself, here is the clinical definition, with symptoms:
Narcissistic personality disorder is a personality disorder in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. It was historically called megalomania
Symptoms of this disorder include:
Reacting to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation - Obama constantly shows his thin skin, complaining and getting angry with anyone who disagrees with him
Taking advantage of others to reach their own goals - Asking newlyweds to contribute their wedding gifts to his campaign, or sell their stuff at a yard sale and contribute to his campaign
Exaggerating their own importance, achievements, and talents - his most often used word is "I" - he put it out there that HE killed Bin Laden, and originally "forgot" to give credit to those who actually did. At a fundraisers with NFL, he stated it is unusual for him to not get top billing. And his "autobiography" turns out to be fiction - exaggeration.
Imagining unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance - his first days in office he told crowds in Cairo that HE was going to bring peace between Islam and the rest of the world. His numerous "Executive Orders" and his statements that Congress is not necessary - he'll just go around them - exudes fantasies of unbridled power. And he has said he is smarter than others around him so he doees not need to listen to them (including Intelligence Briefings)
Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others - has there been even one day that his face has not adorned TV or the internet?
Being obsessed with oneself - again, his constant use of his favorite word - "I"
Setting goals that are unrealistic - he would close Gitmo immediately, would cut deficit in half in his first year, would bring world peace etc.
Wanting "the best" of everything - have you noticed his luxury vacations in the face of Americans sinking fast?
Appearing unemotional - liberals keep telling us how "cool and composed" he is.
Narcissistic? Undoubtedly. Amateur? No question. Should he be replaced? You decide that in November.
/
And the mere fact that he even asks such things from "the folks" only goes to prove beyond any doubt that he is an amateur, and sullies the great office he was elected to.
If you have any doubt that Obama suffers from NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) and has no right to hold public office where his first concern should be the public, and not himself, here is the clinical definition, with symptoms:
Narcissistic personality disorder is a personality disorder in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. It was historically called megalomania
Symptoms of this disorder include:
Reacting to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation - Obama constantly shows his thin skin, complaining and getting angry with anyone who disagrees with him
Taking advantage of others to reach their own goals - Asking newlyweds to contribute their wedding gifts to his campaign, or sell their stuff at a yard sale and contribute to his campaign
Exaggerating their own importance, achievements, and talents - his most often used word is "I" - he put it out there that HE killed Bin Laden, and originally "forgot" to give credit to those who actually did. At a fundraisers with NFL, he stated it is unusual for him to not get top billing. And his "autobiography" turns out to be fiction - exaggeration.
Imagining unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance - his first days in office he told crowds in Cairo that HE was going to bring peace between Islam and the rest of the world. His numerous "Executive Orders" and his statements that Congress is not necessary - he'll just go around them - exudes fantasies of unbridled power. And he has said he is smarter than others around him so he doees not need to listen to them (including Intelligence Briefings)
Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others - has there been even one day that his face has not adorned TV or the internet?
Being obsessed with oneself - again, his constant use of his favorite word - "I"
Setting goals that are unrealistic - he would close Gitmo immediately, would cut deficit in half in his first year, would bring world peace etc.
Wanting "the best" of everything - have you noticed his luxury vacations in the face of Americans sinking fast?
Appearing unemotional - liberals keep telling us how "cool and composed" he is.
Narcissistic? Undoubtedly. Amateur? No question. Should he be replaced? You decide that in November.
/
Friday, September 14, 2012
Why Muslims Want To Kill Us - And Will Keep Trying
It's almost laughable to hear politicians and pundits postulate as to why radical muslims insist on killing us. Makes you wonder if any of them have ever read the Bible. If they had, they would understand that it is a 5000 year family feud.
Back in the day, there was this dude named Abraham, whom God favored quite a bit. As it happened, Abe's eldest son, Isaac, was fair-skinned, while his next son, Ishmael, was dark-skinned. Being the eldest, Isaac was to inherit everything from his pop.
Ishmael wanted everything, and hated Isaac. And so it was that Abe, in his elder years, was blind. And when it came time to pass on his wealth and lands to his eldest son, Isaac, Ismael came to him and deceived him, making Abe think he was Isaac. And so it came to pass that Abe accidentally gave the inheritance to Ishmael instead of the true heir, Isaac.
To make a long story short, the dark-skinned Ismael went forth to sire the Arab nation, while the fair-skinned Issac wnt on to sire the Hebrew (Jewish) nation. Ismael, especially, still wanted to kill Isaac because he was witness to the deceit of the stolen inheritance. As long as Isaac lived, Ismael would never truly be the legitimate heir. And the two nations, like the brothers who sired them, remained deadly enemies. And for 5000 years, the Arab nation has been trying to destroy the Jews. To this day.
2000 years ago, the children of Isaac were blessed with a Saviour, Jesus Christ. And while the Jews did not accept Christ, the children of Issac were now divided among Jews and Christians.
1400 years ago, the Arabs were blessed with their own "saviour", the "prophet" Muhammad. Muhammad and the Q'uran espoused that all muslims were tasked with eradicating the Jews and Christians - the "infidels". According to Muhammad, all people on Earth must either be converted to Islam, or enslaved, or killed. There were no other choices. And ever since then, the Islamic nations of Ishmael have been trying to kill off the "infidels" - the children of Isaac. In fact, that was the reason for the Crusades in the Middle Ages. The muslims had taken over Constantinople, the seat of Christianity, and had taken Jerusalem and built their Mosque on top of the Jewish Temple where Christianity was "born", so to speak. The King of England, Richard the Lion Heart, a hard-core Christian, at the behest of religious leaders decided to go to the Middle East and protect Jerusalem and the Temple on the Mount from the Arab horde. Out-manned, he was beaten and returned to England in disgrace. To this day, an Islamic Temple stands where once the Jewish/Christian Temple once stood on The Mount.
When something is a core belief, diplomacy. negotiations and appeasement will not stop them - they are on a mission. And that is why all the diplomacy with Iran, Iraq, Egypt etc. has no effect. To dyed-in-the-wool Islamists, there are only two outcomes - kill or be killed. Period. And that also explains why Islamists have no qualms about using deceit and treachery - they are from the blood of the deceitful, treacherous Ishmael. Or did you not notice - when they wanted our help to overthrow tyrants like Mubarak and Ghadafy, they chanted "We love America. Come Help us." and now that the tyrants are gone, they chant, "Death to America." Deceit and treachery.
How do you reason with people like that? You cannot.
And that is precisely why the war between them will never, ever end, until one or the other is vanquished forever. And as a Christian nation that protects Israel, we are in their cross-hairs. And they will never stop killing us, no matter what we do. Unless, of course, the Apocalypse comes, and a final battle between Good and Evil (Isaac & Ishmael) brings it all to an end. You see, the Apocalypse will actually be the war to end all wars - the war between the children of Isaac and the children of Ishmael. And judging by what is transpiring today, that day may not be so very far off.
Back in the day, there was this dude named Abraham, whom God favored quite a bit. As it happened, Abe's eldest son, Isaac, was fair-skinned, while his next son, Ishmael, was dark-skinned. Being the eldest, Isaac was to inherit everything from his pop.
Ishmael wanted everything, and hated Isaac. And so it was that Abe, in his elder years, was blind. And when it came time to pass on his wealth and lands to his eldest son, Isaac, Ismael came to him and deceived him, making Abe think he was Isaac. And so it came to pass that Abe accidentally gave the inheritance to Ishmael instead of the true heir, Isaac.
To make a long story short, the dark-skinned Ismael went forth to sire the Arab nation, while the fair-skinned Issac wnt on to sire the Hebrew (Jewish) nation. Ismael, especially, still wanted to kill Isaac because he was witness to the deceit of the stolen inheritance. As long as Isaac lived, Ismael would never truly be the legitimate heir. And the two nations, like the brothers who sired them, remained deadly enemies. And for 5000 years, the Arab nation has been trying to destroy the Jews. To this day.
2000 years ago, the children of Isaac were blessed with a Saviour, Jesus Christ. And while the Jews did not accept Christ, the children of Issac were now divided among Jews and Christians.
1400 years ago, the Arabs were blessed with their own "saviour", the "prophet" Muhammad. Muhammad and the Q'uran espoused that all muslims were tasked with eradicating the Jews and Christians - the "infidels". According to Muhammad, all people on Earth must either be converted to Islam, or enslaved, or killed. There were no other choices. And ever since then, the Islamic nations of Ishmael have been trying to kill off the "infidels" - the children of Isaac. In fact, that was the reason for the Crusades in the Middle Ages. The muslims had taken over Constantinople, the seat of Christianity, and had taken Jerusalem and built their Mosque on top of the Jewish Temple where Christianity was "born", so to speak. The King of England, Richard the Lion Heart, a hard-core Christian, at the behest of religious leaders decided to go to the Middle East and protect Jerusalem and the Temple on the Mount from the Arab horde. Out-manned, he was beaten and returned to England in disgrace. To this day, an Islamic Temple stands where once the Jewish/Christian Temple once stood on The Mount.
When something is a core belief, diplomacy. negotiations and appeasement will not stop them - they are on a mission. And that is why all the diplomacy with Iran, Iraq, Egypt etc. has no effect. To dyed-in-the-wool Islamists, there are only two outcomes - kill or be killed. Period. And that also explains why Islamists have no qualms about using deceit and treachery - they are from the blood of the deceitful, treacherous Ishmael. Or did you not notice - when they wanted our help to overthrow tyrants like Mubarak and Ghadafy, they chanted "We love America. Come Help us." and now that the tyrants are gone, they chant, "Death to America." Deceit and treachery.
How do you reason with people like that? You cannot.
And that is precisely why the war between them will never, ever end, until one or the other is vanquished forever. And as a Christian nation that protects Israel, we are in their cross-hairs. And they will never stop killing us, no matter what we do. Unless, of course, the Apocalypse comes, and a final battle between Good and Evil (Isaac & Ishmael) brings it all to an end. You see, the Apocalypse will actually be the war to end all wars - the war between the children of Isaac and the children of Ishmael. And judging by what is transpiring today, that day may not be so very far off.
Liberal Activist Judge Strikes WI Collective Bargaining Law
It is always a sad day when a person is elected to a judgeship that is not qualified to judge a dog show. But that is Judge Juan Colas, a Wisconsin county judge who struck down the collective bargaining law for public unions that was lawfully passed by the Wisconsin legislature. Apparently, Colas is not satisfied with being a judge - he wants to be the legislature, as well.
Colas said the law violates the equal protection clause by creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally.
I am somewhat an expert on Constitutional Law, having studied it for more than 50 years. And I can state with complete certainty that the Wisconsin law does nothing to "create separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally." To begin with, all public union workers are treated equally under the law. The mere fact that they do not have the same rights as private unions has nothing to do with it because those unions, themselves, are not one in the same, or equal.
Case in point - both public and private unions are treated better than non-union workers. So, if Colas is right, then non-union workers are also being discriminated against. But the Constitution does not guarantee any right to belong, or to not belong, to any union. Nor does it allow for "extra" rights extended only to unions.
Therefore, by Colas' dumb opinion, every worker must belong to a union, and each union must be equal and the same, and each union must have the same rights and benefits. If one union negotiates higher wages, ALL unions would receive those same wages. And that would be so unAmerican as to be - SOCIALIST!
Colas also claims the law violates free speech and freedom of association. That is almost too absurd to even waste time countering. The law does not prevent either. Public union employees still may associate freely, and speak their mind. The only thing the law prevents is for employees whose pay comes from taxpayers, they cannot bargain collectively because they are bargaining for taxpayer, not private, money. Furthermore - and I'm sure this point escapes the small, limited mind of Judge Colas, employees being paid from taxpayer money do not have any inherent right to get more pay and benefits than those who are paying for them. Union workers get higher pay and better benefits than we, the taxpayers, get. A picture is worth a thousand words...
Here's a little understood point concerning public unions. All their pay and benefits come from the taxpayer, yet the taxpayers never get a chance to be included in the bargaining process. When was the last time you, as a taxpayer, was asked to vote on whether public employees got an increase in benefits? With private unions, the people paying (corporations etc.) get to sit at the table and negotiate and fight for their positions. Taxpayers cannot do that.
But what taxpayers CAN do is elect officials who will fight FOR them in the legislature by making laws that curb unions. And that is exactly what the taxpayers of Wisconsin did.
/
Colas said the law violates the equal protection clause by creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally.
I am somewhat an expert on Constitutional Law, having studied it for more than 50 years. And I can state with complete certainty that the Wisconsin law does nothing to "create separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally." To begin with, all public union workers are treated equally under the law. The mere fact that they do not have the same rights as private unions has nothing to do with it because those unions, themselves, are not one in the same, or equal.
Case in point - both public and private unions are treated better than non-union workers. So, if Colas is right, then non-union workers are also being discriminated against. But the Constitution does not guarantee any right to belong, or to not belong, to any union. Nor does it allow for "extra" rights extended only to unions.
Therefore, by Colas' dumb opinion, every worker must belong to a union, and each union must be equal and the same, and each union must have the same rights and benefits. If one union negotiates higher wages, ALL unions would receive those same wages. And that would be so unAmerican as to be - SOCIALIST!
