Bill's Watching

Smart Meters

2010-12-08T18:02:00.000-08:00

As many of you know, CMP has begun installing "smart meters" on homes to which they provide power. Currently, they are doing it whether you want it or not, like it or not. They apparently have no respect for your property being yours, not theirs.

But here is the real issue --- while they claim the smart meters are used to make your electrical usage "more efficient", that is nothing more than a slick way of saying they will now be able to limit the amount of power that goes to your home, if they or the government feel you are using too much. Electricity police.

The government under Obama/Pelosi/Reid already passed a bill in the "stimulus bill" that allows them to do just that. They now have the power to decide for you just how much electricity you need, and when you may access it. That was the ONLY purpose behind Obama's "smart grid". It has nothing to do with efficiency - it has everything to do with regulation and control; an integral part of his Cap & Trade dream.

Residents of Maine need to stand and tell the PUC to give residents the choice of opting out of a smart meter. And CMP should be forced, by injunction if necessary, to halt installations until such time as the PUC makes a determination and, if necessary, the people appeal to the courts.

For the moment, this is still America, which is supposed to be a free country. But every time the government or some bureaucratic agency takes a breath, we lose freedoms.

The Constitution was written to help us protect our rights and freedoms by insuring that the people control government, not vice versa. But as of today, government now controls insurance companies, auto manufacturers, our health care, much of our food supply, our schools, and now our electricity usage (and on December 20th the FCC plans to take control of the internet). So, tell me - what freedoms DO we still have left? In what manner do we control the government? And don't say "voting", because many of the agencies passing these regulations such as the EPA, FCC, FDA etc. are not even elected to office - they are dictatorial and can even bypass Congress.

Something needs to change. We need to draw a line in the sand. And in Maine, I think this is that line.

/

An Easy Prediction For 2012

2010-12-02T19:49:00.001-08:00

If you read this blog regularly you are aware I tend to make a lot of predictions on a variety of topics - and have a very high accuracy rate. Well, I will now make the easiest prediction I have ever made.

For the 2012 elections, watch for Democrats in a LOT of states to put legalizing pot, gay rights issues and environmental issues on state ballots across the nation. But don't think for a minute that those referendum questions are intended to legalize any of that. Nope. The intention will be strictly to get young people to the voting booth.

Young people tend to be more liberal, as well as inexperienced in life issues. They will turn out in droves, and the majority will vote Democrat.

I can almost guarantee the Democrats will use this deceitful practice to "rig" elections.

In September of 2012 I will post which states (and how many) have added such liberal causes to their ballots. I'm betting at least 12 states will try this.

It should be interesting to watch...

/

A New Kind of Alternative Minimum Tax

2010-11-30T10:55:00.000-08:00

This idea may sound crazy at first, but I would like you to at least think about this. First, nearly 60 million WORKING people pay NO income taxes at all. None. They benefit just as much as the 60 million who do pay, but they get a free ride because they do not earn as much. But just because they do not earn as much should not mean they pay NOTHING. If they have income, why should they not pay at least a token amount? And there are three very sound reasons why they should...

1) They would feel as though they are contributing to America, even if only in a token amount. This is good and healthy for a person's self-esteem. Remember the parable of the wealthy man who gave 10% of what he earned, and the poor woman who only gave two pieces? Jesus blessed the woman because, even though she was poor and could ill afford it, she gave all she could. Dignity and self-esteem is important.

2) By becoming taxpayers, those 60 million people will be vested in how Congress spends our money. As long as a person is not required to pay anything, they suddenly become eager to increase spending and entitlements - after all, it doesn't cost them a dime. If we want to control spending, we need to get more Americans interested in controlling it.

3) If every working person under 18 and not in college, with any income whatsoever were required to pay a mere $5 per week, that would come to a whopping $15 billion dollars a year going into the Treasury that could be used to pay down our debt. It is their debt, too. They need to pay SOMETHING. There is not a working person in America who can honestly say they cannot afford a mere $250 per year for all the benefits they get from living in this great country. Every worker could contribute that much simply by getting a second, part-time job for a few days each year. Heck, I make more than that just turning in cans and bottles to the recycling center!

Yes, there should be an Alternative Minimum Tax on the wealthy PROVIDED we stick with the current progressive tax code. But there should be an even more important AMT for EVERYONE. Every working American has an obligation to pay a share. Being poor is no excuse for being a deadbeat.

/

CharactersUnite

2010-11-28T13:33:00.001-08:00

I caught a commercial today by CharactersUnite.com. The guy starts by saying that every hour a crime is committed based on religion, gender, sexual preference, race etc. and we need to unite to put a stop to it.

As much as I agree with the premise, I find this to be very disingenuous. They purposely lead you to believe, by error of omission, that it is "every hour" in the United States. But the facts are quite different - such crimes occur SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD every hour.

What these folks do not tell you is that the vast majority of crimes against women, gays and religions are committed elsewhere, and almost entirely in the Arab/muslim nations.

Now, I believe the world should unite on the one issue of human rights. But I find it objectionable that this or any group tries to con people into thinking it is mostly an American problem. It isn't, and never was. Even in the days of slavery and no women's rights we still treated people better than most other nations of the time. Yes, we had growing to do - we still do. But America is not the problem, and I'm damned sick of the disingenuous fools who keep trying to tell us otherwise.

/

Political Correctness - A Suicide Pact

2010-11-27T05:36:00.000-08:00

Undercover agents arrested a Somali-born teenager, Mohamed Osman Mohamud while trying to blow up a van full of explosives at a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon

Late last month, Farooque Ahmed, 34, of Virginia was arrested and accused of casing Washington-area subway stations in what he thought was an al-Qaida plot to bomb and kill commuters.

And a year ago in another federal sting, 19-year-old Jordanian Hosam Smadi was arrested on charges he intended to bomb a downtown Dallas skyscraper

These are just three recent examples of many, many terrorist attempts (and some successful) that prove beyond any doubt whatever that the vast majority (like, 100%) of terrorists are young middle-eastern Arab muslims, and the majority are males.

So, exactly WHY are we not using effective profiling? We use profiling in all other "native" crimes, including rape, murder, child molesting, burglary etc.

If we continue to refuse to target those who are most likely to try and kill us, we are committing suicide. It is political correctness, invented and pushed by progressive liberals who do not like America, that will be responsible for any successful terrorist attack.

At airports, federal agents grope and scan innocent American grandmas and little children, under the pretense that they COULD be used by terrorists. But I contend that, to date, no 4 year old has been used in any terror attempt, but dark-skinned middle-eastern Arab muslims have been.

Our leaders, misguided or misled, have decided it is better to insult and abuse innocent Americans than to risk insulting or abusing the muslims intent on killing us.

I find it troubling that progressive liberals are quick to cry foul when we infringe on the supposed "rights" of terrorists held at Gitmo, but are also the first to insist that Americans forfeit their own rights at airports across the nation.

We have a great country here in America. But we do not have great leadership in our president or Congress. They allow a handful of progressives to dictate their course - a course designed long ago to bring America to its knees, in favor of a "one world" government. In a one-world government, NO nation would be allowed to be sovereign, more powerful or more wealthy than another. So, progressives believe America must be dismantled.

Are you going to sit back and let them do it? Or will you be outspoken, and work to remove all progressives from all public offices?

America is worth saving. But if YOU won't act to save her, who will?

Scary statistics for those of us who live in Maine:

1) there are roughly 1.6 billion muslims in the world. Of that, roughly 2 million (more than 1%) are believed to be jihadists out to kill us.

2) In Portland, alone, there are currently more than 4,000 Somalian muslims. If the stats hold true, at least 5 of them are already planning how to kill us.

And that is just Portland. The first terrorist mentioned in this blog is a Somali muslim immigrant in Portland Oregon. How long before Portland Maine becomes a target?

/

LIA - The Little Ice Age

2010-11-26T20:03:00.000-08:00

I have written often on the period known as the "Little Ice Age" (LIA). And I brought up the fact that our current "warming period" is not only natural, but 2-3 degrees below the Earth's normal temperature.

According to Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" which caused so much angst and panic, if the Earth were to warm an average of 2-3 degrees it would be a catastrophe of epic proportions. Yet, 2-3 degrees higher temperature would simply be normal.

This evening I watched a documentary on the History channel about LIA. LIA began in the 14th century and did not end until roughly 1850. During that period, the Earth's average temperature was 4 degrees colder than the present average temperature. And that small amount caused havoc and death throughout the world - famines, plagues, crime, as food became scarce and disease-ridden rats came indoors to escape the cold.

But the real story is untold - that the period preceding the Little Ice Age, from about the 10th century to the 14th, the Earth's average temperature was about 3 degrees warmer than it is today. And during that "warming period" of 400 years, civilizations grew and propered like no other time in recorded history. The best wines were brewed in England and imported to France. But during LIA, that came to an end as grapes could not grow in the colder temps of England. To this day grapes cannot grow in England, which tells you the Earth's temperature is still cooler than it was 1000 years ago.

The very same climate that Gore and his followers claim would be devastating was a reality just 1000 years ago (and obviously not caused by Man or his SUV's), and Mankind actually thrived.

This is proven science, not conjecture, opinion or political hype designed to redistribute wealth. The Earth is still coming out of the 500 year LIA, so it is natural for it to be warming. And it will get warmer yet, barring any outside influence that might again cause another Big Chill. And there is nothing we can, or should do about it.

I have said this before - nothing in nature remains stagnant. When the Earth is not warming it is cooling, and vice versa. When the Earth cools, Mankind suffers. When it warms, we thrive.

I say let it warm. After all, if we were to try to thwart the warming and a new LIA were to begin, the combined effect would be even more devastating than the last LIA.

So, what are the odds another LIA could be in our future? All it would take is a series of large volcanic eruptions over a short time, spewing enough ash into the atmosphere to block the sun for a few months, as happened when Mt Tambora erupted in the 1815, causing what came to be known as "The Year Without A Summer". That was just one volcano and it dropped the average mean temperature a full degree, bringing 5 feet of snow to the Northeast in July and August. Imagine several...just look at Indonesia lately. It COULD happen. But here's the kicker - there are 8 Super Volanoes on this planet (Yellowstone is one). All it would take to start a true ice age is for just ONE of those to blow.

