It is truly amazing how liberals can look you right in the eye and blatantly lie without blinking an eye. The only thing more amazing is how many idiot lemmings actually BELIEVE the lies.
Here is just one example:
The Democrats keep saying that under Romney, MA was 47th in the nation for job growth. But Fact Checkers proved that while it was 47th when Romney became governor, by the end of his term it had moved up to 32nd. And the ONLY reason it was still so low in job creation was simply because everyone already had a job - you cannot create jobs for people that do not exist. Under Romney, the unemploymant rate was at a historic low of 4.2% - the lowest in the nation.
But the facts do not stop liberals like the following clown from pushing the false narrative. This guy posted the following:
Sensei Dave
"I researched Mass. and the same rehtoric was used and he destroyed the state and it ended up 47 in the nation."
Looks like the "Sensei" needs to learn that reading Huffington Post or listening to liberal talking points does not constitute "research".
I spend a lot of time researching facts. I also spend a lot of time reading what "Joe Citizen", like Sensei Dave, has to say. And one thing that stands out is how dedicated liberals seem to be in proliferating lies, and do so in spite of the facts.
And that is straight out of the books by Lenin, Hitler and Alinski.
/
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Saturday, October 20, 2012
College Debt - How To Eliminate It
College is expensive, and growing more so every year. The exhorbitant price results in students being drowned in debt - ahn average of $26,000 per student, with many students owing over $100,000. The insanity has to stop.
I have a solution (natch).
The government could very easily set up an online university that offers courses and curricula at cost - the actual cost to run the online university, which would be only a tiny fraction of the cost of a "brick & mortar" institution. Currently, many colleges and universities do have online studies available, but they charge the same high cost as if you were taking up space in their classrooms. And that is nothing short of legal larceny.
So, the government sets up and operates an online university that provides very low cost education in all the general courses, such as English, the mathematical sciences, history and all those pain-in-the-butt courses that are not really relevant, but are required for graduation. The only courses the government university would not offer are those that are specialized (i.e. medicine, law etc.) and those that require lab time. For those courses, the student would still need to go to the college and pay for those courses.
Ultimately, the cost of a college education could be cut by as much as 80% in this manner. And since students could study at their convenience, they could set their schedule around their job, so they could save to pay for the on-site classes at the college.
Frankly, there is little reason why a student could not get a 2 year Associates Degree or even a 4 year Bachelor's degree strictly online, at almost no cost at all. Then universities could concentrate on advanced degree programs, such as a Masters, medicine and law.
Of course, colleges and universities would scream bloody murder, but so what? What is more important - a bunch of liberal professors earning $200K per year, or the education of every child who wants an education?
/
I have a solution (natch).
The government could very easily set up an online university that offers courses and curricula at cost - the actual cost to run the online university, which would be only a tiny fraction of the cost of a "brick & mortar" institution. Currently, many colleges and universities do have online studies available, but they charge the same high cost as if you were taking up space in their classrooms. And that is nothing short of legal larceny.
So, the government sets up and operates an online university that provides very low cost education in all the general courses, such as English, the mathematical sciences, history and all those pain-in-the-butt courses that are not really relevant, but are required for graduation. The only courses the government university would not offer are those that are specialized (i.e. medicine, law etc.) and those that require lab time. For those courses, the student would still need to go to the college and pay for those courses.
Ultimately, the cost of a college education could be cut by as much as 80% in this manner. And since students could study at their convenience, they could set their schedule around their job, so they could save to pay for the on-site classes at the college.
Frankly, there is little reason why a student could not get a 2 year Associates Degree or even a 4 year Bachelor's degree strictly online, at almost no cost at all. Then universities could concentrate on advanced degree programs, such as a Masters, medicine and law.
Of course, colleges and universities would scream bloody murder, but so what? What is more important - a bunch of liberal professors earning $200K per year, or the education of every child who wants an education?
/
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Guns & Voter I.D.
What do Voter I.D. laws and guns have in common?
In Cooks County Illinois the liberal politicians now want to impose a "violence tax" on guns and ammunition. Setting aside the fact that only a small amount of violence is gun related, you gotta wonder about the deceptive duplicitousness of liberals.