Colas also claims the law violates free speech and freedom of association. That is almost too absurd to even waste time countering. The law does not prevent either. Public union employees still may associate freely, and speak their mind. The only thing the law prevents is for employees whose pay comes from taxpayers, they cannot bargain collectively because they are bargaining for taxpayer, not private, money. Furthermore - and I'm sure this point escapes the small, limited mind of Judge Colas, employees being paid from taxpayer money do not have any inherent right to get more pay and benefits than those who are paying for them. Union workers get higher pay and better benefits than we, the taxpayers, get. A picture is worth a thousand words...
Here's a little understood point concerning public unions. All their pay and benefits come from the taxpayer, yet the taxpayers never get a chance to be included in the bargaining process. When was the last time you, as a taxpayer, was asked to vote on whether public employees got an increase in benefits? With private unions, the people paying (corporations etc.) get to sit at the table and negotiate and fight for their positions. Taxpayers cannot do that.
But what taxpayers CAN do is elect officials who will fight FOR them in the legislature by making laws that curb unions. And that is exactly what the taxpayers of Wisconsin did.
/
Are Liberals Bringing Back McCarthyism?
In the 1950's, as the fear of communism swept across America, Senator Joe McCarthy began his Commission for UnAmerican Activities. And this brought even more fear than communism, since the American tenet of "innocent until proved guilty" was replaced by "guilty until you prove yourself innocent." Americans from all walks of life - and especially Hollywood - were dragged in front of Congress and told to prove allegations by anonymous sources made against them for being communist sympathizers were not true. Guilty until proved innocent. Even Lucille Ball was brought before the committee.
It has been nearly 60 years since that ugly time. And now it appears that liberals are bringing it back.
A few weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused Mitt Romney, without any evidence, of not having paid any income taxes in 10 years, then said "if that is not true, PROVE IT. Present your tax records." Guilty until proved innocent. Reid claimed he got the info from an "anonymous source."
Just the other day in Franklin County, MA, the liberal candidate told the police chief that she "had it on good authority" that her Republican opponent bought drugs. No evidence was offered - just another "anonymous source." Come to find out, the Republican opponent was completely innocent and the accusation was made up in order to score political points. But the "guilty until proved innocent" theme ran through it.
I can cite numerous instances where liberals of late have used "McCarthyism" to win political power, but I think you get the point. Their normal playbook of deceit has turned a new page, to treachery.
Look for more of this, real soon, as this sort of character assassination from unfounded allegations by anonymous sources is a powerful and effective weapon for liberals seeking to hold onto power. And it comes not only from politicians, but the liberal lamestream media, as well.
/
It has been nearly 60 years since that ugly time. And now it appears that liberals are bringing it back.
A few weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused Mitt Romney, without any evidence, of not having paid any income taxes in 10 years, then said "if that is not true, PROVE IT. Present your tax records." Guilty until proved innocent. Reid claimed he got the info from an "anonymous source."
Just the other day in Franklin County, MA, the liberal candidate told the police chief that she "had it on good authority" that her Republican opponent bought drugs. No evidence was offered - just another "anonymous source." Come to find out, the Republican opponent was completely innocent and the accusation was made up in order to score political points. But the "guilty until proved innocent" theme ran through it.
I can cite numerous instances where liberals of late have used "McCarthyism" to win political power, but I think you get the point. Their normal playbook of deceit has turned a new page, to treachery.
Look for more of this, real soon, as this sort of character assassination from unfounded allegations by anonymous sources is a powerful and effective weapon for liberals seeking to hold onto power. And it comes not only from politicians, but the liberal lamestream media, as well.
/
How To Handle Foreign Affairs In Middle East Nations
In Libya, we helped get rid of a dictator and got chaos in it place, resulting in the death of Americans. In Egypt, we supported efforts to out an American?israel friendly leader, to be replaced by a terrorist organization. In Syria, the government is committing genocide against its own people. Outburts in Yemen, Tunisia and numerous other nations. Not to mention Iraq is coming apart, and Afghanistan and Pakistan are not exactlt acting as allies. So, just how should we treat these things?
Actually, it's not as complicated as the administration seems to think. That's because they want to orchestrate everything, and they expect democracies that follow the mold of American Democracy - and that will not happen because those nations have lived in turmoil for 5000 years. They do not understand democracy, nor do most embrace the idea of liberty. It's like when Lincoln freed the slaves - they did not know where to go, what to do.
So here is an idea...
Inform each nation that if they want or need our assistance in helping them free themselves from oppression, we will help. But make it clear that, in return, we expect a more peaceful, friendly nation that respects the rights of all. And if they do that, we will provide financial aid, food, and help in whatever ways we can. But if they do not come together in peace, we will abandon them - no money, no food - nuthin' - and may even place sanctions on them. You are either a friend, and we have mutual respect, or you are our enemy, and will suffer the consequences.
In other words, drop the barbarism, embrace civilization, live in peace, and we will be there for you. Otherwise, you are on your own. Respect us and we will respect you. Diss us, and you will lose.
/
Actually, it's not as complicated as the administration seems to think. That's because they want to orchestrate everything, and they expect democracies that follow the mold of American Democracy - and that will not happen because those nations have lived in turmoil for 5000 years. They do not understand democracy, nor do most embrace the idea of liberty. It's like when Lincoln freed the slaves - they did not know where to go, what to do.
So here is an idea...
Inform each nation that if they want or need our assistance in helping them free themselves from oppression, we will help. But make it clear that, in return, we expect a more peaceful, friendly nation that respects the rights of all. And if they do that, we will provide financial aid, food, and help in whatever ways we can. But if they do not come together in peace, we will abandon them - no money, no food - nuthin' - and may even place sanctions on them. You are either a friend, and we have mutual respect, or you are our enemy, and will suffer the consequences.
In other words, drop the barbarism, embrace civilization, live in peace, and we will be there for you. Otherwise, you are on your own. Respect us and we will respect you. Diss us, and you will lose.
/
Behind The Scenes As Terrorists Plan Attack
Ever wonder what really goes on behind the scenes as terrorists plan another attack? I'll bet it goes something like this...
ANWAR: We should bomb something big, and American. Kill the infidels
ABU: But if we do that, without showing a reason for it, we'll take the heat as being the "bad guys"
ANWAR: You're right, my murderous friend. We need to dig up something that will allow us to blame America, to make THEM look like the bad guys. Make it look like it's THEIR fault the bombing happened.
ABU: Yeah - and at the same time we can use it to inflame uneducated masses of stupid Muslims, getting them outraged enough to cause further injury and disruption.
ANWAR: Yes, and if we do this right, we can set the entire region on fire. We just need to make sure the stupid asses in the media are convinced the bombing took place because of the "excuse" we use; because of American foreign policy, and not because we simply like killing infidels.
ABU: I'll search the internet - I'm sure I can find someone burning a Q'uran, or drawing a cartoon of Muhammad, or making a cheap Youtube video that makes fun of Islam. I'll find somethin'.
ANWAR: Good. Meanwhile, I'll make the bomb...
ANWAR: We should bomb something big, and American. Kill the infidels
ABU: But if we do that, without showing a reason for it, we'll take the heat as being the "bad guys"
ANWAR: You're right, my murderous friend. We need to dig up something that will allow us to blame America, to make THEM look like the bad guys. Make it look like it's THEIR fault the bombing happened.
ABU: Yeah - and at the same time we can use it to inflame uneducated masses of stupid Muslims, getting them outraged enough to cause further injury and disruption.
ANWAR: Yes, and if we do this right, we can set the entire region on fire. We just need to make sure the stupid asses in the media are convinced the bombing took place because of the "excuse" we use; because of American foreign policy, and not because we simply like killing infidels.
ABU: I'll search the internet - I'm sure I can find someone burning a Q'uran, or drawing a cartoon of Muhammad, or making a cheap Youtube video that makes fun of Islam. I'll find somethin'.
ANWAR: Good. Meanwhile, I'll make the bomb...
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Before You Vote - Or Decide Not To...
Altogether too many people vote for a party, rather than a leader who can and will do the job. And the most foolish will vote color (either for or against). Before stepping into the voting booth - or before you decide not to - understand that THIS election is the most important one in generations. This election will decide the fate of America - will we be a nation of independent, strong people or one where America becomes just another "also ran", with its people dependent upon government, as addicts are dependent upon their dealers.
So, consider the following:
Unemployment above 8% for 4 years
Downgraded by S&P
Inflation up
Food prices rising sharply
Gas prices highest ever
Arab Spring supported by administration becomes Arab Winter
Iran on verge of nuclear weapons
Administration disses our allies - Israel, UK
Current lack of foreign policy results in deadly attacks on U.S. Embassies
Median income drops $4,000 per year
Moody's threatens downgrade
Administration does not even meet with Republican leaders
Administration does not meet with his own Jobs Council
Obama is AWOL for 50% of his daily "Intelligence Briefings"
Obama ignores suggestions of his own Debt Commission
Medicare to be bankrupt in 12 years, Obama wants no changes
And guess what? Fifty percent of Americans STILL want to re-elect this dangerous amateur. As Thomas Jefferson once stated so well, "Everyone gets the government they deserve." Stupid people get bad government.
Americans should take a cue from the First Law in any class on leadership - "Get results, or get replaced." We should never settle for those who only TRY hard. We need to hire leaders wo GET THE JOB DONE!
/
So, consider the following:
Unemployment above 8% for 4 years
Downgraded by S&P
Inflation up
Food prices rising sharply
Gas prices highest ever
Arab Spring supported by administration becomes Arab Winter
Iran on verge of nuclear weapons
Administration disses our allies - Israel, UK
Current lack of foreign policy results in deadly attacks on U.S. Embassies
Median income drops $4,000 per year
Moody's threatens downgrade
Administration does not even meet with Republican leaders
Administration does not meet with his own Jobs Council
Obama is AWOL for 50% of his daily "Intelligence Briefings"
Obama ignores suggestions of his own Debt Commission
Medicare to be bankrupt in 12 years, Obama wants no changes
And guess what? Fifty percent of Americans STILL want to re-elect this dangerous amateur. As Thomas Jefferson once stated so well, "Everyone gets the government they deserve." Stupid people get bad government.
Americans should take a cue from the First Law in any class on leadership - "Get results, or get replaced." We should never settle for those who only TRY hard. We need to hire leaders wo GET THE JOB DONE!
/
Appeasement Under The Guise Of Diplomacy
Someday, America will go the way of every other great nation, into oblivion. And when that day arrives, the history books will say the Death of Ameraica was brought about through Appeasement and Diplomacy.
Every day we insist on using diplomacy against our enemies like Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and others who simply want to kill us. Every day we try to appease our enemies with apologies. And it will never work - and it never has. Diplomacy that is not back up with force is nothing more than appeasement.
Imagine being mugged in Central Park. The mugger demands your money and valuables. But instead of beating the crap out of him, you try to talk him into leaving you alone - go mug someone else - "I want to be your friend." Do you really think that will sway him?
Diplomacy works with your neighbor, or your boss. It will never work with an enemy determined to do you harm.
The radical Islamists kill us. We respond with, "Hey, please stop doing that. Let's talk. Here's a billion dollars." They kill more of us, and we condemn what they are doing, talk some more, give them more money. Meanwhile these radical vermin are saying, "We kill, they try diplomacy. We kill some more. They try more diplomacy. Eventually we will have killed them all, but throughout the process they were diplomatic about it."
The Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations have been administrations of appeasement disguised as diplomacy. The result - continuing attacks, more Americans dead. Compare that to Reagan and the Bushes - Reagan used diplomacy, backed up with force. Iran released the hostages and the Iron Curtain disintegrated. Bush 1 used diplomacy backed by force, and for 10 years Saddam was on his heels. Bush 2 used Diplomacy backed by force and bombed Afghanistan back to the Stone Age, and coerced Pakistan to assist.
The appeasement of liberals in the White House and Congress only results in a loss of respect wround the globe, and our enemies laughing at us in disgust. Years of diplomacy and "sanctions" against Iran has had the same result as diplomacy and "sanctions" against North Korea. One got the bomb, the other will have it shortly. Tell me, White House - what good did all that diplomacy do? Our enemies get stronger while we become weak.
Frankly, I am tired of our leaders telling us that all we need to do is talk our enemies to death. It's time to follow the course of Teddy Roosevelt - "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." Instead, the White House speaks softly and carries money as bribes.
That will be the death of us.
/
Every day we insist on using diplomacy against our enemies like Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and others who simply want to kill us. Every day we try to appease our enemies with apologies. And it will never work - and it never has. Diplomacy that is not back up with force is nothing more than appeasement.
Imagine being mugged in Central Park. The mugger demands your money and valuables. But instead of beating the crap out of him, you try to talk him into leaving you alone - go mug someone else - "I want to be your friend." Do you really think that will sway him?
Diplomacy works with your neighbor, or your boss. It will never work with an enemy determined to do you harm.
The radical Islamists kill us. We respond with, "Hey, please stop doing that. Let's talk. Here's a billion dollars." They kill more of us, and we condemn what they are doing, talk some more, give them more money. Meanwhile these radical vermin are saying, "We kill, they try diplomacy. We kill some more. They try more diplomacy. Eventually we will have killed them all, but throughout the process they were diplomatic about it."
The Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations have been administrations of appeasement disguised as diplomacy. The result - continuing attacks, more Americans dead. Compare that to Reagan and the Bushes - Reagan used diplomacy, backed up with force. Iran released the hostages and the Iron Curtain disintegrated. Bush 1 used diplomacy backed by force, and for 10 years Saddam was on his heels. Bush 2 used Diplomacy backed by force and bombed Afghanistan back to the Stone Age, and coerced Pakistan to assist.