/

The Truth Finally Comes Out

2010-11-24T07:03:00.001-08:00

Now he tells us. Al Gore now says his support for corn-based ethanol subsidies while serving as vice president was a mistake that had more to do with his desire to cultivate farm votes in the 2000 presidential election than with what was good for the environment.

"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," Gore said at a green energy conference in Athens, Greece, according to Reuters . First generation refers to the most basic, energy-intensive process of converting corn to ethanol for use as a motor vehicle fuel additive.

"On reflection", Gore said the energy conversion ratios -- how much energy is produced in the process -- "are at best very small." "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee," he said, "and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president."

I blogged years ago about this and those on the left said I was nuts. I have been blogging on it ever since. Now he admits it was not only a mistake, but purely political, to buy votes. And contrary to what he says, it was no "mistake". He boldly claims it was a calculated move to garner votes. Anything done intentionally is no mistake. So now I am wondering - how much longer will it be before he finally owns up to his most horrific mistake - his bogus docucrama about global warming? No time soon, I would guess, since he won awards from his celebrity groupies and so much of his wealth is at stake.

As a side note, federal ethanol subsidies reached $7.7 billion last year. The taxpayer pays that to steal corn from the food supply, which raises food prices. That means taxpayers get wholloped twice for the same foolish "mistake".

/

Skewed Priorities

2010-11-22T05:44:00.000-08:00

A lot of folks seem to think it's OK for our own government to mistreat its citizens and violate their Constitutional rights in an attempt to make us safer in the air. Those of us who disagree have valid reasons for disagreeing.

Let's begin with this - in an effort to NOT violate the rights or feelings of terrorists, our government violates the rights and disregards the feelings of its own citizens by the millions. In an effort to not treat terrorists with disrespect, our government disrespects its own citizenry. And in an effort to protect the American way of life - rights, freedoms, dignity and self-respect - the government TAKES AWAY our rights, freedoms, dignity and self-respect.

And in light of this, the government refuses to do the one thing that has proven capable of keeping us safer - profiling. Yeah, I've heard it all before. We need to be careful about insulting our enemies.

What ticks me the most is that our soldiers fight and die so we can be free - and then we just turn around and give up those freedoms without so much as a whimper just because some cave-dweller has some of us peeing our pants in fear! I don't know which angers me more - the people trying to kill us, or the cowards who would give in to them so readily.

Political correctness has become a suicide pact. We KNOW who is trying to kill us, but we refuse to single them out for close inspection because we might hurt someone's precious little feelings. But in refusing to profile, the government is doing harm to every American who flies. "We won't single out those who are trying to kill us. Instead, we will punish our own citizens. And if our citizens refuse to accept the punishment, we will arrest them."

How idiotic and dictatorial that is. Certainly not the mark of intelligence, nor the mark of a free country. Meanwhile the terrorists are laughing their asses off at our ignorance and foolishness. Our own government is telling us to let our fears rule our lives. Have we become a nation of cowards? Since when was it a good thing to give up our hard-earned freedoms and rights in exchange for (a false perception of) security?

If the founding fathers had decided they should give up their rights and freedoms in exchange for security, they would never have gone to war with England and we would not be a free country today. They knew what we are too spoiled to remember - that nothing is more important than freedom and human rights. Not even life, itself. They were willing to die for freedom.

Political correctness, particularly in the area of national defense or security is absolutely irresponsible, assinine and insane. We can molest our women and children with impunity and subject them to doses of radiation that is expected to kill 10 people a year, but is it wrong to single someone out for closer inspection because he fits the description of the perp? WE KNOW WHO IS TRYING TO KILL US. But rather than face him, we turn our back on him and molest our own children for fear that we might offend the bad guys.

You would be outraged if the local police, knowing a serial killer was an ethnic male in his thirties with a full beard, were to NOT look for an ethnic male in his thirties with a full beard, and instead haul in grandma and three-year olds for a line-up. Just how stupid is our government? And just how stupid are we for allowing them to run amok in the name of security?

Here is a fact - you have 4 times more chance of becoming a saint (a 20 million-to-one shot) than of finding yourself on a plane with a bomber (an 81 million-to-one shot). Is that worthy of giving up your human rights? Your dignity? Is that reason enough to allow strangers to molest our women and children, or subject them to radiation?

If you honestly think it is a good thing to give up your rights and freedoms for security, then you are the fool and coward that Benjamin Franklin was talking about when he said "Those who would give up their liberty in exchange for security deserve neither."

I cannot take my family on a plane. Because I am a man. And no man worthy of the name would ever permit his wife and children to be fondled and groped by anyone, least of all srangers. Nor would a man worth his salt subject his loved ones to dangerous radiation that even the experts say will result in some deaths. They say it's "collateral damage."

Sorry - me and mine are not "collateral". We are human beings. Human beings with dignity and self-respect. And we plan on staying that way, no matter how hard the terrorists try to kill us.

To paraphrase a famous saying, "A brave man dies but once, but a coward dies every time he goes through airport security."

But the bigger question: WHY is our government doing this, even though they know these invasive procedures are ineffective and also unconstitutional? It's simple. Lookiaround at all the intrusions of government lately. The government is growing in power. And in order for one entity to gain power, another must lose power. And we, the people, are losing power. The government wants greater control over us, our lives, our health, our money - even what we eat. The only way they can get that power is if we give it to them by willingly giving up our rights and freedoms. The government learned long ago that if we are suitably frightened, we will give up those rights and freedoms. So, it is in the best interests of the government to keep us living in fear. The greater the fear, the more power they can take in the guise of "protecting" us.

We have met the enemy - and it is us. The government we created, then empowered, then ceded our rights and freedoms to.

/

Perspective

2010-11-19T17:26:00.001-08:00

There are 49,315 commercial flights daily, throughout the world. Since September 11, 2001, there have been 162 million commercial flights. Of that, there have been (2) known attempts by terrorists to bomb a plane - both thwarted without scanners or pat-downs.

This equates to one attempt for every 81,000,000 flights. Which in turn indicates a probability of finding yourself in a plane with a bomber to be 1 in 81,000,000. That is four times less likely than becoming a saint , which is a 20,000,000-1 shot. And you are 40 times more likely to be struck by lightning, 80 times more likely to get elected president and 80 times more likely of getting killed by a part falling off an airplane.

Now tell me - why are we willing to give up our rights, our dignity and our self-respect by subjecting ourselves to very invasive procedures just to get on a plane? You are more likely to die in a car crash with a Cadillac Escalade at 2:00 in the morning, but no one molests you before getting into your car.

The government has gone too far - and is in violation of several laws and the constitution. We all know the risks involved. If a person has been so frightened by the terrorists that they fear being blown up on a plane, then they should not be flying.

As Franklin so aptly put it, "Those who would give up their liberty for security deserve neither." If we are going to live in fear, the terrorists have already won.

/

Safe canners - And Other Fairy Tales

2010-11-18T14:43:00.000-08:00

Today the government worked feverishly, ahead of the holiday travel season, to asure us that the scanners at the airports are safe - that the radiation they emit is "miniscule".

First, let me remind you this is the same government that assured our soldiers that Agent Orange was "safe", and that the air quality at ground zero was "safe". We are now spending billions for medical treatment for those poor souls who believed the government's assurances of safety. That said...

NO amount of radiation is safe. Radiation accumulates in the body. That, alone, is cause for serious concern.

These scanners scan the entire body - a very large area. Per square inch the amount of radiation may be small, but collectively, not so much. Consider...

You dentist uses radiation to x-ray an area the size of a silver dollar. Just enough to penetrate cheek and gums. But have you noticed that it is SO safe that even with such a small amount, you must wear a lead flack jacket, and the dentist must, by law, LEAVE THE ROOM!

That's how "safe" it is.

But here is the REAL safety hazard - by using scanners and pat-downs - neither of which provides very much security - we give up our RIGHTS, our FREEDOM and our DIGNITY. And once you give up all those things that America stands for, and is built upon, the terrorists have already won. And that is the ultimate in being UN-safe - giving up who we are.

/

Something To Think About

2010-11-18T05:50:00.000-08:00

Imagine if you will that you have managed to save up a bunch of $100 bills for your retirement. You worked hard for them.Then the government comes to you and says, "We are going to render all those bills worthless because it is in the best interest of the nation. you may as well put them in the shredder. They are no longer any good at all." And you lose everything.

But then the government prints NEW money. No, they do not replace what you have - you cannot trade your $100 bills in for a new $20 bill. Nope. You are still out of luck. All the new money - the money that you really paid for - is slated to go to someone else.

In short, the government stole your money and gave it to someone else.

And that, my friend, is what just happened with GM - Government Motors. Last year the government took it over. People who invested their money into shares were told their shares were being taken away, without remuneration. This, by the way, is in direct violation of the Constitution that says if the government wants something you own, they must pay a fair price for it. But that aside, the fact remains that stockholders lost their stock - it was arbitrarily taken away.

And today, the government has authorized the sale of millions of NEW shares of GM. All the money you invested in GM is now being given to other people.

This should go down in history as the greatest scam of all time. It makes Bernie Madoff look like a kindergartener.And it begs the question - what idiot would buy ANY GM shares this time? What makes anyone think what happened to you won't happen to them?

As much as it pains me to say it, our government has become our enemy. No, not our country - our GOVERNMENT. The Constitution guarantees, in writing, that we shall have a REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. A Republic. Not a democracy. There is an important difference. The founders had rejected a democracy because in a democracy the majority, and not the collection of individuals, rule. Which means in a democracy, the majority have the power to take away YOUR rights if they see fit. In the Old West it was called "mob rule", responsible for lynching a lot of innocent people.

In a Republic, each of us is an individual "boss" of ourselves. No one, and no group, can usurp our individual rights or power. And the only purpose of government is to make that possible. The government is the tent that keeps the rain off while we go about our business.

In a Republic, the government could not take over GM. They could not render your shares worthless by decree. The free market would rule, which is what creates strength through competition. If GM can no longer compete, they need to go down, just like the Mom & Pop store on the corner. It is called "survival of the fittest". If only the strong survive, we will all be stronger for it. If the weak survive, we all become weaker. We are only as strong as the weakest link.

Whenever you take from the strong and give to the weak, you are not strengthening the weak - they are still weak, but with your stuff. By taking from the strong and giving to the weak, you only serve to weaken the strong. And that is never a good idea, because only the strong will survive.