The right to bear arms is a true right, not to be infringed. If something is a right, you cannot be charged any fee to exercise that right. Fees, not affordable to all, make it a privilege, not a right. But now we have to try and understand how it is that liberals think it is Constitutional to attach fees and regulations to make it difficult to exercise the right to bear arms, but it is unconstitutional to to add regulations to the right to vote, via voter I.D. laws.
Liberals complain that since voting is a right, it is unconstitutional to make voting more difficult by forcing folks to have I.D. (which almost every citizen already has). But then those same liberals go out and restrict the right to bear arms by requiring hard-to-get permits, and impose additional taxes on them, making it more difficult to own guns.
I have to ask the liberals - if it is wrong to require citizens to have I.D. to vote, then why is it not wrong to require citizens to get permits and pay fees to own a gun? After all, both are Constitutional rights, not to be infringed.
One more time, for the benefit of liberals too stupid to get it - a RIGHT cannot be taken or infringed, nor can it be licensed or require a fee. If you can charge a fee, or impose restrictions, then some people will be denied the right, and therefore it is not a right at all.
As for Voter I.D., that does not impose restrictions nor does it require any fee a citizen would not pay anyway. You would be hard pressed to find any legal citizen who does not have I.D., and most states will provide I.D. for voter purposes at no charge.
Show me any citizen who has/does none of these...
So, my liberal friends, if a person is a citizen of the United States they have I.D. - and if they do not do any of those things, then they wouldn't vote, either, so you have no business complaining about voter I.D. "restrictions" while you actively restrict all other rights.
It's high time to get a reality check, folks. Liberals are stealing our rights by turning the Constitution upside down for their purposes. It's time we put a stop to it. And the best way to do that is to have Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. And to do that, we need a Republican Senate and President, because the next president will likely appoint at least 2 justices.
Can you imagine the destruction of the American way of life for the next 50 years if those new justices are liberal?
/
In Cooks County Illinois the liberal politicians now want to impose a "violence tax" on guns and ammunition. Setting aside the fact that only a small amount of violence is gun related, you gotta wonder about the deceptive duplicitousness of liberals.
The right to bear arms is a true right, not to be infringed. If something is a right, you cannot be charged any fee to exercise that right. Fees, not affordable to all, make it a privilege, not a right. But now we have to try and understand how it is that liberals think it is Constitutional to attach fees and regulations to make it difficult to exercise the right to bear arms, but it is unconstitutional to to add regulations to the right to vote, via voter I.D. laws.
Liberals complain that since voting is a right, it is unconstitutional to make voting more difficult by forcing folks to have I.D. (which almost every citizen already has). But then those same liberals go out and restrict the right to bear arms by requiring hard-to-get permits, and impose additional taxes on them, making it more difficult to own guns.
I have to ask the liberals - if it is wrong to require citizens to have I.D. to vote, then why is it not wrong to require citizens to get permits and pay fees to own a gun? After all, both are Constitutional rights, not to be infringed.
One more time, for the benefit of liberals too stupid to get it - a RIGHT cannot be taken or infringed, nor can it be licensed or require a fee. If you can charge a fee, or impose restrictions, then some people will be denied the right, and therefore it is not a right at all.
As for Voter I.D., that does not impose restrictions nor does it require any fee a citizen would not pay anyway. You would be hard pressed to find any legal citizen who does not have I.D., and most states will provide I.D. for voter purposes at no charge.
Show me any citizen who has/does none of these...
- has never been married
- has no job, nor collects any welfare or government assistance
- never buys alcohol
- never buys cigarettes
- never gets on a plane
- never uses a hotel
- never cashes a check
- does not have a bank account
- does not drive a motor vehicle
So, my liberal friends, if a person is a citizen of the United States they have I.D. - and if they do not do any of those things, then they wouldn't vote, either, so you have no business complaining about voter I.D. "restrictions" while you actively restrict all other rights.
- You restrict the right to bear arms
- You restrict the right to practice our religions how and WHERE we see fit
- You authorize the use of drones to conduct illegal searches on Americans
- You conduct illegal searches on the internet
- You restrict the right to free speech by shutting down those who oppose you
It's high time to get a reality check, folks. Liberals are stealing our rights by turning the Constitution upside down for their purposes. It's time we put a stop to it. And the best way to do that is to have Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. And to do that, we need a Republican Senate and President, because the next president will likely appoint at least 2 justices.