The appeasement of liberals in the White House and Congress only results in a loss of respect wround the globe, and our enemies laughing at us in disgust. Years of diplomacy and "sanctions" against Iran has had the same result as diplomacy and "sanctions" against North Korea. One got the bomb, the other will have it shortly. Tell me, White House - what good did all that diplomacy do? Our enemies get stronger while we become weak.
Frankly, I am tired of our leaders telling us that all we need to do is talk our enemies to death. It's time to follow the course of Teddy Roosevelt - "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." Instead, the White House speaks softly and carries money as bribes.
That will be the death of us.
/
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Muslims Attack American Embassies - Time To Take 'Em Out
On the anniversary of 9/11, when Muslim radicals took down the Towers killing 3000 Americans, more radical muslims attacked American Embassies in both Libya and Egypt, killing our Ambassador and several others, then taking down our flag, burning it and replacing it with their own flag.
I will go on record as saying what the White House, the State Department and the mainstream media are too afraid to say - the truth! We should hunt down and eradicate every radical muslim. Wipe them out. They are nothing more than disease-ridden vermin. They have been killing innocent, civilized people for 1500 years, and their forebears have been murdering since Abraham's two sons parted company to father the two warring nations - the civilized versus the uncivilized.
Radical Islamists murder innocent people because someone threatens to burn a COPY of their "sacred" text. They murder innocent people because someone names her classroom pet "Muhammad'. They murder innocent people because someone draws a cartoon of Muhammad. They murder innocent people for any reason, and no reason. They don't need a reason - they murder, anyway. They LOOK for reasons to murder. They are heathens. They murder because they believe murder is a pasttime, not a crime.
No person of any other belief system in the world would murder unrelated, innocent people for doing any of those things. So what if someone names their pet Muhammad - if I name my dog William, does that mean I did it as a personal insult to President William Clinton? When was the last (or first) time Christians went on a murdering rampage because someone insulted Jesus?
Radical Muslims are not human. They are uncivilized, murderous barbarians. And uncivilized, murderour barbarians need to be hunted down and eliminated on the spot, just as we would hunt down and kill plague-ridden rats, or mosquitos that carry West Nile virus.
As the Bible so clearly stated it, "When the heathens come upon thee, ye shall smite them, kill them, drive them to the ends of the Earth." Because heathens like these radical Muslims, left unchecked, will destroy everything they touch. And make no mistake - they ARE out to destroy us and everything we hold dear, because that is what their "sacred" text tells them they must do.
Our countrymen, being decent, gracious people are unwilling to recognize what is going on. Radical Islam declared war on us 30 years ago, and we refuse to believe it. There is a religious war going on, and only the enemy is fighting that war. We need to fight back, or we will lose.
Look at Iran, building nuclear weapons. Iran already supplies terrorists with weapons all over the world. Imagine when (not if) they share the technology for providing them with dirty bombs? Does any sane person believe they will not use it? That they will suddenly decide to stop supplying weapons to terrorists? Get a clue!
For now, let's get Congress to shut off ALL funding to Egypt and Libya until such time as their governments decide to support freedom and Democracy, and protect the rights of all.
/
I will go on record as saying what the White House, the State Department and the mainstream media are too afraid to say - the truth! We should hunt down and eradicate every radical muslim. Wipe them out. They are nothing more than disease-ridden vermin. They have been killing innocent, civilized people for 1500 years, and their forebears have been murdering since Abraham's two sons parted company to father the two warring nations - the civilized versus the uncivilized.
Radical Islamists murder innocent people because someone threatens to burn a COPY of their "sacred" text. They murder innocent people because someone names her classroom pet "Muhammad'. They murder innocent people because someone draws a cartoon of Muhammad. They murder innocent people for any reason, and no reason. They don't need a reason - they murder, anyway. They LOOK for reasons to murder. They are heathens. They murder because they believe murder is a pasttime, not a crime.
No person of any other belief system in the world would murder unrelated, innocent people for doing any of those things. So what if someone names their pet Muhammad - if I name my dog William, does that mean I did it as a personal insult to President William Clinton? When was the last (or first) time Christians went on a murdering rampage because someone insulted Jesus?
Radical Muslims are not human. They are uncivilized, murderous barbarians. And uncivilized, murderour barbarians need to be hunted down and eliminated on the spot, just as we would hunt down and kill plague-ridden rats, or mosquitos that carry West Nile virus.
As the Bible so clearly stated it, "When the heathens come upon thee, ye shall smite them, kill them, drive them to the ends of the Earth." Because heathens like these radical Muslims, left unchecked, will destroy everything they touch. And make no mistake - they ARE out to destroy us and everything we hold dear, because that is what their "sacred" text tells them they must do.
Our countrymen, being decent, gracious people are unwilling to recognize what is going on. Radical Islam declared war on us 30 years ago, and we refuse to believe it. There is a religious war going on, and only the enemy is fighting that war. We need to fight back, or we will lose.
Look at Iran, building nuclear weapons. Iran already supplies terrorists with weapons all over the world. Imagine when (not if) they share the technology for providing them with dirty bombs? Does any sane person believe they will not use it? That they will suddenly decide to stop supplying weapons to terrorists? Get a clue!
For now, let's get Congress to shut off ALL funding to Egypt and Libya until such time as their governments decide to support freedom and Democracy, and protect the rights of all.
/
Monday, September 10, 2012
Social Security - The Great American Rip-Off
Social Security, considered by many to be a "safety net", or a retirement pension. And while it does help provide for many, it is perhaps the greatest ripoff and fraud ever perpetrated by a government against its people. Allow me to explain...
Take myself as an example. Aged 61, my loving wife is 51. I have paid into Social (in)Security for nearly 50 years. But if I die before I begin collecting, all the money I paid in is gone. My family gets nothing. Certainly, if my wife happens to be at least 60 (she is not), THEN she could get survivor's benefits. If she is not 60 or older, she gets nada. And even if she is over 60, she still gets cheated - if she collects survivor's benefits at 60, when she later retires at 66 she gets her own (smaller) retirement benefit and loses the survivor's benefit.
In other words, no matter how you cut it, my family will pretty much lose every penny I paid in. Bear in mind, that was MY money, supposedly put into trust for me. Or, as FDR so famously lied, it would go into a "Lock Box" for our old age. The problem is, there never was a "lock box" and the government has been stealing that money ever since, to use for other things.
Now consider this - having been self-employed, I pay both my share and the employer share into SS. That's 10.4% of my income, not counting Medicare tax. I have earned a lot in my life - I estimate I have paid over $440,000 into my Social Security. That's almost a half million bucks, folks. And you have already seen what I can expect to get back. Even if I do live to retirement (I won't count on it, since I have emphysema), I would only collect a paltry $1419/month. I would have to live, and collect, until age 91 just to break even! Imagine putting all that money away and not getting ANY interest on it. And if, like the average person I were to collect for 12 years, I would only receive half of what I paid in. I'll tell ya, even the slots at Vegas pay off better than that - you normally win about 2/3 of what you play.
Now figure out how much money I would have for my retirement if I had put that same money into an account that did not collected a dime in interest for 50 years, and only paid interest just this one year alone. I would collect $22,500 in interest, whereas my benefits would only be $17,028. Now imagine how much interest I would be collecting each year if all my payments had been compounding at a meager 5%/year for 50 years! The principle would be almost $10 million and the annual interest alone would be almost a half million bucks!
Compare that to the paltry $1419/month Social Security would "allow" me to collect IF I live long enough.
Social Security is a fraudulent racket, one that would make Al Capone flip in astonishment. If the government were treating us with honesty, every dime we put in would actually be held in an untouchable trust (the Lock Box FDR promised), invested in U.S. Treasuries and other safe investments and paying interest into our accounts. then, upon retirement, we would be paid a lifetime annuity based on the balance in our account.
Just like if we invested it ourselves, only it would be a "forced" savings.
But that will never happen for two reasons - it would be the honest thing to do, and the government would never let go of its hold on all that money.
/
Take myself as an example. Aged 61, my loving wife is 51. I have paid into Social (in)Security for nearly 50 years. But if I die before I begin collecting, all the money I paid in is gone. My family gets nothing. Certainly, if my wife happens to be at least 60 (she is not), THEN she could get survivor's benefits. If she is not 60 or older, she gets nada. And even if she is over 60, she still gets cheated - if she collects survivor's benefits at 60, when she later retires at 66 she gets her own (smaller) retirement benefit and loses the survivor's benefit.
In other words, no matter how you cut it, my family will pretty much lose every penny I paid in. Bear in mind, that was MY money, supposedly put into trust for me. Or, as FDR so famously lied, it would go into a "Lock Box" for our old age. The problem is, there never was a "lock box" and the government has been stealing that money ever since, to use for other things.
Now consider this - having been self-employed, I pay both my share and the employer share into SS. That's 10.4% of my income, not counting Medicare tax. I have earned a lot in my life - I estimate I have paid over $440,000 into my Social Security. That's almost a half million bucks, folks. And you have already seen what I can expect to get back. Even if I do live to retirement (I won't count on it, since I have emphysema), I would only collect a paltry $1419/month. I would have to live, and collect, until age 91 just to break even! Imagine putting all that money away and not getting ANY interest on it. And if, like the average person I were to collect for 12 years, I would only receive half of what I paid in. I'll tell ya, even the slots at Vegas pay off better than that - you normally win about 2/3 of what you play.
Now figure out how much money I would have for my retirement if I had put that same money into an account that did not collected a dime in interest for 50 years, and only paid interest just this one year alone. I would collect $22,500 in interest, whereas my benefits would only be $17,028. Now imagine how much interest I would be collecting each year if all my payments had been compounding at a meager 5%/year for 50 years! The principle would be almost $10 million and the annual interest alone would be almost a half million bucks!
Compare that to the paltry $1419/month Social Security would "allow" me to collect IF I live long enough.
Social Security is a fraudulent racket, one that would make Al Capone flip in astonishment. If the government were treating us with honesty, every dime we put in would actually be held in an untouchable trust (the Lock Box FDR promised), invested in U.S. Treasuries and other safe investments and paying interest into our accounts. then, upon retirement, we would be paid a lifetime annuity based on the balance in our account.
Just like if we invested it ourselves, only it would be a "forced" savings.
But that will never happen for two reasons - it would be the honest thing to do, and the government would never let go of its hold on all that money.
/
Sunday, September 9, 2012
A Lib Speaks Out - And Proves His Ignorance
As further evidence that liberals are not particularly acute, mentally, I offer the following post on HuffPost...
seattledemocrat
"This is as stark a contrast of 2 candidates in a long time.
One is open and honest. One lies constantly.
One wants better a life for all. One only cares about the rich getting richer.
One wants better for women. One wants the government inside her body.
One wants better education for kids. One wants to privatize for rich friends to make more money.
One wants to save medicare. One wants to privatize for rich friends to make more money.
VOTE OBAMA TO SAVE YOUR FUTURE"
Let's take that one piece at a time. This liberal claims Obama is honest, but the Washington Post keeps giving him more and more Pinocchio's for all the fibs he tells. And much of what he says does not pass FACTCHECK.
According to this guy, Obama wants a better life for all. Is that why he jacked up the debt to a point our children and grandchildren will never be able to pay? Is that why he stole investors stock in GM and gave it to the unions?
He claims Obama wants better for women. Really? So how come women and minorities have been the worst hit in this economy, with the highest job losses and he has not done a thing about it? Giving free stuff to women, like contraceptives, is simply buying votes, nothing more.
Better education for kids? Time and time again, where school choice has been offered, it provides a better education for all children, but especially for minorities who finally have a shot at a good education. But Obama keeps shooting down school choice. His only concern for education is the betterment of the teacher's unions that pay for his campaign.
Save Medicare? Is this clown kidding? The CBO and the guy who oversees Medicare say it will go bust in 12 years if not reformed, and Obama has adamantly refused to reform it. The CBO also says the $716 Billion ObamaCare takes out of Medicare will make it even less solvent. Romney's plan, according to the CBO, would save medicare for generations to come.
But that is the mentality of far left lunatics. Black is white, simply because their leaders tell them so. They are like lemmings being led off a cliff by a pied piper.
For the record - according to the fact checkers, the truth was a rather scarce commodity at the Democratic Convention. But apparently that has not stopped liberals from swallowing it whole.
/
seattledemocrat
"This is as stark a contrast of 2 candidates in a long time.
One is open and honest. One lies constantly.
One wants better a life for all. One only cares about the rich getting richer.
One wants better for women. One wants the government inside her body.
One wants better education for kids. One wants to privatize for rich friends to make more money.
One wants to save medicare. One wants to privatize for rich friends to make more money.
VOTE OBAMA TO SAVE YOUR FUTURE"
Let's take that one piece at a time. This liberal claims Obama is honest, but the Washington Post keeps giving him more and more Pinocchio's for all the fibs he tells. And much of what he says does not pass FACTCHECK.
According to this guy, Obama wants a better life for all. Is that why he jacked up the debt to a point our children and grandchildren will never be able to pay? Is that why he stole investors stock in GM and gave it to the unions?
He claims Obama wants better for women. Really? So how come women and minorities have been the worst hit in this economy, with the highest job losses and he has not done a thing about it? Giving free stuff to women, like contraceptives, is simply buying votes, nothing more.
Better education for kids? Time and time again, where school choice has been offered, it provides a better education for all children, but especially for minorities who finally have a shot at a good education. But Obama keeps shooting down school choice. His only concern for education is the betterment of the teacher's unions that pay for his campaign.