That is the entire premise of the parable in the Bible about the Talents of Gold. Nothing you can do will make the weak strong. And the strongest need to be strengthened, not weakened.

Some may argue that sounds cold and uncompassionate. But that is not so. It is nature. It is survival. It is as it should be. As it must be. Because no matter what we do, the weak will still fall to the wayside. We see this with 3rd and 4th generation welfare families. In spite of the trillions spent on welfare in the last 50 years, the same families are still poor and on welfare. It did them no good, while it did the rest of us great harm by robbing us of our strength. We are making Sampson's of the strong, and Delilah's of the weak.

To get back to GM - the government has given the "GM Delilah" the shears to cut Sampson's hair. And now they are setting up a whole new bunch of Sampson's (i.e. sheep) to shear.

/

The Terrorists Have Already Won

2010-11-17T06:27:00.001-08:00

It was the intent of the terrorists to kill (which they did). But even more important is the true intent of terrorism - to terrorize to the point of forcing us to give up our liberty to government intrusion. To disrupt.

Go to any airport today, and you will see the TSA committing felonies against all innocent travelers, all in the name of "security". They fondle both adults and children in a way that is considered sexual assault if anyone else were to do it. They take picture scans of your body - considered invasion of privacy and even pornography if anyone else were to do it.

We have been forced to give up our liberty - even our dignity - all because of terrorism. They have won.

The irony is that all these blatant attacks on us by our own government does not make us secure - it simply provides an illusion of security. The "underwear bomber" and others still get through. They simply devise new ways.

We would be far better off to use the system the Israeli's have. They have the most secure airlines in the world, and it is accomplished without any invasive government mandates.

But our morons in government are too "politically correct" to use their system. They would rather punish us, the honest citizenry, than offend those who would kill us.

The terrorists have already won...

/

Seeing The Light

2010-11-05T19:40:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week President Obama said there's light at the end of the tunnel.

He is correct. And that light at the end of the tunnel...is a Chinese freight train and it's heading straight for us.

/

Suspicious Minds

2010-11-05T05:41:00.000-07:00

Well, the mid-term elections are over. And throughout the nation there are accusations - and in many cases evidence - of voter fraud. But so far, there have been no such allegations in Maine.

Could it be that Mainer's are just plain honest?

Or could it be that we just did not notice the puppeteering of national organizations with a national agenda?

The reason I ask is rather simple, and I am wondering if I am the only one who noticed. Throughout Maine, there was a mini-tsunami that swept all government offices. For the first time in decades we have a Republican governor, and also a Republican House and State Senate. It seems Mainer's voted overwhelmingly for Republicans. Yet...

In spite of this, ALL Congressional elections ended with democrats winning the seats. All those going to Washington are democrats.

I just find it rather strange that with all the people who voted Republican for state seats, that those same voters would inexplicably vote overwhelmingly for Democrats for the Congress.

Most unusual.

/

Tol' Ya So ...

2010-11-04T10:53:00.000-07:00

As I predicted months ago, the Fed announced that it intends to print ANOTHER $600 billion to monetize the debt. Monetizing the debt reduces the value of our money. Also as predicted months ago, the price of gold has skyrocketed. Within 30 minutes of the Fed's announcement, the price of gold jumped another $40 an ounce. Now approaching $1400 per troy ounce.

The good news for America, and the bad news for those who hold onto gold too long, I suspect the new Republican congress will shoot down this atrocity early next year. If they do (and they should), the price of gold will drop immediately. If they do not, you can hang onto your gold awhile longer.

Just so you know...

/

He Still Does Not Get It

2010-11-04T09:31:00.001-07:00

Today President Obama, scheduled to meet with Congressional leaders said "The people have sent a message...", and then went on to describe what he sees as "the message".

He said the message is simply to focus on jobs, don't waste so much money and change the tone in Washington.

Wishful thinking, Mr. President. Not only is that NOT the message, but you apparently choose to ignore all those who told you EXACTLY what their message is. So, in case you missed it, here it is again...

The folks want SMALLER GOVERNMENT. They want to CUT SPENDING. They want to INCREASE PERSONAL FREEDOM from government intrusion so they can grow.

The people know that such things will empower the people and result in growth and jobs.

In short, Mr President - and all establishment politicians who just don't "get it" - it is really very simple...

YOUR job is to keep the nation safe from its enemies, and provide for the general welfare (not individual welfare) of the nation as a whole, and then just GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY! The people will do the rest, as they always have.

Yes, there will be winners and losers - but that is how it SHOULD be. No one can win unless someone else loses. And if no one wins, we cannot grow or prosper as a nation. You simply stagnate.

If you have ever played poker, you know what I'm saying.

Washington, wake up and smell the Tea. Make America a friendly and safe place for business, and then just get out of our way.

It really is as simple as that - and does not require trillions of spending or debt.

/

Self-Employment Opp VIII

2010-11-02T20:05:00.000-07:00

Self-Employment Idea #8

Bartering

You have seen those magazines dedicated to Want Ads. There are even online ones, like Craig's list. But did you know you could make a lot of money from them?

I know a young man who found an old Honda 450 for sale for $100. He also found another ad where a person was looking for such a motorcyle. He called the guy and said he would sell him a 450 Honda for $400. The deal was made - and so was a $300 profit?

He began picking up all sorts of things from the FREE ITEMS section, then selling them at yard sales, or trading "up" for something of greater value. Just for kicks, he decided to see if he could trade a $10 item for a $5,000 item. He started with a used TV he got for $10, traded that for something worth $20, and so on. It took 8 months, but the man ended up with a $7,000 Harley Davidson - and it only cost him $10.

Think about it. Look for all the bargains, then trade up, or mark them up and sell at your yard sale. And don't forget to look for more bargains at other people's yard sales...

/

Self-Employ Opp Pt VI & VII

2010-11-01T07:22:00.000-07:00

Self-Employment Idea #6 & 7

Rent-A-Hubby

If you are a married man with some handyman skills, have your wife rent you out to other wives whose husbands are not so handy - or just too busy to take care of those tasks on the 'To-Do" list.

I do recommend that wives whose husbands may have a roaming eye may want to find other ways of putting hubby to work.

Bye-Bye Junk

Everyone collects junk. Most of us would rather be rid of it. In the attic, garage, basement - it can even be found in some yards and barns.

If you have access to a truck (or have a friend with a truck who is willing to partner) you can provide the much needed service of junk removal. This pays in several ways.

First, you get paid to clean up someone's garage or attic or whatever. Anything metal can go to the recycler - metals can pay anywhere from pennies to dollars a pound, depending on the metal. Copper and brass often goes for up to a dollar or more a pound, while aluminum can run about 30 cents. Any metal can be sold - even old batteries can net you about $5 each.

Meanwhile, it will not be unusual to end up with a barn full of good, useable items that you can yard sale for even more money. And I have even seen junkers get antiques and valuable collectibles among the junk.

If you like treasure hunting, this might just be what the doctor ordered.

/

Who Is Happeir?

2010-10-31T17:15:00.000-07:00

Three different independent studies indicate conservatives tend to be happier than liberals.

Judging by how conservatives and liberals respond to things - even each other - it would appear that conservatives are, indeed, happier than liberals. It even appears to extend to the millions who watch them on Fox or listen to them on the radio: A recent study says that conservatives are happier than liberals -- and have more friends.

According to a recent article, "the study, published in the journal Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, is the work of Jacob Vigil, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico. He gathered over 700 undergrads at a university in Florida in the months before the 2008 election and had them fill out a survey. The survey touched on, among other things, the students' pasts, their political affiliations, the number of friends they have, and how much they trusted them and, by extension, the rest of society.

"Vigil then had the participants look at photos of strangers' faces, whose expressions ranged from joy to sadness, fear to surprise, disgust to anger. Vigil asked the participants to interpret, among other things, how threatened they felt by the faces. He then took that data, and that which came from the completed surveys, and reached his conclusions about who's happy and why." Conservatives, the study says, feel more threatened by the people they don't know. But -- conservatives end up having a larger circle of friends than liberals.

Vigil found that conservatives have a looser definition of friendship, one that doesn't rely as much on the sort of intimacy that liberals favor. Conservatives tend to find friends who will help them -- socially, and especially professionally -- so conservatives end up searching out more people. Their suspicions of who is threatening them may not be completely accurate, but it does serve a purpose: It thins the ranks of potential friends and leaves the conservatives happier with whom they decide upon, because these friends can help them.

Liberals, meanwhile, are more miserly -- a trait backed up by other studies on charitable giving in which conservatives tend to give two times more to charity that liberals. Liberals have fewer friends, the study finds, after computing the data from the surveys, because many of them are victims -- victims, often, of childhood trauma, or the perceived victims of a cruel adult world. They sympathize with people more than conservatives, the surveys found, but liberals don't befriend as many people, because they are wary of trusting them. In societal terms, this often means liberals, while they feel for others, are less apt to get personally involved to do anything to help. This also explains why liberals are more into victimhood, while conservatives tend to be more optimistic and self-reliant.

Vigil says that whether one is a liberal or conservative, "it's all about our capacity for trustworthiness." If conservatives aren't threatened by you, they tend to like you, whereas liberals don't seek out new people, even though they have greater compassion for them. Though they have greater compassion, Liberals are more likely to want others to take action rather than get personally involved -- which also indicates why they give less to charity. They feel more for victims, but prefer to have others do something -- often, that is the government.

Another recent study shows that conservatives have been happier than liberals at least these past 30 years. A third study finds that regardless of who holds political power, people who have more money, and worship a god regularly, "tend to be happier," write Paul Taylor, Cary Funk and Peyton Craghill of the Pew Research Center. To be happy, it would seem -- and many a liberal will be dismayed to know that George Will may have understood this first -- it is not enough to simply commiserate with society, as liberals do. You need to try and be more a part of it.

In reading about these studies, it is easier to understand why liberals want and need bigger government and higher taxes. They want to end victimhood, but they do not want to get personally involved, instead prefering government to take care of it.

I have also concluded from all this that the world would be far better off if liberals would get past the victimhood mentality and get more personally involved in life. Then they, too, could be happier -- and have a larger circle of friends.