Can you imagine the destruction of the American way of life for the next 50 years if those new justices are liberal?
/
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Armando Montelongo's Real Estate Course
As a real estate investor and mentor, I get a lot of emails asking for information on the "infomercial real estate gurus". I even helped IntelliBiz put up a site that provides reviews of the better known gurus, to help folks do their due diligence. But I still get the emails.
Of all the gurus, the one most people want an accurate review of is Armando Montelongo.
Mr. Montelongo was once the star of the A&E series, "Flip this house". The series would showcase how they would buy a home in need of rehabbing, fix it up, then resell it for a profit. Quite interesting. But the problem lies in the simple fact that in most cases, the show paid nearly full value (to insure getting the project house), and the profit might not have been NET profit. And you should understand that Armando Montelongo & crew had the financial backing of A&E. The average investor cannot compete with a corporation who can get huge discounts by paying cash up front.
Now, Armando has moved on and is promoting his own real estate course, seminars and training - all at a very high price. The problem: the people he teaches do not have Montelongo's money or other resources. If you did, you would not need his program.
And that is pretty much the story with most of the "infomercial gurus". They all charge an arm and a leg (except for the IntelliBiz course, "The Simple Man's Guide to Real Estate") and their "mentors" are not real investors - they are telephone operators ("The Simple Man's Guide to Real Estate" includes FREE mentoring by actual investors).
As for Mr. Montelongo, Joe Covert writes, "I have some info on Armando Montelongo. His hard money lender foreclosed on 27 houses he owned in April 2007. Also, he overpays for his houses. One time he was competing against me for a repo I tried buying. Instead of bidding low, he offered full price, which made no sense to me. Later this house was one of the 27 he was not able to sell, I assume because he paid too much for it and tried selling it for quite a bit more than retail. I've been flipping in San Antonio for ten+ years and he never seemed genuine to me. Rather he seems like someone who attended a real estate seminar and upon graduation became an "expert"."
That said, everyonre has to do their own due diligence and if determined to learn real estate investing, must eventually make a choice.
Choose well, my friend.
/
Of all the gurus, the one most people want an accurate review of is Armando Montelongo.
Mr. Montelongo was once the star of the A&E series, "Flip this house". The series would showcase how they would buy a home in need of rehabbing, fix it up, then resell it for a profit. Quite interesting. But the problem lies in the simple fact that in most cases, the show paid nearly full value (to insure getting the project house), and the profit might not have been NET profit. And you should understand that Armando Montelongo & crew had the financial backing of A&E. The average investor cannot compete with a corporation who can get huge discounts by paying cash up front.
Now, Armando has moved on and is promoting his own real estate course, seminars and training - all at a very high price. The problem: the people he teaches do not have Montelongo's money or other resources. If you did, you would not need his program.
And that is pretty much the story with most of the "infomercial gurus". They all charge an arm and a leg (except for the IntelliBiz course, "The Simple Man's Guide to Real Estate") and their "mentors" are not real investors - they are telephone operators ("The Simple Man's Guide to Real Estate" includes FREE mentoring by actual investors).
As for Mr. Montelongo, Joe Covert writes, "I have some info on Armando Montelongo. His hard money lender foreclosed on 27 houses he owned in April 2007. Also, he overpays for his houses. One time he was competing against me for a repo I tried buying. Instead of bidding low, he offered full price, which made no sense to me. Later this house was one of the 27 he was not able to sell, I assume because he paid too much for it and tried selling it for quite a bit more than retail. I've been flipping in San Antonio for ten+ years and he never seemed genuine to me. Rather he seems like someone who attended a real estate seminar and upon graduation became an "expert"."
That said, everyonre has to do their own due diligence and if determined to learn real estate investing, must eventually make a choice.
Choose well, my friend.
/
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Truth About "Pro-Choice"
OK, it's time someone gets to the truth about the liberal mantra about "pro-choice". It has NOTHING to do with choice!
It's all about abortion, and if they were honest they would say they are pro-abortion, not pro-choice, because the LAST thing they really want is "choice."
As evidence, just tell a "pro-choice" person that YOUR "choice" is pro-life. They will tell you that you are anti-women's rights, or anti-choice - even though pro-life IS YOUR CHOICE!