Save Medicare? Is this clown kidding? The CBO and the guy who oversees Medicare say it will go bust in 12 years if not reformed, and Obama has adamantly refused to reform it. The CBO also says the $716 Billion ObamaCare takes out of Medicare will make it even less solvent. Romney's plan, according to the CBO, would save medicare for generations to come.
But that is the mentality of far left lunatics. Black is white, simply because their leaders tell them so. They are like lemmings being led off a cliff by a pied piper.
For the record - according to the fact checkers, the truth was a rather scarce commodity at the Democratic Convention. But apparently that has not stopped liberals from swallowing it whole.
/
Liberal Thought - An Oxymoron
Something else I get tired of - liberals claiming to be so much more intelligent than conservatives. That is just SO bogus, it's difficult to know where to start.
It is liberals who believe Cuba and Venezuela have "model" governments
It was a liberal (Obama) who said he campaigned in 57 states
It was a liberal (Pelosi) who said we were losing 300 million jobs a month (there are only 310 million Americans)
It is liberals who refuse to believe you really can see Russia from Alaska (it's true)
It is liberals who made the case - and believed - in Al Gore's assertion that the oceans would rise and drown cities by 2010
It was a liberal who said he got a thrill up his leg when Obama spoke
It was a Congressional liberal who was dumb enough to post nude pix of himself on Twitter
Look, I could make a list of literally thousands of stupid things liberals do - after all, just listen to Joe Biden for a few minutes. But it reminds me of something a very wise person (my Dad) used to tell us kids - the smartest people are those who realize how dumb they really are, and how little they really know. The corollary to that, of course, is people who think they are smarter than others - aren't.
I, myself, have an I.Q that would make most liberals quiver, but I do not think of myself as all that smart. I do okay, but I pull some real boners. I also hold three degrees and laugh at liberals who barely made it out of grade school who spout off about how they are so smart compared to conservatives.
Just the other night Jon Stewart had on a liberal woman who said while discussing gays, "We need to accept everybody." Stewart asked, "Everybody?" "Yes", she said. "Everybody?" Stewart asked, in a more pronounced tone. "Of course," she said. Once more Stewart emphatically asked, "EVERYBODY?" She paused a moment, then asked, "You don't mean we should accept THOSE people (Tea Partiers, conservatives), do you?" And that, my friend, is a liberal's idea of "tolerance". How smart is that?
And on O'Reilly, Jess Watters was interviewing liberals at the Democratic convention. Every one proclaimed to be smarter and more tolerant than conservatives while at the same time calling conservatives derogatory names, like "Teabaggers". Yep - tolerant.
Dumb people lie because they are not smart enough to be honest. Intelligent people have no need for lying, and they are smart enough to know the truth will win out eventually. Yet look at DNC Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schult, caught in lie after lie, and then lying about her lying. Or John Edwards lying, or Eliot Spitzer, or Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi, or Al Gore, or Michael Moore, or Sandra Fluke...
Liberals think hunting is barbaric and morally wrong, all the while munching on their bucket of Buffalo Wings, which come from birds that never had a sporting chance to escape, and someone killed and butchered on their behalf. I guess they think it is alright as long as they don't have to do the dirty work.
Liberals think guns should be banned, never realizing that the most dangerous places are cities where guns have been tightly restricted, like D.C. and Chicago. Liberals never stop to think that an armed citizenry is the best deterrent for crime - even criminals don't want to get shot for stealing a T.V. Liberals never bother to understand that criminals - lawbreakers - have no qualms about breaking gun laws. Do they really think gun laws will make gang members shake in their boots? An old saying, very true - if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. The rest of us become prey.
And Hollywood stars who make their living reading words written by someone else, and play-acting in fantasy worlds, then trying to tell conservatives what we should think. Like that Washington woman at the Democratic convention that said "Republicans want to take away a woman's right to vote." What planet does she live on? Is she not aware that a woman's right to vote is guaranteed under the Constitution? No one wants to take that away, and couldn't if they tried. Not only is she not very smart, neither is the moron who booked her to speak at the convention.
Yeah, those liberals sure are smart. And tolerant. And wise. Not, not, not. And the more posts I read on AOL written by HuffPost lemmings, the more convinced I become that liberals lack enough intellect to be allowed to vote. It's unwise to let children make the house rules.
Sometimes I think Biden might be the smartest one of the bunch. And that's not sayin' much...
/
It is liberals who believe Cuba and Venezuela have "model" governments
It was a liberal (Obama) who said he campaigned in 57 states
It was a liberal (Pelosi) who said we were losing 300 million jobs a month (there are only 310 million Americans)
It is liberals who refuse to believe you really can see Russia from Alaska (it's true)
It is liberals who made the case - and believed - in Al Gore's assertion that the oceans would rise and drown cities by 2010
It was a liberal who said he got a thrill up his leg when Obama spoke
It was a Congressional liberal who was dumb enough to post nude pix of himself on Twitter
Look, I could make a list of literally thousands of stupid things liberals do - after all, just listen to Joe Biden for a few minutes. But it reminds me of something a very wise person (my Dad) used to tell us kids - the smartest people are those who realize how dumb they really are, and how little they really know. The corollary to that, of course, is people who think they are smarter than others - aren't.
I, myself, have an I.Q that would make most liberals quiver, but I do not think of myself as all that smart. I do okay, but I pull some real boners. I also hold three degrees and laugh at liberals who barely made it out of grade school who spout off about how they are so smart compared to conservatives.
Just the other night Jon Stewart had on a liberal woman who said while discussing gays, "We need to accept everybody." Stewart asked, "Everybody?" "Yes", she said. "Everybody?" Stewart asked, in a more pronounced tone. "Of course," she said. Once more Stewart emphatically asked, "EVERYBODY?" She paused a moment, then asked, "You don't mean we should accept THOSE people (Tea Partiers, conservatives), do you?" And that, my friend, is a liberal's idea of "tolerance". How smart is that?
And on O'Reilly, Jess Watters was interviewing liberals at the Democratic convention. Every one proclaimed to be smarter and more tolerant than conservatives while at the same time calling conservatives derogatory names, like "Teabaggers". Yep - tolerant.
Dumb people lie because they are not smart enough to be honest. Intelligent people have no need for lying, and they are smart enough to know the truth will win out eventually. Yet look at DNC Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schult, caught in lie after lie, and then lying about her lying. Or John Edwards lying, or Eliot Spitzer, or Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi, or Al Gore, or Michael Moore, or Sandra Fluke...
Liberals think hunting is barbaric and morally wrong, all the while munching on their bucket of Buffalo Wings, which come from birds that never had a sporting chance to escape, and someone killed and butchered on their behalf. I guess they think it is alright as long as they don't have to do the dirty work.
Liberals think guns should be banned, never realizing that the most dangerous places are cities where guns have been tightly restricted, like D.C. and Chicago. Liberals never stop to think that an armed citizenry is the best deterrent for crime - even criminals don't want to get shot for stealing a T.V. Liberals never bother to understand that criminals - lawbreakers - have no qualms about breaking gun laws. Do they really think gun laws will make gang members shake in their boots? An old saying, very true - if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. The rest of us become prey.
And Hollywood stars who make their living reading words written by someone else, and play-acting in fantasy worlds, then trying to tell conservatives what we should think. Like that Washington woman at the Democratic convention that said "Republicans want to take away a woman's right to vote." What planet does she live on? Is she not aware that a woman's right to vote is guaranteed under the Constitution? No one wants to take that away, and couldn't if they tried. Not only is she not very smart, neither is the moron who booked her to speak at the convention.
Yeah, those liberals sure are smart. And tolerant. And wise. Not, not, not. And the more posts I read on AOL written by HuffPost lemmings, the more convinced I become that liberals lack enough intellect to be allowed to vote. It's unwise to let children make the house rules.
Sometimes I think Biden might be the smartest one of the bunch. And that's not sayin' much...
/
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Blaming Bush - It's Time For The Truth
Unless you are one of the "blame Bush" crowd, you are probably REAL sick of hearing Democrats blame Bush for the state of affairs we are experiencing. It's time for the truth to get out - Bush is NOT responsible for the meltdown, and there is solid proof provided by various government agencies and the Congressional Record. Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed Republicans have not taken to the offense on this.
To discover the truth, it is necessary to walk it backward - to find a starting point you need to follow the trail back.
Everyone agrees on a couple of points - the meltdown was triggered (not caused by) the selling of "derivatives" and the foolishness and mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which in turn caused the housing industry to fold up like a cheap suit. This resulted in foreclosures, bankruptcies and further resulted in products not being purchased, as people are not furnishing or remodeling homes, or they simply do not have the money, as their recent home equity loans put them under water. Like the ripples when you toss a stone into a pond, the devastation spread outward, touching even the furthest shore.
So, why did this happen? The answer is complex, but I will attempt to simplify it a bit.
The infamous derivatives, the main trigger, are nothing more than a bunch of risky mortgages bundled together, then shares of that bundle are sold off to investors - because of the risk, most were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So the question now is, "Why were there so many risky mortgages? It sounds like the banks are responsible, just as the Democrats say. Those nasty banks made bad loans, which were bundled by that greedy Wall Street bunch, and sold off to the mismanaged Fannie & Freddie. Right?"
Not quite. It LOOKS that way, and that is what Democrats want you to believe - they need to have voters hate all the right "straw men". And, since the trigger was pulled while Bush was in office, they claim it is therefore "Bush's fault."
But things are rarely as they appear. Let's dig a bit deeper.
Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D) were the guys who were supposed to be overseeing Fannie Mae. When George Bush and John McCain saw problems arising in 2003-04, they attempted to push through a bill that would regulate them better. Frank & Dodd killed the bill, convincing Congress that "Fannie Mae is fine - there are no problems."
So, in the final stages, it was Democrats who not only fell asleep at the wheel, but convinced Congress not to take action. Now we go deeper.
Why were derivatives even necessary? Why were those risky mortgages being created? And this is where it begins to get meaty. It actually starts back in the '70's, under Jimmy Carter (D). Democrats believed that every American - even the poor - should be able to own their own home. But banks did not want to make such risky loans in areas known as "redline districts" - areas that were in decline and/or populated by the poor. In other words, since banks are in the business of making money, not losing it, they were reluctant to loan money to people who could not repay.
In come the Democrats, led by "community organizing" groups like ACORN. Together they pass a law in Congress known as CRA - the Community Reinvestment Act. This bill REQUIRED banks to make the risky loans. Banks were no longer permitted to use "redlining" to refuse mortgage applications. This was the beginning for what would later force the creation of derivatives.
Banks could still refuse mortgages to those who could not qualify based on income and credit history, however, so the problem at this point was relatively minor. But then along comes ACORN again. ACORN sued the banks through their attorney, community organizer Barack Obama (D). The lawsuit forced stronger changes to the CRA. Under Bill Clinton (D), the Bliley bill was passed which strengthened the CRA of the '70's and literally forced banks to make even riskier loans. And the bubble of risky notes grows out of control.
Now, as I said, banks have to make, not lose, money. Otherwise they would not survive. So it became necessary for them to "spread the risk" by bundling the risky notes - if a few defaulted, the rest would cover the losses. This bundling was the creation of derivatives. Banks were forced into this by the CRA and the Bliley bill, both signed into law by Democrats.
So now we have Fannie Mae under Frank (D) and Dodd (D) buying up risky notes that the Bliley Bill and CRA required banks to make, under Carter (D) and Clinton (D), and forced by Obama (D).
As you can see, Bush had nothing to do with all this - in fact, this mess is what HE "inherited" from Clinton. But it actually goes back further.
In the 1930's, FDR (D) created Fannie Mae. And in the '60's, Lyndon Johnson (D) privatized Fannie Mae, giving it the ability to grow out of control, nearly unrestricted.
Everyone involved in the creation of the meltdown was a liberal Democrat - FDR, Johnson, ACORN, Carter, Obama, Clinton, Frank, Dodd.
One more thing to consider - the meltdown began in July 2007. Democrats controlled Congress since January 2007. Since it is Congress that makes law, they bear some responsibility.
I have been posting this true history for almost 5 years. Still, the Democrats who created this mess are still blaming Bush, and Republicans are just too stupid to dispute them, using the facts taken from government agencies and the Congressional Record.
If more people were less ignorant and willing to at least check out the facts, Obama would not get a single vote come November. It is he and his cronies who are responsible for bringing America to its knees.
/
To discover the truth, it is necessary to walk it backward - to find a starting point you need to follow the trail back.
Everyone agrees on a couple of points - the meltdown was triggered (not caused by) the selling of "derivatives" and the foolishness and mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which in turn caused the housing industry to fold up like a cheap suit. This resulted in foreclosures, bankruptcies and further resulted in products not being purchased, as people are not furnishing or remodeling homes, or they simply do not have the money, as their recent home equity loans put them under water. Like the ripples when you toss a stone into a pond, the devastation spread outward, touching even the furthest shore.
So, why did this happen? The answer is complex, but I will attempt to simplify it a bit.
The infamous derivatives, the main trigger, are nothing more than a bunch of risky mortgages bundled together, then shares of that bundle are sold off to investors - because of the risk, most were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So the question now is, "Why were there so many risky mortgages? It sounds like the banks are responsible, just as the Democrats say. Those nasty banks made bad loans, which were bundled by that greedy Wall Street bunch, and sold off to the mismanaged Fannie & Freddie. Right?"