/

Self-Employment Oppo #5

2010-10-31T11:25:00.001-07:00

Self-Employment Idea #5

Invisible Secretary

How many times have you forgotten an appointment, a birthday or anniversary Or you remembered too late to get flowers or a gift?

There is a real need for someone who will keep track of all those dates, times and places, and get a call to remind them. You can do that - all it takes is a daily planner and a telephone. You can even send an email follow-up.

I know one enterprising person who took it a step further. You can pay him to send loved ones (or even enemies) letters, Christmas or birthday cards etc. - AFTER YOU HAVE PASSED ON! In this case, the client brings you the cards or letters, already signed by the client. He arranges in his will to have the executor notify you when he passes. You then send his cards and letters according to instructions he gave when he signed them.

On the envelope he has a rubber stamp that simply says, "A note from Heaven".

As an invisible secretary, you can also offer other services, such as typing transcripts.

Put on your thinking cap - no matter your circumstances, you CAN be self sufficient.

/

Fixing The Problems

2010-10-30T15:59:00.001-07:00

Our nation faces some serious problems. But all are easily fixed if our Congress would only be willing to do the right thing.

JOBS: Make businesses want to stay in America. Make those who left want to return. Create a friendly, profitable place. Reduce corporate taxes, currently 35%, to a set 15%. Reduce the power of unions. Let the free market do what it does best - create an environment for growth.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Require all employers to use e-verify. Any employer caught with illegal workers who do not pass e-verify would be fined $100,000 per illegal employee. Schools should also require e-verify before accepting any student. If they cannot work or educate their children they will self-deport. We will not have to find them or deport.

ANCHOR BABIES: If under age 5, they go back with their parents. If they choose to return after they turn 18, without their parents, they are free to do so, as they are American. Their parents are not. Over age 5 and the parents can petition to stay and get a green card only after paying a stiff fine for having broken our laws.

DRUG CARTELS IMPORTING TO AMERICA: Execute them on the spot if caught, or at least treat them as terrorists, tried by a military tribunal as enemy combatants. They are guilty of either invasion or otherwise trying to overthrow our government, as they are already doing in Mexico.

DEFICIT & DEBT: Levy a 25% import tax on all goods from China. Use the money to pay down our debt to them. They cannot refuse - they need American consumers. Yes, it will result in higher prices at WalMart, but it will bring back financial health to America which will benefit us more in the long run. It will also encourage "buying American", making it more profitable for American businesses, and giving them reason to stay here in the U.S. Let China pay off our debt to them.

HEALTH CARE: Strip anything in the law that does not pertain to health care. Set aside anything that comes at substantial cost. Then add tort reform and the ability to shop in other states for insurance. This will bring costs down. Then take up those items that were set aside, and ask the people which of those items they are willing to pay the price for. Like ordering options when buying a new car.

SOCIAL SECURITY: First, all incoming funds are not to be used for anything else. The huge amount collected annually is in the billions. The SS Administration could make those funds available to growth businesses on a BIDDING basis - corporations can bid on any portion of those funds. In this way, 1) businesses can grow quickly, creating jobs; 2) the SS fund will get an immediate influx of cash from successful bidders; and 3) the funds, invested in the business, will receive a guaranteed dividend, regardless of economic conditions. Any business that cannot pay the dividend would be required to sell off whatever they must to reimburse the SS Administration for the funds invested. EXAMPLE: a business wants $2 billion dollars to expand. They bid $200,000 for the right to receive $2 billion. That $2 billion would be invested as a preferred stock with a guaranteed minimum dividend. If another business offers more, or a higher guaranteed m,inimum dividend, then it wins and gets the $2 billion.

HIGH COST OF PUBLIC WORKS: Offer corporations - or even wealthy individuals - the right to "adopt" a public works project, in whole or in part. In return they would have the right to advertise accordingly. For example, a lodge in Yellowstone requires refurbishing. If Geico wants to pay the cost of refurbishing, they can name it GEICO LODGE, and advertise within. This could save taxpayers billions a year in taxes. Local governments could do the same for local projects. Not unlike the rich person who donates a wing on the hospital just to have his name on a plaque.

These are just a few examples. NONE would cost us any money to speak of, but will produce results.

/

The Truth About Islamic Intent

2010-10-30T08:59:00.000-07:00

This post may offend the sensibilities of many liberals who refuse to see or acknowledge what is happening around the world in regard to Islam, because after reading this the reader will suddenly find themselves with a clearer picture and greater understanding.

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system of rulership. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is the "glue" for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights." When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table.

Here are troubling statistics for those who care (and you should) about the process muslims use to infiltrate every nation for the purpose of ruling the world under Sharia Law. If you doubt this, check out what is currently the status quo in all of these nations - you will find this quite accurate.

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. They will act as peace-loving moderates so as not be seen as a threat, and left alone to grow. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs (already begun in America):

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population because they are very vocal and "pushy" (see C.A.I.R.). They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons):

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there is supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

Currently, one country does not permit the immigration of muslims - Australia.

The eminent orientalist Sir William Muir (1819-1905) said, "The sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and truth which the world has yet known".

/

Employment Opp Pt IV

2010-10-29T21:53:00.001-07:00

Self-Employment Idea #4

Are you disabled, or is there is reason you cannot get out and around much? Then this idea might well be what you are looking for. But it is not limited to just those folks who are not very mobile - anyone can do this. It is an idea I had once used back in the '80's to get an old friend off welfare with great success.

Your community likely includes both of the following:

1) a bunch of teens, college kids, seniors and/or otherwise underemployed people. People who do not need full-time work, but need extra money

2) People who need part-time or one-time assistance for odd jobs

Your job would be to connect the two. Advertise that you can provide people with odd jobs to earn extra money, and build up a dBase of their names, contact info and, of course, the type(s) of work they can do, such as painting, gardening, handyman stuff, dog walking etc.

Then advertise throughout the area that you can provide folks with the help they need to do those troublesome tasks. Need help getting those storm windows up? Consider it done. Lawn mowed? Done. You name it.

Your job is to advertise for workers, then advertise for those who need workers, and match them up. You get a percentage of the take.

Let's say you get 10% of the pay of 30 people - you are essentially getting 300%. The more people you match up, the bigger your cut.

Be aware - you need to use contracts on both ends - a contract with your workers that prevents them from accepting work on their own, cutting you out, and contracts with the "employer" to insure you get paid - they pay you, not the worker. You pay the worker.

And, yes, you may have other paperwork, like withholding (unless your workers are subcontractors - you can include that in your contract). And yes, you may need liability insurance, or get bonded to cover yu in case one of your workers breaks something, or gets hurt.

It's an idea to think about, though.

/

I Pray I Am Wrong

2010-10-29T11:20:00.001-07:00

Today, several cargo planes were held around the world for "suspicious packages." One found in the UK looked like a mock-up of a bomb. Others were found in several cities around America, from San Francisco to Portland Maine.

Even more unsettling is that these packages, which originated from Yemen, were apparently addressed to various religious institutions, primarily synogogues and churches.

Now this is why I pray I am wrong...

Anwar al-Awlaki, an American Al Queda in Yemen, and responsibile for the "Christmas Day Bomber" last year is the person likely behind this "dry run". And here is where it gets bad.

Already known for wanting to cause terror on Christmas, the second most sacred day in America (Easter being the first), al-Awlaki will likely want to do so again, only on a larger scale.

Imagine if this was a dry run to take advantage of the huge amount of packages being shipped at the holiday season. It is entirely possible that al-Awlaki's aim is to use the rush of the holiday season to deliver bombs or chemical weapons all over the U.S. - and to religious institutions in particular.

Imagine the devastation to every part of American life if hundreds of bombs all over America were to go off simultaneously at religious institutions on or about Christmas Day.

Again, I pray I am wrong. But al-Awlaki is an American citizen. He understands us. He knows the importance of Christmas (remember the Christmas Day Bomber). And he knows the lax security for cargo planes - currently almost all security focuses on commercial airlines.

It might be wise if you use greater than normal caution and care when receiving packages this holiday season, and to make sure the clergy in your church or synogogue do the same.

/

Employment Opp Pt III

2010-10-29T09:03:00.001-07:00

Self-Employment Idea #3

Are you a neat freak? The local Felix Unger? Then this one is for you.

MAID IN (insert name of your community)

Take your neat habits on the road and do cleaning and maid service for select clientele. Build a list of regular customers. All you need are cleaning supplies, reliable transportation and a schedule book. You can include laundry, which would be getting done while you clean.

This is so profitable that some maid services have gone the franchise route (like Merry Maids). But there may not be any in your area. Or if there is, they may be too busy to handle all the available business.

So, break out the 409 and Lemon Pledge and clean up.

/

Employment Opp Pt II

2010-10-28T11:38:00.001-07:00

Self-Employment Idea #2

Speaking of busy people, many are much to busy to treat their families to fresh, homemade bakery items. Cakes, pies, brownies, cookies, muffins, cupcakes - even fresh bread, since breadmakers make it easy.

You would advertise that your baked goods use only the best, natural ingredients - no preservatives or chemicals like that crap at the stores.

Finding customers would not be a problem, and most will be regulars, if your baking is any good.

As you grow, buy a food dehydrator for $50 and add jerky (beef and turkey) and other natural, dried foods like banana chips or apple slices. You can even make fruit roll-ups. I use mine to make jerky dog treats for my schnauzers. Though I had no intention of starting yet another business, friends with dogs soon began begging me to make theirs. If I'm not careful, it could get out of hand.

If you don't mind staying home and puttering in the kitchen, this might be just the ticket.

/

Are You Unemployed?

2010-10-28T00:25:00.001-07:00

Are you unemployed? If your answer is "yes", then I must ask - WHY?

Yes, I know the economy is trashed. And I know high taxes and unions have driven jobs out of America. But I also know something else - there is no excuse for not earning your own way unless you are physically or mentally incapable.

Before I proceed, and offer life-saving suggestions on how you can overcome unemployment, I would like to relate a true story.

While waiting for my flight at Logan Airport in Boston several years ago, i encountered a 10 year old boy in a wheelchair. He was quadraplegic - the only thing he could move was his head. And the only way he could communicate was with a stick in his mouth, typing on a computer keyboard attached to his chair.