No, they do not want choice at all, unless it is THEIR choice. And that is not choice. In order to constitute a choice, there needs to be more than one option. But liberals do not offer options - it's abortion, period.
So, the next time some liberal tries to tell you they are pro-choice, please correct them and tell them they are NOT pro-choice, because they do not allow a choice. Tell them to just be honest and call themselves what they are - pro-abortion, or anti-life. But one thing they are not is "pro-choice".
And, by the way, it is those same liberals who force other "choices" upon us. They took away our choice to NOT wear seat belts. They stole our choice to buy a 20 ounce soft drink in New York, or to have salt on the table. They have taken away food choices at school. They take away the choice to smoke cigarettes in public, but encourage the legalization of pot. For people who claim to be all about choice, it is evident the only choices they will permit are THEIR choices.
And that is no choice at all.
/
It's all about abortion, and if they were honest they would say they are pro-abortion, not pro-choice, because the LAST thing they really want is "choice."
As evidence, just tell a "pro-choice" person that YOUR "choice" is pro-life. They will tell you that you are anti-women's rights, or anti-choice - even though pro-life IS YOUR CHOICE!
No, they do not want choice at all, unless it is THEIR choice. And that is not choice. In order to constitute a choice, there needs to be more than one option. But liberals do not offer options - it's abortion, period.
So, the next time some liberal tries to tell you they are pro-choice, please correct them and tell them they are NOT pro-choice, because they do not allow a choice. Tell them to just be honest and call themselves what they are - pro-abortion, or anti-life. But one thing they are not is "pro-choice".
And, by the way, it is those same liberals who force other "choices" upon us. They took away our choice to NOT wear seat belts. They stole our choice to buy a 20 ounce soft drink in New York, or to have salt on the table. They have taken away food choices at school. They take away the choice to smoke cigarettes in public, but encourage the legalization of pot. For people who claim to be all about choice, it is evident the only choices they will permit are THEIR choices.
And that is no choice at all.
/
Friday, October 5, 2012
Obama's Plan - The One Man Debate
A lot of folks on both sides are perplexed about Obama's performance in his first debate with Romney. I'm not.
And it has nothing to do with Gore's assertion it's the altitude, or the suggestion that he was distracted by something going on elsewhere that we do not yet know about.
It's all about Obama deciding that the only way he can defend his positions, and get away with misleadin statements about Romney is to simply hold a One Man Debate. A debate where Romney is not present to dispute Obama or make him look to be the incompetent fool that he is.
During the debate, when Romney pointed out the idiocy of Obama's policies, Obama actually stood there, mum. Not a peep. But the very next day, when Romney was not present, Obama once again made his misleading claims, and once again attacked Romney and made untrue claims about Romney's policies. There is no one there to dispute him.
It seems Obama only wants to debate issues when he is the only one in the debate. That way, he can get away with speading the bull and misleading his lemmings.
/
And it has nothing to do with Gore's assertion it's the altitude, or the suggestion that he was distracted by something going on elsewhere that we do not yet know about.
It's all about Obama deciding that the only way he can defend his positions, and get away with misleadin statements about Romney is to simply hold a One Man Debate. A debate where Romney is not present to dispute Obama or make him look to be the incompetent fool that he is.
During the debate, when Romney pointed out the idiocy of Obama's policies, Obama actually stood there, mum. Not a peep. But the very next day, when Romney was not present, Obama once again made his misleading claims, and once again attacked Romney and made untrue claims about Romney's policies. There is no one there to dispute him.
It seems Obama only wants to debate issues when he is the only one in the debate. That way, he can get away with speading the bull and misleading his lemmings.
/
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Why Would WH Buy A Prison In Illinois?
The White House is planning to buy the Thompson Correctional Facility in Illinois for $155 million taxpayer bucks. A lesser question is - how do they go about by-passing Congress (again), since only the House of Representatives can allocate funding and have not done so? But the REAL question is WHY does this administration want that prison?
Since federal law prohibits Gitmo terrorist detainees from being kept on American soil, and people who are convicted of federal crimes go to federal prisons, why is the administration buying this facility? What would be its purpose?
Frankly, it makes no sense - unless Obama is planning something so outlandish that the American people simply would not believe it.