Not quite. It LOOKS that way, and that is what Democrats want you to believe - they need to have voters hate all the right "straw men". And, since the trigger was pulled while Bush was in office, they claim it is therefore "Bush's fault."
But things are rarely as they appear. Let's dig a bit deeper.
Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D) were the guys who were supposed to be overseeing Fannie Mae. When George Bush and John McCain saw problems arising in 2003-04, they attempted to push through a bill that would regulate them better. Frank & Dodd killed the bill, convincing Congress that "Fannie Mae is fine - there are no problems."
So, in the final stages, it was Democrats who not only fell asleep at the wheel, but convinced Congress not to take action. Now we go deeper.
Why were derivatives even necessary? Why were those risky mortgages being created? And this is where it begins to get meaty. It actually starts back in the '70's, under Jimmy Carter (D). Democrats believed that every American - even the poor - should be able to own their own home. But banks did not want to make such risky loans in areas known as "redline districts" - areas that were in decline and/or populated by the poor. In other words, since banks are in the business of making money, not losing it, they were reluctant to loan money to people who could not repay.
In come the Democrats, led by "community organizing" groups like ACORN. Together they pass a law in Congress known as CRA - the Community Reinvestment Act. This bill REQUIRED banks to make the risky loans. Banks were no longer permitted to use "redlining" to refuse mortgage applications. This was the beginning for what would later force the creation of derivatives.
Banks could still refuse mortgages to those who could not qualify based on income and credit history, however, so the problem at this point was relatively minor. But then along comes ACORN again. ACORN sued the banks through their attorney, community organizer Barack Obama (D). The lawsuit forced stronger changes to the CRA. Under Bill Clinton (D), the Bliley bill was passed which strengthened the CRA of the '70's and literally forced banks to make even riskier loans. And the bubble of risky notes grows out of control.
Now, as I said, banks have to make, not lose, money. Otherwise they would not survive. So it became necessary for them to "spread the risk" by bundling the risky notes - if a few defaulted, the rest would cover the losses. This bundling was the creation of derivatives. Banks were forced into this by the CRA and the Bliley bill, both signed into law by Democrats.
So now we have Fannie Mae under Frank (D) and Dodd (D) buying up risky notes that the Bliley Bill and CRA required banks to make, under Carter (D) and Clinton (D), and forced by Obama (D).
As you can see, Bush had nothing to do with all this - in fact, this mess is what HE "inherited" from Clinton. But it actually goes back further.
In the 1930's, FDR (D) created Fannie Mae. And in the '60's, Lyndon Johnson (D) privatized Fannie Mae, giving it the ability to grow out of control, nearly unrestricted.
Everyone involved in the creation of the meltdown was a liberal Democrat - FDR, Johnson, ACORN, Carter, Obama, Clinton, Frank, Dodd.
One more thing to consider - the meltdown began in July 2007. Democrats controlled Congress since January 2007. Since it is Congress that makes law, they bear some responsibility.
I have been posting this true history for almost 5 years. Still, the Democrats who created this mess are still blaming Bush, and Republicans are just too stupid to dispute them, using the facts taken from government agencies and the Congressional Record.
If more people were less ignorant and willing to at least check out the facts, Obama would not get a single vote come November. It is he and his cronies who are responsible for bringing America to its knees.
/
Thursday, September 6, 2012
John Kerry Shames Himself At Convention
John Kerry - you know, the Viet Nam vet who gave himself Purple Hearts without being injured in combat, then threw his medals away and accused his buddies as being rapists and murderers - yeah, that John Kerry, is now speaking at the Democratic convention.
Thought I would write down each lie (he's known for that), but he was lying so fast I only got to jot down a few.
He said the oceans are rising and Republicans don't care. The fact is, liberals have been claiming oceans will rise several feet by 2010. To date, the beaches are still where they were. No cities even being threatened.
As all Democrats are doing, he again claimed Romney is the "outsourcer" in spite of the fact that several fact checking organizations debunked that long ago, and pointed out that Obama has outsourced many jobs.
Kerry rambled on to say Iran was left unchecked by Bush. So tell me, Mr. Kerry - isn't Iran still building the atomic bomb? In 4 years, has Obama stopped them?
He then made me laugh hysterically, saying Obama kept his promises. Pardon me for saying so, but isn't Gitmo still open? Did Obama cut the deficit in half as promised? Did he bring the unemployment rate down below 8%? I could go on - he has broken at least 17 of his campaign promises. So I really don't need to hear him making any more tonight.
Then Kerry really showed his ignorance - he stated that Sarah Palin said "she could see Russia from Alaska." Actually, you can. Here's a factoid for all the SNL lemmings - Russia and Alaska are divided by the Bering Strait, which is about 55 miles at its narrowest point. In the middle of the Bering Strait are two small, sparsely populated islands: Big Diomede, which sits in Russian territory, and Little Diomede, which is part of the United States. At their closest, these two islands are a little less than two and a half miles apart, which means that, on a clear day, you can definitely see one from the other.
And to think, if Obama gets re-elected, it is expected that this moron will be made Secretary of State. Lord help us!
/
Thought I would write down each lie (he's known for that), but he was lying so fast I only got to jot down a few.
He said the oceans are rising and Republicans don't care. The fact is, liberals have been claiming oceans will rise several feet by 2010. To date, the beaches are still where they were. No cities even being threatened.
As all Democrats are doing, he again claimed Romney is the "outsourcer" in spite of the fact that several fact checking organizations debunked that long ago, and pointed out that Obama has outsourced many jobs.
Kerry rambled on to say Iran was left unchecked by Bush. So tell me, Mr. Kerry - isn't Iran still building the atomic bomb? In 4 years, has Obama stopped them?
He then made me laugh hysterically, saying Obama kept his promises. Pardon me for saying so, but isn't Gitmo still open? Did Obama cut the deficit in half as promised? Did he bring the unemployment rate down below 8%? I could go on - he has broken at least 17 of his campaign promises. So I really don't need to hear him making any more tonight.
Then Kerry really showed his ignorance - he stated that Sarah Palin said "she could see Russia from Alaska." Actually, you can. Here's a factoid for all the SNL lemmings - Russia and Alaska are divided by the Bering Strait, which is about 55 miles at its narrowest point. In the middle of the Bering Strait are two small, sparsely populated islands: Big Diomede, which sits in Russian territory, and Little Diomede, which is part of the United States. At their closest, these two islands are a little less than two and a half miles apart, which means that, on a clear day, you can definitely see one from the other.
And to think, if Obama gets re-elected, it is expected that this moron will be made Secretary of State. Lord help us!
/
Liberals Are All Wet - Corporations ARE "People"
Earlier this year Mitt Romney said "Corporations are people." The left went nuts (well, MORE nuts). Last night at the Democratic Convention, Elizabeth Warren scolded Romney, saying "Mr. Romney, corporations are NOT people."
As usual, Granny Warren is wrong. Considering she is a Harvard Professor, you would think she might be familiar with 3rd grade English. So, for the benefit of all those loons on the left who keep claiming how much smarter they are than us little people, here's heads up - "people" is plural. Meaning a group of persons.
Now, I think Granny Warren is confusing "people" with "person". Corporations are not persons. Not individuals. But they are people - a group of persons, just like a union is people, or your family is people.
Every corporation has to file papers for incorporation in which the primary persons must identify themselves. They are the people that originally make up the corporation, by law. Then, hopefully they will add employees - more people.
Corporations are, indeed, people. Just like families are people, and towns are people (and are also incorporated).
The far-left liberals like the fake Indian Elizabeth Warren are so eager to fulfill their socialist agenda that they will say or do anything. Tell any lie (look at Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who can't open her mouth without prevaricating. She even lied about her lies).
It is also strange that Granny Warren would complain about the system being "rigged", when it is she and her kind who do the rigging. For example, she lied about being a Native American in order to secure her position. She rigged it, and a qualified person lost out.
Obama "rigged" it for Solyndra, pushing out other independent businesses. Rigged it for unions by stealing stockholders stake in GM and giving it to the UAW. Yes, there is rigging going on - and it's the far-left loons doing the rigging.
/
As usual, Granny Warren is wrong. Considering she is a Harvard Professor, you would think she might be familiar with 3rd grade English. So, for the benefit of all those loons on the left who keep claiming how much smarter they are than us little people, here's heads up - "people" is plural. Meaning a group of persons.
Now, I think Granny Warren is confusing "people" with "person". Corporations are not persons. Not individuals. But they are people - a group of persons, just like a union is people, or your family is people.
Every corporation has to file papers for incorporation in which the primary persons must identify themselves. They are the people that originally make up the corporation, by law. Then, hopefully they will add employees - more people.
Corporations are, indeed, people. Just like families are people, and towns are people (and are also incorporated).
The far-left liberals like the fake Indian Elizabeth Warren are so eager to fulfill their socialist agenda that they will say or do anything. Tell any lie (look at Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who can't open her mouth without prevaricating. She even lied about her lies).
It is also strange that Granny Warren would complain about the system being "rigged", when it is she and her kind who do the rigging. For example, she lied about being a Native American in order to secure her position. She rigged it, and a qualified person lost out.
Obama "rigged" it for Solyndra, pushing out other independent businesses. Rigged it for unions by stealing stockholders stake in GM and giving it to the UAW. Yes, there is rigging going on - and it's the far-left loons doing the rigging.
/
The Fallacy of the "Government/Business" Partnership
In his convention speech, Bill Clinton said there should be a partnership between government and business, and that is Obama's plan.
For those who are unaware, that is called STATISM, and it is only a hare's breath away from socialism. But that's not the point...
The point is, government does not co-operate and partner with business. The only thing the government does is tax business more, taking away needed capital, and regulating them more, which costs them more money and time. If getting in the way and obstructing business is what Democrats call "partnering", I'll go solo, thank you.
A partner is supposed to contribute to the health and success of the business. Regulations and increased taxes do just the opposite.
There are exceptions, however. If you are a big-time Democrat bundler, or you have friends in the White House, you can get billions of taxpayer bucks, then go bankrupt and walk away wealthy. That's what happened with Solyndra and 16 other "green" companies that Obama gave our money to, and every one went bust.
But for those of us who are not in the sack with Valerie Jarret, or greasing Democrat campaign coffers, well, all we get in the "partnership" is screwed.
Mr. Clinton, why not tell it like it really is? Obama is striving for statism so we will be on the road to socialism.
/
For those who are unaware, that is called STATISM, and it is only a hare's breath away from socialism. But that's not the point...
The point is, government does not co-operate and partner with business. The only thing the government does is tax business more, taking away needed capital, and regulating them more, which costs them more money and time. If getting in the way and obstructing business is what Democrats call "partnering", I'll go solo, thank you.
A partner is supposed to contribute to the health and success of the business. Regulations and increased taxes do just the opposite.
There are exceptions, however. If you are a big-time Democrat bundler, or you have friends in the White House, you can get billions of taxpayer bucks, then go bankrupt and walk away wealthy. That's what happened with Solyndra and 16 other "green" companies that Obama gave our money to, and every one went bust.
But for those of us who are not in the sack with Valerie Jarret, or greasing Democrat campaign coffers, well, all we get in the "partnership" is screwed.
Mr. Clinton, why not tell it like it really is? Obama is striving for statism so we will be on the road to socialism.
/
Facts Bill Clinton Conveniently Left Out
Last evening Bill Clinton laid out a lot of "facts", but what is important are the facts he conveniently left out. When ALL the facts are observed, it shows a completely different story.
Clinton said that Republicans held the oval office for a few more years than Democrats over the last 50 years (28 vs 24), and during their tenure they created far fewer jobs than when Democrats held the White House. But here is what he left out...
The Democrats have been the majority in Congress for about 40 of the last 60 years. The Democrats have controlled at least one or the other of the 2 branches over 50 of the 60 years. And it is CONGRESS, not the President, that passes legislation that creates, or loses, jobs. The Democrats have controlled both Houses from 2007 - 2010, which is the period of highest unemployment, up to 10.3%.
When we have a Republican president, but a Congress controlled by Democrats, you cannot expect legislation that will make the president look good, so jobs will suffer.
And Clinton did not point out that more jobs were created per year under a Republican controlled Congress than under any Democrat controlled Congress. For example, Clinton points to all the jobs and prosperity created under his administration. What he did not point out was that Congress was controlled by the Newt Gingrich Republican Congress. THEY passed legislation that created all that prosperity. Clinton merely signed it.
And that is what happens when someone like Bill Clinton cites only SOME of the facts and not all of them. His limited use of facts points to prosperity under Democrats. But looking at ALL the facts, a completely different story unfolds.
Democrats do that on purpose, to mislead voters. Just like when they claim Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act in spite of Republican opposition. But if you look at the actual Congressional record, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, and it was Democrats that filibustered against it.
The truth is a strange thing, sometimes. And rare among liberal Democrats.
/
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Did Obama Gut Welfare Reform?
Romney says Obama has gutted welfare reform, and without the authority to do so. There is no doubt that Obama has no authority to change existing law without Congress, but the question as to whether it guts welfare reform is open for discussion.
Here's the meat of it...
Obama gave states permission to change the work requirements by allowing them to define "work" in other ways, supposedly "in order to increase employment." But here's the problem - some states plan to define "yoga classes", "reading books" and "bed rest" as employment in order to justify expanding welfare.
The result? Although no jobs are added, and those people are not earning a dime, they can now legally be called "employed". This makes the unemployment rate go down, even though they are still unemployed. Not only that, states would qualify for MORE taxpayer money to give away to people who refuse work.