If anyone on planet Earth had an excuse to live off entitlements, this was that person. But he did not see it that way. In my discourse with the boy, I discovered something amazing - him! Although he was only 10, and quadraplegic, that did not stop him. He used that stick and keyboard to write a very upbeat, inspiring book on overcoming life's "little obstacles". The books he wrote were earning him a very good living.

That said, I will now ask you again - why are YOU unemployed?

Short of being on your death bed, there is something you can do to earn your way. Trust me - I will show you. Over the next few days I will post articles with suggestions on things you can do, now, to earn a living without having to stoop to dependency on others. Your pride will stay intact, and you will feel much, much more satisfied with life.

So, here is a good place to start. First, decide to be self-sufficient and self-supporting. Get off the couch, stand, look in a mirror and say, "I am a capable person. I am neither stupid nor lazy. I can do this. I can make my life better. I do not need any government or corporation to validate me. I can provide my own self-worth."

And then decide how. The next few posts will hopefully fuel your imagination. Perhaps none of these suggestions will be right for you, but they should certainly plant good seed in your imagination, and get you thinking as to what you CAN do. And when you come up with something that works for you, be sure to let me know.

So here is the first idea...

Errands 'n More

There are many busy people in every community. Too busy to want to waste precious time and energy on mundane errands and tasks. Make up some fliers and business cards telling folks that you will take care of those pesky errands for them. Everything from pet-sitting and dog walking, to shopping, picking up dry cleaning, or hanging the storm windows. There really is no end to the tasks you can do for people.

You will need:

1) fliers and possibly business cards
2) a schedule book / dayplanner
3) a phone, preferably cell so you don't miss any calls
4) reliable transportation
5) any necessary tools if you include tasks that require tools, like a snow shovel

That's about it. You can start this business for as little as $25.00

You would soon discover that many of your clients will schedule you for regular tasks, daily, weekly or monthly. In no time you will be busier than a three-legged mouse in a barn full of cats.

As a possible offshoot, particularly this time of year, you could include Christmas shopping among your errands.

Think about that. But more important, accept the fact that you can earn your own way. There are as many methods and ideas as there are people. And when you succeed, you will feel secure in the knowledge that you are not likely to fire you, or lay you off.

Tomorrow I will offer up Idea #2.

/

Why Governor's Race Is Important This Year

2010-10-21T07:59:00.000-07:00

A lot of states are electing governors this year, and this is a particularly important year for such races.

Every ten years, states are allowed to "redistrict" the state, which helps determine which party will have the most power in Congress for the next decade.

Redistricting means that the state is divided into districts for representation in the House of Representatives in Congress. How the districts are drawn will determine who gains the most power at the polls.

To illustrate, look at the gerrymandered districts that exist today. You will see they were drawn specifically to include voters of primarily one party, and excluding voters of the opposing party. Here are the Top 9 Gerrymandered Districts (8 of which are Democrat)...

This is actually crooked, though perfectly legal. And since Democrats have typically held power in Congress for 44 of the last 60 years, you can see why drawing districts is critical. Currently, the districts with the craziest, crookedest gerymandering are held by long-term Democrats like Barney Frank and Luis Gutierrez.

And that is why it is so important to vote this year, particularly for your Governor position. Because it is the Governor who will authorize changes in districting. And electing your party into your atate legislature will help your Governor redistrict in ways that benefit your party.

So, if it really is a change you want, this is where it begins - redistricting. And that will only happen if you get out and vote.

/

The Answer, My Friend...

2010-10-19T07:55:00.000-07:00

Before reading the rest of this post, it is important for you to look closely at, and try to find what is wrong with this picture...

Do you see it?

There is nothing wrong with it. It is a picture of a number of people, all with different thoughts, different opinions, different problems all coming together to work for a common goal, and solve the problem at hand. The PEOPLE are doing it, not the government.

And this is exactly what built this great nation into the most prosperous and powerful nation the Earth has every seen.

This sense of community, once the norm in America, is all but gone now. How many barn raisings have you been involved in recently? Or ever?

America has been history's greatest success story only because we knew the value of all pulling together in spite of all our differences, and because we had the personal freedom to do so. We knew we did not have to agree with our neighbor - only that he was our neighbor and an important part of the wholeness of the community.

Today, America is more divided than it was in 1859 with the buildup to the Civil War. The sense of community has been replaced by a growing desire to fill our own personal goals at any cost - even at the expense of others. We have shed our responsibility towards ourselves and one another in favor of letting the government handle that for us. We have become lax and lazy.

Whenever we give up any power or authority to a government, we give up some of our own freedom. And as our freedoms wane, so does the need for that sense of community. Let the government take care of the poor and needy. Let the government take care of education. Let the government take care of the elders.

We can clearly see that is not the solution. In fact, it is the problem. There was a time when we had the right solutions. We had barn raisings. Each family, community and church took care of their own, directly. Each township had a Community Chest. We all worked together to overcome trials and tribulations, and it worked.

Please take another look at that picture, and burn it into your consciousness. Remember it. And then go out and do some little thing every day that will bring you - us - closer to that sense of community.

Let's stop giving our power, our stength and our freedom to a government. No government has ever used that power well or wisely. A government is like any other entity - it wants to grow and gain power. To do that, it must consume. And what it consumes is the freedom of its people.

The Founding Fathers knew the importance of having a central government, but they also understood that we, the people, needed to keep it small and within OUR power. In essence, they wanted the strength of a tree, but decided it would be best to cultivate it as a Bonzai variety - trimmed, pruned and trained to remain small, and not overly consuming.

We can bring back that crucial, warm sense of community. But to do so, we must have the need to do so. And that means taking back our power and freedom from a government that has gone rogue, and replacing that government with one that serves its people without consuming their freedoms with overbearing regulation and burdened with excessive taxes.

Vote on November 2nd.

/

Is It Immigration - Or Infiltration?

2010-10-18T15:37:00.000-07:00

In Germany, Chancellor Merkel said their multicultural immigration policy is not working. It appears that Muslims are "immigrating" into Germany - and almost all countries - in large numbers. They do not assimmilate - they simply set up Islamic mini-countries within the host country.

The same thing is happening throughout Europe, and even in North America. In the United States, the Islamic community is not the only one that does not assimilate - the Mexican community is doing the same thing. They come, refuse to assimilate, set up their own communities and pretty much ignore American culture and even its laws. In fact, they insist on incorporating THEIR laws and culture, trying to impose Sharia law in America, for example, and flying flags of their homeland, and not flying the American flag.

Some people still refer to this as immigration. It is not. It is infiltration. These cultures are infiltrating the host nations who permit multiculturalism (non-assimilation) and from there they have every intention of spreading, like a cancer.

France is already in trouble with its huge muslim population, as is the Netherlands, and now Germany. England is also on the verge of losing its control over the muslim population in that once great nation.

In America it is not yet too late - but soon will be if we don't wake up and give the heave-ho to multiculturalism and liberal ideas on open borders. Multiculturalism, coupled with liberal Political Correctness will be America's suicide pact if we do not stop it.

I am not saying we should keep other cultures from coming to America. What I am saying is if someone comes here, they should be required to assimilate, or go home. This is not Mexico, and it is not Yemen. This is America. Come here if you wish, but you had better understand you need to assimilate, and become American. You fly the AMERICAN flag. You learn ENGLISH. And you abide by OUR laws. If you do not want to be American, then don't come here. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Otherwise, you are not welcome to stay.

/

Reactionaries Do Not Solve Problems

2010-10-16T11:49:00.000-07:00

Todays headline reads:

Obama Wants to End Tax Breaks for Companies that Move Jobs Overseas

People like Obama just don't get it. And they don't get it because they are reactionaries. Instead of finding the cause of a problem and fixing it, they react to the result of the problem and try to fight only the symptoms using punishment, not positive incentives. If a person chooses to get to the core of a situation, they will find the solution is usually simple and effective.

The problem APPEARS to be that businesses are moving jobs overseas. This is what liberals believe. It is what a community organizer would see. It is what someone would see if they did not bother to think it out. But businesses moving jobs overseas is not the problem - it is only a sympton of the problem. Consider...

A business has one function - to make as much profit as possible. If they move jobs overseas it is only because they can make more profit by doing so. Therefore, the solution lies in finding out WHY it is more profitable overseas, and what can we do to offset that and give businesses a profit motive for staying in America.

If you have followed me this far, you are now beginning to see the problem, and not just the symptom. The four highest cost factors (COB - Cost of Business) are wages, inventory, taxes and union benefits and costs. To make America more competitive so businesses will stay here, those costs must be reduced - preferably to a level below the costs of doing business overseas, to entice them to return to America.

Because of our chosen lifestyles of excess, we cannot compete with China when it comes to wages. And inventory is pretty much a wash - nearly the same, regardless. That leaves two areas where America can make changes.

In this regard, we can make two major changes. High corporate taxes (federal and state) can add 48% to the COB, and union benefits and costs can add from 20%-30%. Together, they add at least 68% to the cost of doing business in America. That is more than two-thirds the COB. Therefore, if we reduce taxes (instead of increasing them further as proposed by Democrats) and if we reduce the impact of unions (instead of increasing it as proposed by Democrats), we could easily reduce the COB by as much as 48% or more. How would that translate in terms of competitiveness?

In most American industries, wages account for roughly 18% of costs; inventory 10%; taxes 48% and unions 20%. The remaing 4% is profit.

In China, wages (which, by the way are rising rapidly) account for 8%; inventory 15%; taxes between 15% and 25%; unions 0%. Profit is 52%.

See the problem? If Congress were to reduce federal corporate taxes to 10% and reduced the union stranglehold by half, that would add 48% to the profit margin of businesses, giving a total profit of 52% - the same as China - while still retaining our high wages structure and the most necessary union benefits. There would be no incentive to move to China. And if states could be convinved to reduce corporate taxes to 5% (from the average of 10% currently), that would give businesses already in China an incentive to move back to the states - particularly since China's wages are quickly rising. And America would have plentiful jobs - even enough for all the illegal aliens.

I know many of you, particularly liberals, will scream that we are just making the rich richer. But think about that a moment - do poor people hire employees? Do poor people spend billions on R&D to create the products you want? Making the rich wealthier is the only way of creating more jobs. The rich make our lives better - they are the ones, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs - that make our lives richer. Yes, they get a bigger share of the pie, but they are also making more pies, so we all benefit.