We have seen the angry, hateful liberals in the streets with the Occupy bunch, along with violent anarchists.We have seen Obama fire up the "99%" with his class warfare. And we have seen Obama by-pass Congress over and over again, in direct violation of the Constitution. And we know his plan to have the power to shut down all communications - even the internet - so we, the People could not organize.
Is it possible that the administration is laying the groundwork for a coup in the event he loses in November? I'm not saying that is likely - but it IS possible. He still controls the military. He could shut down communications. And he could authorize the detention of anyone who opposes him, and call that person a domestic terrorist under the very outline provided by Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano. In her memo, she listed all the groups that bear watching as potential terrorists, including our own soldiers.
In such an event, Obama would certainly need a facility such as Thompson Correctional Facility. It would be the American "Bastille". And this would be America's "French Revolution", where the liberals and anarchists took over, and "eliminated" all who opposed the authority. It was a busy time for the guillotine.
No, this is not a "conspiracy theory", because it is unlikely. But the purchase of this prison is certainly cause for concern, and a reason to be asking serious questions.
/
Since federal law prohibits Gitmo terrorist detainees from being kept on American soil, and people who are convicted of federal crimes go to federal prisons, why is the administration buying this facility? What would be its purpose?
Frankly, it makes no sense - unless Obama is planning something so outlandish that the American people simply would not believe it.
We have seen the angry, hateful liberals in the streets with the Occupy bunch, along with violent anarchists.We have seen Obama fire up the "99%" with his class warfare. And we have seen Obama by-pass Congress over and over again, in direct violation of the Constitution. And we know his plan to have the power to shut down all communications - even the internet - so we, the People could not organize.
Is it possible that the administration is laying the groundwork for a coup in the event he loses in November? I'm not saying that is likely - but it IS possible. He still controls the military. He could shut down communications. And he could authorize the detention of anyone who opposes him, and call that person a domestic terrorist under the very outline provided by Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano. In her memo, she listed all the groups that bear watching as potential terrorists, including our own soldiers.
In such an event, Obama would certainly need a facility such as Thompson Correctional Facility. It would be the American "Bastille". And this would be America's "French Revolution", where the liberals and anarchists took over, and "eliminated" all who opposed the authority. It was a busy time for the guillotine.
No, this is not a "conspiracy theory", because it is unlikely. But the purchase of this prison is certainly cause for concern, and a reason to be asking serious questions.
/
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
New Liberal Attack on Col. Allen West (R-FL)
I find this particular story truly amazing, in that it points out to any OBSERVANT person exactly how the far-left lunatics like to eviscerate any conservative who tells the truth.
West said last year that "Planned Parenthood women" are "neutering American men" and voted to defund the women's health group, then generated more controversy when he called Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) "vile," "despicable," and "not a lady."
While I can see why those things would curl the hair of any liberal, the fact remains that all of that is 100% true, and there is adequate proof. For example, Wasserman-Schultz was caught both on audio and video four times in the last few months telling abject, outright lies about another person - and then lying about telling the lies. Any way you cut it, that is vile, despicable, and proves she is no lady. So liberals are not objecting to the FACT that Wasserman-Shultz is a pathological liar. No, they are objecting to someone pointing it out.
The point: it has nothing to do with what a conservative says, and everything to do with how the left will twist the truth so out of shape that it looks like something it is not.
If liberals cannot tolerate the truth because it hurts, then maybe that should be evidence to them that they are what I like to call - WRONG!
/
West said last year that "Planned Parenthood women" are "neutering American men" and voted to defund the women's health group, then generated more controversy when he called Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) "vile," "despicable," and "not a lady."
While I can see why those things would curl the hair of any liberal, the fact remains that all of that is 100% true, and there is adequate proof. For example, Wasserman-Schultz was caught both on audio and video four times in the last few months telling abject, outright lies about another person - and then lying about telling the lies. Any way you cut it, that is vile, despicable, and proves she is no lady. So liberals are not objecting to the FACT that Wasserman-Shultz is a pathological liar. No, they are objecting to someone pointing it out.
The point: it has nothing to do with what a conservative says, and everything to do with how the left will twist the truth so out of shape that it looks like something it is not.
If liberals cannot tolerate the truth because it hurts, then maybe that should be evidence to them that they are what I like to call - WRONG!
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)