More people on welfare, getting taxpayer support for laying in bed. The unemployment rate becomes a lie, making politicians look good.
Yeah, I'd say Obama gutted welfare reform.
/
Here's the meat of it...
Obama gave states permission to change the work requirements by allowing them to define "work" in other ways, supposedly "in order to increase employment." But here's the problem - some states plan to define "yoga classes", "reading books" and "bed rest" as employment in order to justify expanding welfare.
The result? Although no jobs are added, and those people are not earning a dime, they can now legally be called "employed". This makes the unemployment rate go down, even though they are still unemployed. Not only that, states would qualify for MORE taxpayer money to give away to people who refuse work.
More people on welfare, getting taxpayer support for laying in bed. The unemployment rate becomes a lie, making politicians look good.
Yeah, I'd say Obama gutted welfare reform.
/
The BIG LIE About Saving GM
The Democrats like to tout how they saved GM and its 250,000 jobs.
Not so.
GM was facing bankruptcy. But corporate bankruptcy does not mean "out of business". In a structured bankruptcy, the company is made solvent by removing a lot of the debt and reorganizing. People keep their jobs. Dealerships are not forced out, as happened with Obama's action.
GM not only would have survived, but would have been healthy again - and it would not have cost taxpayers $25 billion.
So, why did Obams "save" GM his way? One word - UNIONS.
Under a bankruptcy, the unions would have forfeited much of the excessive, cushy benefits. And as we know, Obama is deep in the union corner, and deeply indebted to them. By doing what he did, he saved the unions, not GM. And under his plan, thousands lost jobs as dealrerships were closed and Chrysler was forced to move to Italy. Not to mention the billions in wealth that investors lost because he took away their investment and gave it to the Unions. Every penny of GM owned by investors was taken, without compensation, and given to the unions.
No, Democrats did not save GM. Democrats saved unions, stole from stockholders, closed dealerships and stuck taxpayers with a $25 billion loss.
/
Not so.
GM was facing bankruptcy. But corporate bankruptcy does not mean "out of business". In a structured bankruptcy, the company is made solvent by removing a lot of the debt and reorganizing. People keep their jobs. Dealerships are not forced out, as happened with Obama's action.
GM not only would have survived, but would have been healthy again - and it would not have cost taxpayers $25 billion.
So, why did Obams "save" GM his way? One word - UNIONS.
Under a bankruptcy, the unions would have forfeited much of the excessive, cushy benefits. And as we know, Obama is deep in the union corner, and deeply indebted to them. By doing what he did, he saved the unions, not GM. And under his plan, thousands lost jobs as dealrerships were closed and Chrysler was forced to move to Italy. Not to mention the billions in wealth that investors lost because he took away their investment and gave it to the Unions. Every penny of GM owned by investors was taken, without compensation, and given to the unions.
No, Democrats did not save GM. Democrats saved unions, stole from stockholders, closed dealerships and stuck taxpayers with a $25 billion loss.
/
Why Women CANNOT Trust Obama
Three words - "Life of Julia"
On the Obama website the Democrats posted a cute story about the "Life of Julia". From the day she is born, Julia partakes of, and benefits from government assistance. WIC, Pell Grants and student loans, food stamps, welfare, Medicare, Social Security. At every stage of life the skit shows how Julia simply would never survive without government help.
This says all you really need to know as to how Obama and his minions view women - they need to be "taken care of" by government. They simply cannot make it on their own.
Republicans see women as equals, and not simply concerned about issues of sex such as abortion and contraceptives. Republicans see woman as strong, independent, and involved, caring about all the same issues as their male counterparts (though they may not agree on those issues).
Certainly, women often earn less than men, but that statistic does not account for variables such as more women choose to work "mother's hours", or part-time, and more women take maternity leave. These things affect their annual pay. But among professional women who work the same hours as men, doing the same work, women often out-earn the men. They have been CEO's of Hewlitt Packard and EBay (both Republican, by the way). Bear in mind - Pelosi's (D) female staff get paid less than her male staff.
The point is, the Democrat's story on "The Life Of Julia" tells exactly how they feel about women, and how they believe women are helpless and incapable of caring for themselves. No Republican has ever gone there. Nor would they.
/
On the Obama website the Democrats posted a cute story about the "Life of Julia". From the day she is born, Julia partakes of, and benefits from government assistance. WIC, Pell Grants and student loans, food stamps, welfare, Medicare, Social Security. At every stage of life the skit shows how Julia simply would never survive without government help.
This says all you really need to know as to how Obama and his minions view women - they need to be "taken care of" by government. They simply cannot make it on their own.
Republicans see women as equals, and not simply concerned about issues of sex such as abortion and contraceptives. Republicans see woman as strong, independent, and involved, caring about all the same issues as their male counterparts (though they may not agree on those issues).
Certainly, women often earn less than men, but that statistic does not account for variables such as more women choose to work "mother's hours", or part-time, and more women take maternity leave. These things affect their annual pay. But among professional women who work the same hours as men, doing the same work, women often out-earn the men. They have been CEO's of Hewlitt Packard and EBay (both Republican, by the way). Bear in mind - Pelosi's (D) female staff get paid less than her male staff.
The point is, the Democrat's story on "The Life Of Julia" tells exactly how they feel about women, and how they believe women are helpless and incapable of caring for themselves. No Republican has ever gone there. Nor would they.
/
What Is Wealth - And How Do We Get Some?
Wealth - when most people hear that word they think of a whole lotta "Benjamins" Money. Moolah. And that is pretty much the reason most people do not have wealth - they don't even know what it is!
First, understand that money is nothing more than a medium of exchange - a tool. It makes the transfer of wealth more convenient. If you want a dozen eggs and a gallon of milk, you don't have to carry around 3 pounds of butter to trade for it. And it makes things easier - not everyone who has the eggs will want your butter. So money was devised to make transfer more convenient. Money, then, is not wealth. It is a tool.
Wealth is STUFF. It is all those things that we need and want. It's the cars, homes, iPads, college degree - even the Ramen soup that kept you alive through college. STUFF is something real. It is the REASON we want money.
Consider - you are on a desert island where there is no food. You find a magic lamp and coax the Genie out. He gives you a choice - $1,000,000 or a supply of Big Macs. Now tell me - you are starving - which would you choose?
Money is worthless without STUFF to buy. But STUFF is always worth something. So, STUFF is wealth.
Now we can move on. If STUFF is wealth, then the people who have STUFF are wealthy. And the people who create STUFF are the ones who are creating wealth. When Steve Jobs created the iPad, he created a product millions wanted, and paid for. He created wealth (a LOT of it). And the people who paid $500 now have more wealth - something they can use to make life better.
What this means is that wealth can only be created by those who add something of value to the economy - products and services. They create a product, which brings them money. They hire people to produce, advertise and market those products, which increases the income of those people. And those people use that income to buy - STUFF.
If you want wealth, there is only one way to get it short of inheriting it or winning the lottery - you must cretate something of value, or invest in businesses that do. There is no other way.
And that is precisely the reality that proves the "trickle-down, supply side" theory of economics that liberals try to tell us does not work. In other words, the important factor in determining whether we should encourage trickle down, trickle up or trickle out lies in where does wealth begin? Where is it created? Where is is BORN? It is created by businesses, and investors who provide capital for businesses. So that is where the cycle of wealth (the Economic Cycle) begins.
Wealth, therefore, begins at the top. And it can only trickle down. If America wants more wealth to share among its citizens, America must encourage business growth. That can only be done by providing a friendly environment for business and investors to thrive in - low taxes, reduced regulation. Stop strangling the very people who create the wealth we all crave.
Businesses are the "Golden Goose" that lays the golden eggs we want. If you reduce the feed for the goose, it lays fewer eggs. And if you kill the goose so you can feed your friends and family, there will be no more eggs, and once the goose is gone, you starve.
Got it?
Good. Now go out and create some wealth. And while you are at it, tell government not to get in your way, or take your working capital. And vote accordingly in November. You may not have wealth now, but I would bet you WANT it. Don't let government make it more difficult for you.
/
First, understand that money is nothing more than a medium of exchange - a tool. It makes the transfer of wealth more convenient. If you want a dozen eggs and a gallon of milk, you don't have to carry around 3 pounds of butter to trade for it. And it makes things easier - not everyone who has the eggs will want your butter. So money was devised to make transfer more convenient. Money, then, is not wealth. It is a tool.
Wealth is STUFF. It is all those things that we need and want. It's the cars, homes, iPads, college degree - even the Ramen soup that kept you alive through college. STUFF is something real. It is the REASON we want money.
Consider - you are on a desert island where there is no food. You find a magic lamp and coax the Genie out. He gives you a choice - $1,000,000 or a supply of Big Macs. Now tell me - you are starving - which would you choose?
Money is worthless without STUFF to buy. But STUFF is always worth something. So, STUFF is wealth.
Now we can move on. If STUFF is wealth, then the people who have STUFF are wealthy. And the people who create STUFF are the ones who are creating wealth. When Steve Jobs created the iPad, he created a product millions wanted, and paid for. He created wealth (a LOT of it). And the people who paid $500 now have more wealth - something they can use to make life better.
What this means is that wealth can only be created by those who add something of value to the economy - products and services. They create a product, which brings them money. They hire people to produce, advertise and market those products, which increases the income of those people. And those people use that income to buy - STUFF.
If you want wealth, there is only one way to get it short of inheriting it or winning the lottery - you must cretate something of value, or invest in businesses that do. There is no other way.
And that is precisely the reality that proves the "trickle-down, supply side" theory of economics that liberals try to tell us does not work. In other words, the important factor in determining whether we should encourage trickle down, trickle up or trickle out lies in where does wealth begin? Where is it created? Where is is BORN? It is created by businesses, and investors who provide capital for businesses. So that is where the cycle of wealth (the Economic Cycle) begins.
Wealth, therefore, begins at the top. And it can only trickle down. If America wants more wealth to share among its citizens, America must encourage business growth. That can only be done by providing a friendly environment for business and investors to thrive in - low taxes, reduced regulation. Stop strangling the very people who create the wealth we all crave.
Businesses are the "Golden Goose" that lays the golden eggs we want. If you reduce the feed for the goose, it lays fewer eggs. And if you kill the goose so you can feed your friends and family, there will be no more eggs, and once the goose is gone, you starve.
Got it?
Good. Now go out and create some wealth. And while you are at it, tell government not to get in your way, or take your working capital. And vote accordingly in November. You may not have wealth now, but I would bet you WANT it. Don't let government make it more difficult for you.
/
Elizabeth Warren - Who Is She & Why Should We Trust Her?
Elizabeth Warren, MA Senate candidate who falsely claimed American Indian heritage in order to secure better jobs and who is opposing Scott Brown for Senate gave Obama the now infamous line, "You did not build that. You used the roads the rest of us paid for. You benefited from education of your employees the rest of us paid for..."
Not quite, Ms Warren. WE paid for those things with our taxes, and we ALL may benefit equally. The difference lies in the simple fact that some of us put it all to better, higher use, while others wasted the opportunity we created with our taxes. And that is on US, not government. WE build our businesses. We did all the things necessary to put those roads and schools that WE paid for to good use. We built the roads and schools, and then used them to build our businesses.
And yes, WE did pay for those. 49% of American adults pay no income taxes, so THEY did not pay for the roads and schools. Those of us who succeed in business, we pay 84% of the taxes. WE paid for those roads and schools.
Mitt Romney paid millions in taxes. Joe Blow paid nothing. So, who do you think built those roads, and paid for those schools?
Elizabeth Warren's statements only go to prove that, to liberals, all money belongs to the government and they "allow" us to keep some for our own use. They believe tax money belongs to them. They forget the we, the people ARE the government, and politicians are simply our employees. So when OUR money is used to build a road, the government takes credit for that road. But they could not have built it without us supplying the money. The reality is that WE built those roads.
/
Not quite, Ms Warren. WE paid for those things with our taxes, and we ALL may benefit equally. The difference lies in the simple fact that some of us put it all to better, higher use, while others wasted the opportunity we created with our taxes. And that is on US, not government. WE build our businesses. We did all the things necessary to put those roads and schools that WE paid for to good use. We built the roads and schools, and then used them to build our businesses.
And yes, WE did pay for those. 49% of American adults pay no income taxes, so THEY did not pay for the roads and schools. Those of us who succeed in business, we pay 84% of the taxes. WE paid for those roads and schools.
Mitt Romney paid millions in taxes. Joe Blow paid nothing. So, who do you think built those roads, and paid for those schools?
Elizabeth Warren's statements only go to prove that, to liberals, all money belongs to the government and they "allow" us to keep some for our own use. They believe tax money belongs to them. They forget the we, the people ARE the government, and politicians are simply our employees. So when OUR money is used to build a road, the government takes credit for that road. But they could not have built it without us supplying the money. The reality is that WE built those roads.
/
Where Republicans & Democrats Agree
There are many things that both parties agree on. What they do not agree on is how to get there. And part of the reason for dysfunction is that Democrats refuse to believe Republicans have many of the same goals. To them, they think only they have ownership of those goals.
Both parties agree that all people should be able to have enough money to support themselves. Both agree that all Americans should have access to health care. And both parties agree that everyone should be able to retire and not end up in poverty.
So, where is the divide? Simply put, the Democrats believe it is the role of government to make all that happen, regardless of what the individual does or does not do to insure their own well-being. republicans believe that it is the responsibility of each individual to secure their own status, and the government should only provide a "safety net" for those who could not, through no fault of their own.