In short, the rich will be rich, either here or in China. So the choice is clear - in which country do you want them to live, and produce jobs and products?

/

Opaque

2010-10-11T21:00:00.001-07:00

Remember the promise of TRANSPARENCY?

Obama's hidden records: Why are these off limits?

1. Certified copy of original birth certificate. (I am not a "birther", but this is still an unanswered question - no original copy has been produced to date, so this question remains pertinent here concerning transparency)

2. Columbia University transcripts sealed.

3. Columbia thesis paper sealed.

4. Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups. (millions were donated via untraceable pre-paid cards which could have come from anywhere - even Iran or China)

5. Harvard University transcripts sealed.

6. Illinois State Senate records limited access.

7. Illinois State Senate schedule limited access.

8. Law practice client list and billing records/summary

9. Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother

10. Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)

11. Occidental College Transcripts hidden.

12. Parent’s marriage Certificate not available.

13. Record of baptism.

14. Did Obama Actually Ever Register for Selective Service?

15. Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007

16. Passport records for all passports.

17. Scholarly articles not available.

18. SAT and LSAT test scores not available.

19. Access to his grandmother in Kenya.

20. List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists.

21. Punahou grade school records.

22. Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.

23. Obama 1964 Divorce Papers - 13 Pages - Missing Pg 11.

24. Why isn’t Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?

25. Why isn’t Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?

Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could. These are pretty easy things to produce. Why are they all missing or sealed? For what purpose?

Just wondering...as we all should be.

/

An Oxford Casino

2010-10-11T18:02:00.000-07:00

Question #1 on this years ballot is whether or not we should permit casino gambling in Oxford (next time it will be Calais). Frankly, I do not intend to vote either way, as it does not directly impact me and there are pros and cons. But...

Those who promote the idea are being dishonest with you. They claim it will bring huge amounts of money from out-of-state. But if you think about that for a moment, and know anything about geography, you will know that claim is absurd.

The only "out-of-state" money will come from northern New Hampshire, with a sparse population, and not all of them gamblers. Much of southern New Hampshire is closer to the well-established Mohegan Sun in Connecticut. And most of Massachusetts is also closer to Connecticut. And Canada - they already have casinos. So I fail to see how a casino in Oxford will bring in huge amounts of revenue not already here.

But what it will bring in is a certain level of crime, as evidenced everywhere there is a casino, and a greater likelihood of family dissolutions caused by addictive gambling made easy. But what might be even more onerous is the shift in political power that always accompanies a casino. Casinos make money. LOTS of money. And with that kind of money comes power. And power corrupts. If you think we have problems in Maine politics now, just wait until we have casinos. The people - the average Joe on the streets - will lose power.

But there is an upside to a casino. Currently, Mainers who want to enjoy a weekend at a posh gambling resort would have to travel to Connecticut, ot Atlantic City. Not only is that expensive and time consuming, it also removes money from Maine.

Therefore, proponents would be better served, and would be more honest if they were to plug the casino on the basis on millions of dollars staying in Maine, rather than trying to sell us on millions coming in.

/

Could Not Believe My Ears

2010-10-09T05:40:00.000-07:00

I could not believe what she said, or that she could be either that stupid, or that dishonest. Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, said food stamps and unemployment give the biggest bang for the buck; that every dollar we give out in that way will come back as $1.79.

I have a degree in economics. I have run the numbers every way possible, and Pelosi's statement doesn't even begin to hold water - or make any sense at all. She claims that money goes to companies who then have to hire people to meet the increased demand.

First, there is no indication food stamps or unemployment increases demand enough to force any company to hire more employees. But even assuming it does, here is the great flaw in her "thinking" (I use the term "thinking" in a very loose sense when referring to Pelosi).

The average business has a profit margin of 4-20%. Most run at the low end. Assuming a profit margin of even 10% on average, it would require $300,000 in subsidies like food stamps to provide a company with just $30,000 profit - enough to pay for an employee. But it gets worse. A company cannot use all its profits for hiring because, in order to increase production they must aslso increase costs, like the cost of inventory on goods needed to produce their product. So, in order to pay a new employee $30,000, the company would have to collect closer to $1.2 million dollars worth of subsidies like food stamps.

$1.2 million spent to create one $30,000 job. And since most Americans earning $30,000 pay ZERO taxes, none of that money makes it back to the Treasury.

Again, I have tried running the numbers in every possible light and could find no way to make a spent dollar come out to $1.79. Except one...

When money is given, free, to lower income people, it earns their support. By Democrats increasing the amount of food stamps and unemployment, they increase the number of people who are indebted to them, and will vote for them to insure the money keeps coming. This is the ONLY scenario in which a spent dollar earns a profit in votes and power for Democrats.

That said, on the other hand a dollar invested rather than spent can, indeed, result in $1.79 return. Investing money is the ONLY way to make it grow. Hence, if those dollars were given to small businesses (which employ 97% of all employees), the money could be used directly for growth, which means hiring. After all, the only reason for selling shares of a business to investors is to provide growth capital.

The figures do not lie. I wish I could say the same for people like Speaker Pelosi.

Ms Pelosi, if there is a way to turn $1.00 of taxpayer money into $1.79, perhaps you should pass a law that forces the U.S. Treasury to use the method. We could then pay off our debt and deficits in no time at all.

Now, I'm sure there will be those who will claim I am advocating putting an end to entitlements, but there is nothing in this post that says I am against food stamps or unemployment. I am not. But I am against giving so much, for so long to people who COULD be caring for themselves but just do not want to. Fully 70% of all government entitlements are wasted; given not to the needy, but to the clueless and useless. The government needs to put "welfare" back into local hands, and the federal governments only role should be to make sure all localities are doing the job. Local communities know who is needy and who is just lazy.

By cutting even 50% of the waste, we can do much more to help those who really need it while saving taxpayer money. Instead of giving $100 to needy Joe and $100 to lazy Mike, we could give $150 to needy Joe and put $50 back into the Treasury. Lazy Mike can fend for himself.

Frankly, I am tired of giving my hard-earned money to drug-dealers, drunks and child molesters simply because they "qualify" using "income guidelines". Instead of using income guidelines, we need to start using more sensible methods of determining need, such as physical ability, mental ability and/or unforeseen personal crisis (short term only). Everyone else can and should fend for themselves.

Except for the severely impaired mentioned above, everyone can earn a living. Nothing stops a poor person from getting a job of some sort, or if that is not possible, to give themselves a job by hiring out. Be the local handyman. Do baking or housekeeping for busy people. Do shopping for busy people. Mow lawns. Everyone can do something.

When the steelworker's union killed the company I was working for in '72 I could have collected unemployment and food stamps. Instead, I grabbed my wife's ballpoint paints and painted T-shirts. It paid the bills, along with some metal detecting on the side. And again in '76 when I got laid off at my newest job, I supported my family by starting a small business that connected local college students with residents who needed work done - I would send Don over to put up Mrs. Murray's storm windows, and Margie would go over to babysit for the Davisons. My "Work For Education" company provided a lot of cash in commissions, without me having to work very hard at all. After all, instead of earning 100% of one income I was earning 10% of 50 incomes.

The point is this - if someone is incapable of supporting themselves due to causes not within their control, help them. Everyone else needs to help themselves or pay the consequences - if they get desperate enough, they will work. Even homeless drunks go "canning", picking up aluminum cans and cashing them in so they could buy their next bottle of MD 20/20.

The short take - Pelosi and other liberals care nothing about helping the poor. All they want to do is stay in power, and are using the disadvantaged for that purpose. They are simply buying gratitude - and votes. It's time to take the politics out of charity and to do more to help those who truly are needy.

/

Obama Indicates He Is Not President Of The U.S.

2010-10-08T09:02:00.000-07:00

Let's get something straight right at the start - anyone elected to be the POTUS is supposed to be the President of ALL people in the U.S. But Mr. Obama does not believe that, nor does he act accordingly. Rather, he has set himself up, publicly, as the President of the Democrats and Liberals of the United States.

I have gone over several hundred tapes, and in every case where Obama got in front of the camera he made it a point to be partisan - to slam Republicans at every opportunity. Sometimes for no other reason than they are Republican. Never once did we see President Bush do that.

Mr. Obama, if you cannot act like EVERYONE'S president, without bias, then you should step down and let a real leader step up to the plate. Someone who wants to represent ALL Americans, and not just those who agree with your personal ideology.

You are a disgrace, Mr. President. And I am beginning to suspect that when you got up to the podium the other day, proclaiming to be President, that it was an Act of God that the Presidential Seal fell off the podium. At the very least, it would appear to be an omen.

Mr. Obama, you were elected to be the President of ALL Americans. Start acting like you know what that means. It means setting your partisan ideology aside, leaving that to Congress, as THEY were elected to represent their party. You were not! Stop acting like a cheap community organizer and start acting like a President or get out of the way for someone who will. Even Biden would be more qualified - at least he understands what integrity is.

/

Don't Feed The Bears

2010-09-29T12:30:00.000-07:00

If you go to any of the National Parks you will see signs everywhere warning you not to feed the bears. In fact, it is illegal. And the reasons are sound.

If you feed the bears, they will come to expect it. They will learn to depend upon it. And when you run out of food to give, they will demand more and get mean, angry, and will attack you when there is no more. Bears WILL bite the hand that feeds them if it stops feeding them.

Throughout Europe today - Spain, France, Greece etc. - the people have taken to the streets, rioting, burning cars, looting, hurting people. All trains and other common carriers, as well as most other services have shut down. The reason? Same thing - the governments that gave their people all those handouts (entitlements) can no longer afford to do so, and have cut back severely in order to get their finances in order. And the people who have come to expect, depend upon and even demand those handouts are furious - they don't want the free ride to end. They feel cheated because they can no longer mooch off those that do the work.

America is heading in the same direction. All our entitlements are bankrupting us, but the people who get those entitlements just don't care, as long as they get "theirs". And the day is coming when our government will also have to get its financial house in order, and the only way that can be done is to cut entitlements. And the rioting will begin. The bears will be angry, and will get mean.

The strange thing is, our Constitution does not allow for entitlements, and no one is "entitled" to anything that they, themselves have not earned. Yet they are precisely the ones who will riot in the streets.

We, The People need to come to our senses and stop providing "entitlements" that people simply are not entitled to. If we keep on the current course, the bears will attack!

/

Reduce Risk of Alzheimer's

2010-09-28T19:03:00.000-07:00

Wait a minute - what was this blog supposed to be about? Oh yeah - Alzheimer's.

Seriously, there are ways to greatly reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, though it would be much more effective the younger you start.

Do you know what shows up, alarmingly in high quantities, in the brains of Alzheimer's victims? ALUMINUM. Researchers are relatively certain that the accumulation of aluminum in the brain foster's Alzheimers.

Until the 1980's, Alzheimer's was relatively rare. Since the '80's it has been steadily increasing. Now think about this - before 1950 there was almost no aluminum being consumed in our diets. Then, suddenly, frozen foods (i.e. T.V. dinners etc) and soft drinks were packaged in aluminum. Aluminum pots and pans replaced tin and steel.

Suddenly, people were inadvertently consuming aluminum. Lots of it. And a generation later the effects started to make their preence known.

To make matters much worse, communities across the country began fluoridating their water. Fluoride, a by-product of making aluminum, was rat poison. It was banned for being too toxic. So now they put it in the water (all other modern, industrial nations have banned it from water supplies). But here's the kicker - fluoride causes the body to ABSORB more of the aluminum you consume. And guess where it goes? That's right - straight to the brain.

To reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, simply eliminate the consumption of aluminum. Cook with steel, not aluminum. Avoid aluminum and aluminum foil contacting food. Stay away from fluoridated water. And the younger you start, the better, since aluminum accumulates and does not flush out of the body.

/

Vegetarian Myths

2010-09-27T19:48:00.000-07:00

It seems everywhere you go these days there are fanatics trying to convince people that it is healthier to be a vegetarian, and so many "celebrities" that have been duped into going out stumping for vegetarianism and PETA.

They can do as they wish, but they should stop conning others into their drivel. And drivel it is, as the evidence shows.

FACT: Vegetarians die younger, according to census data

FACT: Vegetarian kids are sicklier, according to the Archives of Pediactric Adolescent Medicine that tracks such things

FACT: Vegtarian diets do NOT make you more "regular". Even teen vegetarians are 8 times more likely to need and use laxatives

FACT: Researchers at the University of Massachusetts Medical School have linked meatless, low protein diets to slumping sex function and muscle loss and bone damage.

FACT: Nature dictates what any creature is supposed to eat, and each animal (Man is an animal) has the teeth necessary for the diet best suited to them and their survival. Herbivores (i.e. cows, sheep, rabbits etc.) have incisors and molars, suited to eating plants. Carnivores (i.e. wolves, cats etc.) have canine teeth for ripping flesh. Man has the teeth of an omnivore - an animal that eats both plant and flesh. We have incisors and molars, but also bicuspids and canine (eye) teeth. Ergo, nature says we need meat in order to maintain our health.

And here is more news - the deadliest factor in heart disease is not cholesterol, as many believe. Cholesterol is harmless until it "catches" on a rough spot in your arteries, and then builds up from that. And the thing that causes those "rough spots" is a little thing called homocysteine, which corrodes arteries like a rusty pipe.

And can you guess what the best way to reduce homocysteine is? You guessed it - eating red meat.

For those who believe in the Old Testament, it is written in Genesis that God tells us what our sources of food shall be. It includes meat.

And for those of you who may still doubt the veracity of this, perhaps you should spend time sitting outside a vegetarian store and watch the customers. You will find that the majority of them are more sickly looking than the average person who walks into a butcher shop. I'm not kidding. Check it out for yourself.

Vegetarianism has other problems as well, including some serious problems for the ecology and the economy. If Man were to become vegetarian, there would be no raising of livestock (reducing jobs and eliminating many businesses). No livestock means no fertilizer for all the plants we would have to grow. This would result in a reduction of food sources, driving prices up and increasing hunger throughout the world. If you doubt that, it is a fact that the simple act of mandating 10% ethanol in our gas resulted in food shortages and higher prices worldwide.

Anyone who wants to be a vegetarian has every right to eat what they want. But don't BS the rest of us with your bogus excuses and disproved myths of better health. It ain't so.

/

When Is A Fence Not A Fence?

2010-09-24T21:00:00.001-07:00

If you want to start a real dust up with liberals, suggest building a fence on the border. The result will be they will call you a bigoted racist, among other things.

The President of Mexico, Phillippe Calderone has called Americans racist for wanting to secure our borders. He has even considered suing Arizona. And when he visited Obama, Calderone blasted those who want a fence.

Which brings us to the news item of the day - president Calderone has decided to build his own fence, on his southern border. The reason is to keep out the illegal immigrants coming up from Central and South America who are putting a strain on Mexico's resources.

Can anyone say HYPOCRITE?

And where are all those American liberals who blast us for wanting a fence? Why are we hearing nothing from them about Calderone's fence?

Again, it seems that HYPOCRITE is the word of the day.

/

So, You Don't Believe There Will Be Death Panels...

2010-09-24T11:05:00.000-07:00

There is a drug currently on the market and approved by the FDA that successfully treats some otherwise untreatable cancers. But it costs $7700 per month. And most insurance policies cover it. It extends lives.

Yesterday the FDA said it will remove its approval of the drug "because it is too expensive." Not because it is risky. Just because of its cost.

So here it is, for the disbelievers - ObamaCare does not want to pay that kind of money to keep you alive, so they will disapprove a drug that can keep you alive, simply because of its cost. By disapproving it, insurance companies no longer will cover it. And people who depend upon that drug for their very lives will die.

But still the liberals tell us there will be no "death panels". But I contend they have already convened...

/

Where Is The Outrage?

2010-09-24T11:03:00.001-07:00

Today, the Democrats in Congress have brought in a far-left liberal comic, Stephen Colbert, to "testify" on immigration. The Democrats asked him to do so in his TV role as a phony conservative - Colbert makes his living playing the part of a dumb, racist conservative. And that is how the Democrats want him to "testify".

I don't know about you, but EVERY American, regardless of party should be outraged that our Congressional Hall has been turned into a soundstage for Saturday Night Live. Of course, since Democrats have already elected a Saturday Night Live clown as a Senator, this comes as no surprise.

The only thing missing is having Tina Fey do her stand-up on Sarah Palin.

Every Democrat who had any part in this childish, ignorant attempt to demean Congress and insult the American people and waste this kind of time and taxpayer money should be immediately tossed out on their ear. In a more patriotic time, they would have been tarred, feathered and run out on a rail.

By the way, folks - this little farce cost you $125,000....

/

Why America Is Slipping

2010-09-19T07:10:00.000-07:00

For 200 years, Americans, as a group, had one goal - to BUILD something better. Most people were wrapped up in being citizens of a free nation where their creativity could be unleashed, some on a large scale (think Henry Ford or Thomas Edison), and others on a smaller scale (think farmers and settlers).

For 200 years, we were growing a nation, building things better. But over the last 50 years, we have stopped being citizens and have become consumers. Instead of building something better, a large number of Americans can think of nothing else but how much they can consume. How many toys can I have? How many "super-sized" meals can I eat? How much can I TAKE?

And therein lies the difference. America used to be a nation of people willing to give their all to contribute to the growth and prosperity of the nation. And now we are far down the road to seeing how many freebies we can get from the government, paid for by those few who still want America to grow. We do not place the nation as a top priority. Instead, it's all about "me, me, me".

With 49% of all working Americans not paying ANY taxes, and with nearly half of all Americans living off government entitlements or salaries, we have reached a crossroads. It is like a see-saw - too much weight on one side will push things irrevocably in that direction. If government grows any further, America will be on a downward spiral from which we will not recover. After all, when more people are consuming than growing, the pot empties quickly.

Think of it this way - what do you think will happen if you withdraw more money from the bank than you put in?

America needs to re-evaluate its addiction to consumerism. Certainly, it is nice to have all the goodies, and that is not a problem. The problem arises when we take out more than we are willing to put in. We all want it all, but we are not all willing to do our share to PROVIDE it.

How much do YOU put back, for all that you use up? How self-sufficient are you? How would you fare if, suddenly, the government was gone? If you keep harvesting crops year after year, but never replenish the soil by adding fertilizer, the crops will stop coming and a dust-bowl will replace the crops, which happened in the 1930's. If everyone is eating at the table, but they never get up from the table to go out and grow more, the table will soon be devoid of food.

Wake up, America. Go ahead and consume - but each and every man, woman and child has an obligation to put as much back in as they take out. If we do not, our account will soon be overdrawn and we will all suffer.

/

Too Busy...

2010-08-17T10:02:00.000-07:00

A United States Marine was taking some college courses between assignments. He had completed 20 missions in Iraq and Afghanistan . One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist, and a member of the ACLU.

One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, "GOD, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform... I'll give you exactly 15 min."

The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am GOD, I'm still waiting."

It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.

The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned, and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, "What in the world is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

The Marine calmly replied, "GOD was too busy today protecting America 's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an idiot. So He sent me."

The classroom erupted in cheers!

They've Done It Again

2010-07-20T14:00:00.000-07:00

While most Republicans attempted to get Congress to actually FUND the unemployment extensions (there's plenty of money left in the stimulus bill), our moronic senators Snowe and Collins both broke with the party and voted with the Democrats - again!

I don't mind them voting with the Democrats when there is good reason. But this was NOT a good reason - thanks to them, another $36 BILLION has been dumped onto our children and grandchildren to pay, when it could have easily been avoided.

It would have been SO easy to just take that amount from unspent stimulus funds, in which case ALL republicans would have been in favor. But Snowe and Collins again undermined efforts to reign in the wild spending, and in fact contributed to the wild deficit spending spree.

Had Snowe and Collins held fast to PRINCIPLES (something neither of them seems to comprehend), the Democrats would have been forced to fund the extension, and thereby protect our kids and grandkids. But no, Snowe and Collins do not care about future generations, apparently.

And do you realize that unemployment benefits have now been extended for 2.5 years? Frankly, if anyone remains jobless for two and a half years, they simply aren't looking.

Neither my wife nor my "fresh-out-of-school" daughter have any working history for their resume, yet both got jobs the first week they went job hunting. So do not try to BS anyone by saying there just isn't any work to be had.