This does not include Social Security - that is not an entitlement. We pay into that, so the money we get out is our own. And that is the real key behind republican thought - YOU do what it takes to pay in. The government will oversee and protect it so you will have it at retirement. But ultimately, it is up to you to provide the money.
Democrats believe we should assure equality for everyone even if they refuse to work, or otherwise do anything for themselves. They actually believe the government should control the economy, top to bottom, then distribute equally. And though they cringe when someone says that is socialism, it is what it is.
Republicans believe the only task of government is to protect the nation from enemies and to uphold the Constitution. People should be free to pursue their dreams, without interference from government, so long as their pursuits do not harm anyone else.
In short, Republicans believe if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Democrats feel if you are not part of the solution, don't worry - we'll take care of you, anyway, because we believe that everyone should have the same.
What Democrats cannot comprehend - "equality" is not synonymous with "same". Two people with $100 means they each have the "same". But if one person worked 10 hours for his $100 and the other person had it handed to him by the government, that is not "equal". Nor is it fair.
/
Both parties agree that all people should be able to have enough money to support themselves. Both agree that all Americans should have access to health care. And both parties agree that everyone should be able to retire and not end up in poverty.
So, where is the divide? Simply put, the Democrats believe it is the role of government to make all that happen, regardless of what the individual does or does not do to insure their own well-being. republicans believe that it is the responsibility of each individual to secure their own status, and the government should only provide a "safety net" for those who could not, through no fault of their own.
This does not include Social Security - that is not an entitlement. We pay into that, so the money we get out is our own. And that is the real key behind republican thought - YOU do what it takes to pay in. The government will oversee and protect it so you will have it at retirement. But ultimately, it is up to you to provide the money.
Democrats believe we should assure equality for everyone even if they refuse to work, or otherwise do anything for themselves. They actually believe the government should control the economy, top to bottom, then distribute equally. And though they cringe when someone says that is socialism, it is what it is.
Republicans believe the only task of government is to protect the nation from enemies and to uphold the Constitution. People should be free to pursue their dreams, without interference from government, so long as their pursuits do not harm anyone else.
In short, Republicans believe if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Democrats feel if you are not part of the solution, don't worry - we'll take care of you, anyway, because we believe that everyone should have the same.
What Democrats cannot comprehend - "equality" is not synonymous with "same". Two people with $100 means they each have the "same". But if one person worked 10 hours for his $100 and the other person had it handed to him by the government, that is not "equal". Nor is it fair.
/
DNC Speakers - Who Are They, Really?
I remember the real Democrat party of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. For the most part they were honorable people, and they had everyone's respect. Not so much these days, where the party has been hijacked by the far-left. Here are some of the key speakers at the Democratic National Convention - I would have newfound respect for the party if they were to choose credible people representing mainstream values without spinning like a top (or outright lying):
Julian Castro - a LaRaza supporter, whose mother was a member of LaRaza. LaRaza's mission is to flood America with illegal immigrants, then use the power of numbers to secure U.S. citizen rights and citizenship.
Sandra Fluke - well-to-do Georgetown University graduate who wants taxpayers to pay for her sexual activities
Michelle Obama - who once said she was not proud of America for the first 44 years of her life. Now says "you can trust Barak to do what he says". Guess she forgot about Gitmo, or cutting the deficit in half...
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz - proven pathological prevaricator
Gov. Martin O'Malley - who said "No, we are not better off than 4 years ago", got taken to the Obama woodshed and three hours later said "Yes, we are better off"
Mayor Corey Booker - who said Bain Capital was a good company, was taken to the Obama woodshed and three hours later reversed himself
Senator Harry Reid - yeah, the clown who refuses to put any bill before the Senate for a vote, and has not passed a budget as required by law in three years. Lied about Romney not paying taxes.
Gov. Lincoln Chafee - socialist
Kathleen Sebelius - HHS Secretary who violates the First Amendment, and supported late term abortion for any ol' reason (protected Tiller)
Mayor Rahm Emanuel - no commentary necessary, if you know anything at all about Chicago Thug politics
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - Said "Republicans 'Can't Just Trot Out A Brown Face' - but Democrats can? Rubio is not JUST a brown face, nor is he a lowly mayor. Ditto with Susana Martinez. Dems believe if you are not Democrat you cannot be Hispanic, or black.
Gov Deval Patrick - has done more to destroy Massachusetts than anyone in history. Let's people use taxpayer-funded assistance to buy alcohol, drugs, cigarettes. "Sanctuary" governor
Elizabeth Warren - Lies about being Indian to get better jobs, is running against Scott Brown for Senate. She gave Obama the "You didn't build it" line.
President Jimmy Carter (via video) - Obama's hero. Presided over highest inflation, highest unemployment rate, highest gas prices and flubbed the Iran hostage situation. Carter's mom, Miss Lillian, had the biggest boobs in the country - Jimmy & Billy
President Bill Clinton - hates Obama, but wants to help Hillary for 2016. Good, Kennedy-style Democrat, but sullied the Oval Office
Former Gov Charlie Crist - first a Republican. Then Independent. Then Democrat. Running out of parties...
Arne Duncan - the lousy state of education in America says it all
Rep Barney Frank - Oversaw Fannie Mae, said it was "sound" just days before the meltdown. Then blamed Republicans.
Rep Luis Gutierrez - publicly wants open borders - c'mon in, terrorists! Welcome
International President SEIU, Mary Kay Henry - SEIU makes no secret about their socialist and communist associations
Eva Longoria - Really? What she understands about the economy and politics would fit in a thimble. But BO is a celebrity groupie
Mayor Thomas Menino - wanted to violate the Constitutional Rights of Chic Fil-A because of politics
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi - "You gotta pass the bill to find out what's in it." "The Constitution? Get serious"
President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund Cecile Richards - Seeks taxpayer funds for abortion, their biggest money-maker
AFL-CIO President Rich Trumpka - wealthy union leader responsible for bankrupting cities and states around the country with excessive pensions and benefits
Rep Chris Van Hollen - no one spins better than this guy. Except maybe Wasserman-Schultz
Joe Biden - Suffers badly from foot-in-mouth disease. Gaffe-Master
Barak Obama - "Bush did it". Presides over 43 months of unemployment over 8%, 16 million more people on food stamps, 1 in 6 Americans in poverty, decreased median income, downgrading of nation's credit, added over $5 trillion to debt, violates religious rights .....
/
Julian Castro - a LaRaza supporter, whose mother was a member of LaRaza. LaRaza's mission is to flood America with illegal immigrants, then use the power of numbers to secure U.S. citizen rights and citizenship.
Sandra Fluke - well-to-do Georgetown University graduate who wants taxpayers to pay for her sexual activities
Michelle Obama - who once said she was not proud of America for the first 44 years of her life. Now says "you can trust Barak to do what he says". Guess she forgot about Gitmo, or cutting the deficit in half...
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz - proven pathological prevaricator
Gov. Martin O'Malley - who said "No, we are not better off than 4 years ago", got taken to the Obama woodshed and three hours later said "Yes, we are better off"
Mayor Corey Booker - who said Bain Capital was a good company, was taken to the Obama woodshed and three hours later reversed himself
Senator Harry Reid - yeah, the clown who refuses to put any bill before the Senate for a vote, and has not passed a budget as required by law in three years. Lied about Romney not paying taxes.
Gov. Lincoln Chafee - socialist
Kathleen Sebelius - HHS Secretary who violates the First Amendment, and supported late term abortion for any ol' reason (protected Tiller)
Mayor Rahm Emanuel - no commentary necessary, if you know anything at all about Chicago Thug politics
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - Said "Republicans 'Can't Just Trot Out A Brown Face' - but Democrats can? Rubio is not JUST a brown face, nor is he a lowly mayor. Ditto with Susana Martinez. Dems believe if you are not Democrat you cannot be Hispanic, or black.
Gov Deval Patrick - has done more to destroy Massachusetts than anyone in history. Let's people use taxpayer-funded assistance to buy alcohol, drugs, cigarettes. "Sanctuary" governor
Elizabeth Warren - Lies about being Indian to get better jobs, is running against Scott Brown for Senate. She gave Obama the "You didn't build it" line.
President Jimmy Carter (via video) - Obama's hero. Presided over highest inflation, highest unemployment rate, highest gas prices and flubbed the Iran hostage situation. Carter's mom, Miss Lillian, had the biggest boobs in the country - Jimmy & Billy
President Bill Clinton - hates Obama, but wants to help Hillary for 2016. Good, Kennedy-style Democrat, but sullied the Oval Office
Former Gov Charlie Crist - first a Republican. Then Independent. Then Democrat. Running out of parties...
Arne Duncan - the lousy state of education in America says it all
Rep Barney Frank - Oversaw Fannie Mae, said it was "sound" just days before the meltdown. Then blamed Republicans.
Rep Luis Gutierrez - publicly wants open borders - c'mon in, terrorists! Welcome
International President SEIU, Mary Kay Henry - SEIU makes no secret about their socialist and communist associations
Eva Longoria - Really? What she understands about the economy and politics would fit in a thimble. But BO is a celebrity groupie
Mayor Thomas Menino - wanted to violate the Constitutional Rights of Chic Fil-A because of politics
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi - "You gotta pass the bill to find out what's in it." "The Constitution? Get serious"
President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund Cecile Richards - Seeks taxpayer funds for abortion, their biggest money-maker
AFL-CIO President Rich Trumpka - wealthy union leader responsible for bankrupting cities and states around the country with excessive pensions and benefits
Rep Chris Van Hollen - no one spins better than this guy. Except maybe Wasserman-Schultz
Joe Biden - Suffers badly from foot-in-mouth disease. Gaffe-Master
Barak Obama - "Bush did it". Presides over 43 months of unemployment over 8%, 16 million more people on food stamps, 1 in 6 Americans in poverty, decreased median income, downgrading of nation's credit, added over $5 trillion to debt, violates religious rights .....
/
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Central Theme of DNC - Unequal Opportunity In America
One thing I noticed throughout the first night of the Democratic Convention was a recurring theme centering around how America does not offer equal opportunity to all, and government needs to step in to provide that opportunity. Yet each and every one of them made it a point to tell their story of how they started out at the bottom and had to work their way up to where they are today.
So my question: If America is not a land of equal opportunity, how is it that all those poor minorities made it to the top of the food chain? If, as they say, the wealthy close the door of success behind them, how did Obama become president? How did Castro become Mayor? All these kids, born of poor immigrants, apparently found the "door" wide open.
And it is! Anyone can get to the top. But it takes desire, drive, ambition and work. The fact that 96% of the people are unwilling to put forth that kind of effort is not a reflection on America. It's a reflection on them.
One thing is certain - no matter how hard they try, government can never insert backbone into people. It cannot instill ambition or drive. Either the person has it, or they don't.
/
So my question: If America is not a land of equal opportunity, how is it that all those poor minorities made it to the top of the food chain? If, as they say, the wealthy close the door of success behind them, how did Obama become president? How did Castro become Mayor? All these kids, born of poor immigrants, apparently found the "door" wide open.
And it is! Anyone can get to the top. But it takes desire, drive, ambition and work. The fact that 96% of the people are unwilling to put forth that kind of effort is not a reflection on America. It's a reflection on them.
One thing is certain - no matter how hard they try, government can never insert backbone into people. It cannot instill ambition or drive. Either the person has it, or they don't.
/
Democrat Platform Revealed - And Now, Dissected...
The Democrats revealed their new platform. According to their written platform, Democrats have no qualms about violating our right to freedom of religion, or our right to bear arms, uninfringed. In fact, it seems that they have no issues with restricting any and all God-given rights that get in the way of their progressive agenda. And it is telling that for the first time, the Democrat platform has purposely removed any mention of God, or that Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel. As a public service, the rest of their new platform it is broken down here, in plain English, and without the deceptive meanings...
"Democrats know there is broad consensus to repair that [immigration] system and strengthen our economy, and that the country urgently needs comprehensive immigration reform that brings undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and requires them to get right with the law, learn English, and pay taxes in order to get on a path to earn citizenship."
[IN ENGLISH] Democrats want to provide illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship, even though they broke our laws to get here, broke our laws to remain here, and broke more laws to be able to work here. And this "getting ahead" of all those immigrants who are going through the immigration process legally. Yes, we need to reform immigration. But we should NEVER reward cheaters or lawbreakers..
"We will continue to stand up to Republicans working to take away the [ObamaCare] benefits and protections that are already helping millions of Americans every day. We refuse to go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your health policy, deny you coverage, or charge women more than men."
[IN ENGLISH] Here's reality - in the 2 years since ObamaCare was passed the number of insured people in America has DECREASED by 2%. And the 2700 pages of ObamaCare contains hundreds of regulations, many new taxes, and even a lot of stuff unrelated to health care. Republicans believe there are good parts to ObamaCare, like pre-existing conditions and not being able to cancel, but the vast majority of ObamaCare is bad law. Republicans would keep the good stuff and dump the other 2,699 pages. And get this - lawyers have already crafted an additional 13,000 pages of regulations to insure enforcement of all the various new entities formed by ObamaCare.
"The Republican budget plan would end Medicare as we know it. Democrats adamantly oppose any efforts to privatize or voucherize Medicare..."
[IN ENGLISH] The party appears undeterred by fact-checkers who claim it's unfair to say Republicans will end the program as it's currently conceived. And the Democrats insist on saying it is a "voucher program" - it is not. If Democrats do not want to privatize, or subsidize, or alter Medicare, keeping it "as we know it", it will be bankrupt in 12 years, and then no one will have it. But that seems to be what they want to do.
"Democrats believe that the right to organize and collectively bargain is a fundamental American value."
[IN ENGLISH] We know that it is "collective bargaining" that is responsible for cities and states going bust. But Democrats, needing all those union votes and union $$$ insist on maintaining it, no matter what the cost to America. Republicans generally believe that unions should protect workers from being screwed over, but should not be permitted to bully companies to get excessive benefits that ordinary workers do not get and that increase the cost of American made products, making us less competitive.
"Democrats will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers.We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way"
[IN ENGLISH] While they claim abortion is "an intensely personal decision", the Democrats want taxpayers to pay for them - even if it violates their First Amendment rights to the freedom to practice their religion, which may adamantly oppose abortion. Democrats support both the right to choose and the funding of providers of abortion. The majority of the income of Planned Parenthood comes from abortion.
"We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference."
[IN ENGLISH] In other words, they plan on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), then force churches to perform same-sex marriages (a violation of separation of church and state), but allow religious entities to decide how to administer those marriages. In case they have not heard, the government has no right or authority to "allow" churches to do anything, or to force them to do anything that violates their tenets.
"We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation."
[IN ENGLISH] regulation = gun control. The Second Amendment is clear on this, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Any regulation is an infringement on the right. What is it about the phrase "shall not be infringed" that Democrats do not comprehend? Do we need to buy them a dictionary?
Frankly, I think they would have been better off to just make their platform "Sex, drugs & Rock-n-Roll". After all, half their platform is about sex (abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage), they want to legalize drugs (though they don't say it in so many words) and all their fundraising friends are celebrities and rock stars.
/
"Democrats know there is broad consensus to repair that [immigration] system and strengthen our economy, and that the country urgently needs comprehensive immigration reform that brings undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and requires them to get right with the law, learn English, and pay taxes in order to get on a path to earn citizenship."
[IN ENGLISH] Democrats want to provide illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship, even though they broke our laws to get here, broke our laws to remain here, and broke more laws to be able to work here. And this "getting ahead" of all those immigrants who are going through the immigration process legally. Yes, we need to reform immigration. But we should NEVER reward cheaters or lawbreakers..
"We will continue to stand up to Republicans working to take away the [ObamaCare] benefits and protections that are already helping millions of Americans every day. We refuse to go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your health policy, deny you coverage, or charge women more than men."
[IN ENGLISH] Here's reality - in the 2 years since ObamaCare was passed the number of insured people in America has DECREASED by 2%. And the 2700 pages of ObamaCare contains hundreds of regulations, many new taxes, and even a lot of stuff unrelated to health care. Republicans believe there are good parts to ObamaCare, like pre-existing conditions and not being able to cancel, but the vast majority of ObamaCare is bad law. Republicans would keep the good stuff and dump the other 2,699 pages. And get this - lawyers have already crafted an additional 13,000 pages of regulations to insure enforcement of all the various new entities formed by ObamaCare.
"The Republican budget plan would end Medicare as we know it. Democrats adamantly oppose any efforts to privatize or voucherize Medicare..."
[IN ENGLISH] The party appears undeterred by fact-checkers who claim it's unfair to say Republicans will end the program as it's currently conceived. And the Democrats insist on saying it is a "voucher program" - it is not. If Democrats do not want to privatize, or subsidize, or alter Medicare, keeping it "as we know it", it will be bankrupt in 12 years, and then no one will have it. But that seems to be what they want to do.
"Democrats believe that the right to organize and collectively bargain is a fundamental American value."
[IN ENGLISH] We know that it is "collective bargaining" that is responsible for cities and states going bust. But Democrats, needing all those union votes and union $$$ insist on maintaining it, no matter what the cost to America. Republicans generally believe that unions should protect workers from being screwed over, but should not be permitted to bully companies to get excessive benefits that ordinary workers do not get and that increase the cost of American made products, making us less competitive.
"Democrats will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers.We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way"
[IN ENGLISH] While they claim abortion is "an intensely personal decision", the Democrats want taxpayers to pay for them - even if it violates their First Amendment rights to the freedom to practice their religion, which may adamantly oppose abortion. Democrats support both the right to choose and the funding of providers of abortion. The majority of the income of Planned Parenthood comes from abortion.
"We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference."
[IN ENGLISH] In other words, they plan on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), then force churches to perform same-sex marriages (a violation of separation of church and state), but allow religious entities to decide how to administer those marriages. In case they have not heard, the government has no right or authority to "allow" churches to do anything, or to force them to do anything that violates their tenets.
"We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation."
[IN ENGLISH] regulation = gun control. The Second Amendment is clear on this, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Any regulation is an infringement on the right. What is it about the phrase "shall not be infringed" that Democrats do not comprehend? Do we need to buy them a dictionary?
Frankly, I think they would have been better off to just make their platform "Sex, drugs & Rock-n-Roll". After all, half their platform is about sex (abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage), they want to legalize drugs (though they don't say it in so many words) and all their fundraising friends are celebrities and rock stars.
/
Madeleine Albright - Senility in Action?
The following is my "Eastwooding" of a conversation with Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton:
Albright: "I'm not sure I'm going to state this exactly right," she said, sitting in a setting of convention-related activity in downtown Charlotte. "But I think there are some [Republicans] who believe they are actually protecting women, you know, and that it is better for women to be taken care of.
Me: I guess Ms Albright is losing some of her mental capacity. Everyone knows - and the Democratic Convention speakers will bear this out - that it is the Democrat party that believes women should only be concerned with contraception and abortion. In fact, the DNC chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz made it a point to say prominent Republican women like Condi Rice are nothing more than "shiny packaging." So, it is Democrats who believe "women need to be taken care of." In fact, it was the Obama camp that came up with the now infamous "Life of Julia" on the Obama website, which depicted women as needing government help and support from birth to death. Talk about having to be taken care of!
Albright: "I think women want to take care of themselves, and I think having a voice in how that is done is very important."
Me: Judging from the success of Republican women like Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Condi Rice and a host of others, it would seem that Republicans are the ones who treat women as whole persons, and not just beings that are only concerned with contraception and abortion who need government help from the womb to the grave, like Obama's "Julia".
Albright: "And frankly, I don’t understand -- I mean, I'm obviously a card-carrying Democrat"
Me: Obviously
Albright: "but I can't understand why any woman would want to vote for Mitt Romney, except maybe Mrs. Romney."
Me: There is apparently a whole lot more that you don't understand, Ms Albright...Are you not aware that both women and minorities have been hurt the most by Obama's policies, that they have been disproprtionately victimized with higher-than-average unemployment?
The people on left say that Romney failed to speak out in support equal pay for women, but the truth is actually quite different. After all, no person will ever speak out on every issue. That does not mean he does or does not support an issue - there are just too many bigger issues to address right now. But the actions of Democrats speak volumes, and only go to prove it is Democrats that do not support equal pay for women - for example, the record shows that Namcy Pelosi's female staffers are paid 20% less than the male staffers. Now THAT is proof that Democrats do not support equal pay for women, and further proof that they do not respect them as whole and equal.
/.
Albright: "I'm not sure I'm going to state this exactly right," she said, sitting in a setting of convention-related activity in downtown Charlotte. "But I think there are some [Republicans] who believe they are actually protecting women, you know, and that it is better for women to be taken care of.
Me: I guess Ms Albright is losing some of her mental capacity. Everyone knows - and the Democratic Convention speakers will bear this out - that it is the Democrat party that believes women should only be concerned with contraception and abortion. In fact, the DNC chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz made it a point to say prominent Republican women like Condi Rice are nothing more than "shiny packaging." So, it is Democrats who believe "women need to be taken care of." In fact, it was the Obama camp that came up with the now infamous "Life of Julia" on the Obama website, which depicted women as needing government help and support from birth to death. Talk about having to be taken care of!
Albright: "I think women want to take care of themselves, and I think having a voice in how that is done is very important."
Me: Judging from the success of Republican women like Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Condi Rice and a host of others, it would seem that Republicans are the ones who treat women as whole persons, and not just beings that are only concerned with contraception and abortion who need government help from the womb to the grave, like Obama's "Julia".
Albright: "And frankly, I don’t understand -- I mean, I'm obviously a card-carrying Democrat"
Me: Obviously
Albright: "but I can't understand why any woman would want to vote for Mitt Romney, except maybe Mrs. Romney."
Me: There is apparently a whole lot more that you don't understand, Ms Albright...Are you not aware that both women and minorities have been hurt the most by Obama's policies, that they have been disproprtionately victimized with higher-than-average unemployment?
The people on left say that Romney failed to speak out in support equal pay for women, but the truth is actually quite different. After all, no person will ever speak out on every issue. That does not mean he does or does not support an issue - there are just too many bigger issues to address right now. But the actions of Democrats speak volumes, and only go to prove it is Democrats that do not support equal pay for women - for example, the record shows that Namcy Pelosi's female staffers are paid 20% less than the male staffers. Now THAT is proof that Democrats do not support equal pay for women, and further proof that they do not respect them as whole and equal.
/.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Barak Obama in '94 - Responsible For The Financial Meltdown
Anyone who kept up with the news is aware that the major cause of the financial meltdown was caused by worthless mortgages issued to people who simply were not capable of paying for the homes they bought. But what many people do NOT know is that those mortgages were created thanks to Barak Obama.
As detailed in the American Thinker, Obama represented ACORN in a 1994 suit against redlining. In other words, banks would not issue mortgages to poor people or minorities living in a "redline" district. ACORN was also a driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton administration that greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act and helped spawn the current financial crisis by forcing banks to issue mortgages to people who could not afford them.
Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. In a speech to Acorn Obama said, “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career.” Indeed he has. Obama was and is fully aware of what ACORN was doing with the money and expertise he provided. He was the attorney representing ACORN in the lawsuit against Citibank that eventually resulted in the financial meltdown.
Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
The parties involved were:
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500
FH-IL-0011-7501
FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500
FH-IL-0011-7501
FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500
FH-IL-0011-7501
FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500
FH-IL-0011-7501
FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500
FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500
FH-IL-0011-7501
FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”
The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”
In short, Obama sued the banks and forced an end to redlining. Clinton and Reno pushed it to the hilt, insuring every poor person the chance for home ownership. These risky mortgages forced lenders to bundle them into the now infamous "derivatives" and sold to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. The mortgages did not get paid, resulting in the meltdown that we are still suffering from.
And then what did America do? The attorney who was responsible for the meltdown was elected President of the United States to "fix" the problem.
Recently, Obama stated in yet another speech that "We tried our plan and it worked." And he's correct - his plan DID work. His plan, according to what he has done over the last three decades and what he promised to do ("fundamentally change Amerca") was to destroy capitalism and free markets so a quasi-socialist nanny state could take over. And his plan IS working.
If you need proof, since Obama was inaugurated:
* the unemployment rate jumped from 7.2% to 8.3 %, and has stayed above 8% his entire term of office - his plan "is working"
* the median income in America dropped from $58,000 to $54,000 - his plan "is working"
* the national debt has increased a whopping 51%, from $10 trillion to $16 trillion - his plan "is working"
* gasoline went from $1.85 to nearly $4.00 a gallon - his plan "is working".
Barak Obama desperately wants to finish what he started decades ago. If America re-elects him, then we deserve to lose the American Way of Life. And we will.
/
As detailed in the American Thinker, Obama represented ACORN in a 1994 suit against redlining. In other words, banks would not issue mortgages to poor people or minorities living in a "redline" district. ACORN was also a driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton administration that greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act and helped spawn the current financial crisis by forcing banks to issue mortgages to people who could not afford them.
Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. In a speech to Acorn Obama said, “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career.” Indeed he has. Obama was and is fully aware of what ACORN was doing with the money and expertise he provided. He was the attorney representing ACORN in the lawsuit against Citibank that eventually resulted in the financial meltdown.
Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
The parties involved were:
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500
FH-IL-0011-7501
FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500
FH-IL-0011-7501
FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500
FH-IL-0011-7501
FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500
FH-IL-0011-7501
FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500
FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500
FH-IL-0011-7501
FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”
The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”
In short, Obama sued the banks and forced an end to redlining. Clinton and Reno pushed it to the hilt, insuring every poor person the chance for home ownership. These risky mortgages forced lenders to bundle them into the now infamous "derivatives" and sold to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. The mortgages did not get paid, resulting in the meltdown that we are still suffering from.
And then what did America do? The attorney who was responsible for the meltdown was elected President of the United States to "fix" the problem.
Recently, Obama stated in yet another speech that "We tried our plan and it worked." And he's correct - his plan DID work. His plan, according to what he has done over the last three decades and what he promised to do ("fundamentally change Amerca") was to destroy capitalism and free markets so a quasi-socialist nanny state could take over. And his plan IS working.
If you need proof, since Obama was inaugurated:
* the unemployment rate jumped from 7.2% to 8.3 %, and has stayed above 8% his entire term of office - his plan "is working"
* the median income in America dropped from $58,000 to $54,000 - his plan "is working"
* the national debt has increased a whopping 51%, from $10 trillion to $16 trillion - his plan "is working"
* gasoline went from $1.85 to nearly $4.00 a gallon - his plan "is working".
Barak Obama desperately wants to finish what he started decades ago. If America re-elects him, then we deserve to lose the American Way of Life. And we will.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)