Here's an example - I know a person who has been out of work for almost 18 months. When the Republicans caused a lapse in his free money, he was upset because "I now gotta go look for work, and it interferes with my fishing." In other words, as long as the free money comes in, many unemployed persons simply will not even look for work.

But whether or not benefits should be extended is not the issue at hand. The issue is that Maine's idiot senators just screwed our children and grandchildren again, to the tune of $36 billion just so they could be buddies with the liberals.

Frankly, both senators need to start being honest and run as the democrats they really are, because they certainly are not republicans. They are frauds - democrats running as republicans.

/

Olympia Snowe - Hurting Maine Again

2010-07-12T17:02:00.000-07:00

Olympis Snowe has said she will vote for the "financial reform" bill. But as anyone with any sense of finance or economics understand, not only will it not "reform" anything, it will hurt us all - a lot!

This bill, if passed into law, will increase the cost of doing business, banking and in effect, touch every part of our lives. Whenever the cost of business goes up, those costs get passed onto the consumer - all of us "little people." It is WE who will pay, not the bankers, not the businesses, not Wall Street. Everything flows downhill - fact of life.

But of course, Olympia Snowe does not understand that, nor does she care. All she cares about is her own career. And for that very reason, the people of Maine should put an end to that career the next time her term is up. A chimpanzee could do the job better than she and Collins can.

You may not know this, but both of Maine's Senators make Maine a laughing stock. People all over the country keep wondering what kind of idiots would keep putting clowns like Snowe and Collins in office.

Meanwhile, Snowe once again will do her level best to screw the people of Maine, just as she always has.

/

Timelines

2010-07-01T18:57:00.001-07:00

I was going through a bunch of material gathered after 9/11. And I noticed that many, many liberals blamed Bush for 9/11, stating he should have somehow seen it coming and stopped it. Note that Bush had been in office for just 9 months.

Obama has been in office for 18 months, and the economy is Bush's fault, the 10% unemployment rate is Bush's fault, the stock market is Bush's fault, immigration is Bush's fault, and even the oil spill is Bush & Cheney's fault.

So, why is it that Bush is responsible for things after being office 9 months - and even after being OUT of office for a year and a half - but Obama is not responsible for ANYTHING after 18 months?

I'm just askin'...

/

Can The Loons Get Any Loonier?

2010-06-29T09:37:00.000-07:00

A California congressman is investigating a government proposal to upgrade immigration detention centers to include unmonitored phone lines, dance and cooking lessons, continental breakfasts, freedom from lockdown and other amenities.

The upgrades were detailed in an e-mail between CCA, a contractor that runs the facility, and ICE officials. The e-mail was obtained by the Houston Chronicle, which outlined the following additional changes:

Self-serve fresh vegetable and beverage bars.
Arts and crafts lessons and movie nights.
Eliminating lockdowns and lights-out for low-risk detainees.
Allowing visitors to stay as long as they like in a 12-hour period.
Providing a unit manger so detainees have someone to report problems to other than the guard.
Allowing low-risk detainees to wear their own clothing or other non-penal attire.
Providing e-mail access and Internet-based free phone service.

"The federal government doesn't provide that for our seniors who have worked legally all their lives, why should we do that for people who have violated our sovereignty?" U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., said.

ICE spokeswoman Gillian Brigham stated that "any of the reforms will not include additional taxpayer funding."

Considering the government has NO money other than that which they collect from taxes, that is literally impossible, and therefore an outright lie.

You, the reader, may or may not be a liberal, but no one can justify this sort of thing. As a life-long "born here" American, I do not get treated this well by the government. And while the detention centers may not be prisons, they ARE "holding cells" for suspects. If illegals can get this in their detention centers, why are not American lawbreakers, being held on suspicion, gettiung the same?

This is absurd and outrageous. To give arts and dance lessons, a salad bar and Bingo nights to people who violated our laws is the ultimate in liberal lunacy.

/

I Am An American

2010-06-28T06:40:00.001-07:00

I Am the Liberal-Progressives Worst Nightmare.
I am an American. I believe in God.
I ride Harley Davidson Motorcycles and believe in American products.
I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some Liberal governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican!
I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!
I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it makes you a smart American.
I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything. Get over it! I
believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, do it in English.
I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.
I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.
I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing about it.
I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So, shut up already.
I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country! This is AMERICA .We like it the way it is!
If you were born here and don't like it you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you.
I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. Can I get an AMEN on that one?
I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are.
And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my drivers license.
And I'm proud that 'God' is written on my money. I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, or that Arizona is a border state or that Guam will not tip over if you send more troops, I don't want you in government or deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years. Either get informed or stay away from the voting booth.
I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making 'donations' to their cause. Get a Job and do your part!
I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents - one good man and one good woman.
I believe 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers and liberals think.
I believe that the American flag should be the only one flown in AMERICA! If you must fly another, the American flag should be flown ABOVE it.

If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American and proud of it.

/

These People Are CRAZY!

2010-06-23T13:06:00.001-07:00

(June 23) -- "The Mexican government has thrust itself into the legal battle against Arizona's controversial immigration law, joining U.S. advocacy groups in federal court to argue that the measure is unconstitutional and violates the basic rights of Mexican citizens.

"Lawyers for Mexico filed a brief supporting a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center and others against the Arizona law

"Mexico has a duty to protect its citizens and ensure that ethnicity is not used as criteria for discriminatory acts," the court document states. Mexico argues that the Arizona law threatens "the human and civil rights of its citizens when they are present in Arizona."

Now that's what I call unbelievably arrogant. What part of "illegal" do these Mexican morons not understand? Mexicans do NOT have any right to even be IN this country unless they enter legally. And if they enter legally, they need not fear the Arizona law.

If they enter illegally, they have BROKEN THE LAW. And when you break the law, just about the only right you have is the "right to remain silent".

Moreover, the Arizona law specifically states, in four different places, that ethnicity may NOT play any role in enforcing the law. These Mexican idiots and these anti-American advocacy groups like the ACLU are intentionally coloring the issue with non-truths in order top create fear. They KNOW it will not result in racial profiling, but they say it will, anyway.

I would suggest to the Mexicans to stay OUT of American legal issues, particularly when the law-breakers are Mexican. And I would suggest to the advocacy groups that if they cannot be honest, to just shut the Hell up. If you have to lie, obfuscate the truth or spin the issues in order to push your agenda, then your agenda is WRONG!

The ONLY thing the Mexican government should be doing is telling their people to NOT break American law, and to help control their own side of the border. After all, if they do not want their citizens to be accosted in the U.S., simply keep them OUT of the U.S. That solves the problem for both sides.

As a side note, people who illegally enter Mexico are subject to two years in prison. They should consider themselves fortunate that our laws do not mimic theirs.

/

Where Have We Seen This Before?

2010-06-18T18:30:00.000-07:00

In today's news, the following:

"Newly proposed legislation by Democrats would give the federal government authority to seize and even switch off the Internet during a national crisis."

Now let's see - wasn't it Rahm Emanuel that said "Never let a serious crisis go to waste"?

The problem, while overlooked by many, is simply this - WHO determines what constitutes a "crisis"? The Feds, of course. And in the past 18 months alone the Obama administration has noted a "crisis" no less than 6 times. So, according to this bill, they could shut down the internet WHENEVER they wish, for whatever reason(s) that appeal to them.

Imagine if in 1776 the British were able to shut down communications between the colonies, thereby preventing Americans from participating in the Revolution.

Now I will ask just one simple question:

"Where have we seen this before - a government that sets itself up to be able to shut down the internet in their countries?"

The answer: Communist China, Communist Venezuela, Communist Cuba, Communist North Korea, Pakistan & Iran.

Is that where America wants to go? Are those the countries we wish to emulate?

Tell your congress persons to reject this tyrannical idea. The free flow of information is the greatest protection of freedom for us all.

/

They Just Won't Quit

2010-06-17T15:06:00.000-07:00

Just when sane and intelligent people thought a little truth and sanity were beginning to come through, the far-left lunatics who touted ETHANOL are at it again. Once again they are pushing ethanol as a viable solution to petroleum, and they even have the liberals in Congress considering passing legislation that would put 15% into all gasoline products instead of the current 10% requirement.

It does not matter to these loons that ethanol has already been proven to be a very bad idea.

First, it is more expensive to produce than oil - about 80% more expensive, which is why the government pays out billions of your tax dollars as subsidies to those who make it.

Next, it takes MORE petroleum to actually make ethanol - the oil for the equipment to plant, irrigate, harvest, transport and convert plants to ethanol requires roughly 1.4 gallons of oil to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.

Next, it has already been determined that ethanol is corrosive to vehicle engines built before 2001.

And then there is the simple fact that in order to produce enough ethanol just to fuel cars and trucks would require more farm area than is available in the entire country.

And finally, it is just plain stupid to use our food supply as fuel. Since the inception of ethanol, food prices across the board have risen greatly - ice cream, pizza, beef, cheese, milk - you name it. Corn used for ethanol cannot be used to feed livestock, dairy cattle or people. Doubt it? Read the next "gallon" of ice cream you buy - you will note that it is no longer a gallon, or even close to it. It is only 3/4 of a gallon, but the price has still increased, though the amount has decreased.

Ethanol is just another lie the liberals and "greenies" tell in order to push their own insidious agenda designed to bring America down to the level of the rest of the world, all in the name of "saving the planet". Even though America is polluting less than any other industrial nation - and the greatest polluters have already stated they will not reduce their own emissions.

Wake up, America. In almost every case, anything "green" is not green at all. Those curly lightbulbs that reduce electricity usage? Forget it. It costs three times as much to produce them, requires nearly 5 times as much glass (which is produced by heat, created by fuel), and includes a toxic element (mercury) which requires the used bulbs to be disposed of only at hazardous waste sites - and more than 95% of the population lives about 1-2 gallons of gas away from the nearest site.

Green? Not a chance.

/

His Marxism Is Showing - Again

2010-06-15T20:18:00.001-07:00

In Obama's speech this evening, he stated that he will "inform BP that they are to put money aside" in an escrow account, to insure payment of debts caused by the oil spill.

Excuse me, Mr. President, but I guess you forgot. This is America, not Venezuela or Cuba. In America, not even the President of the United States can order a private company to place funds into escrow without a little thing called "due process". That's right, Mr. Harvard graduate, professor of Constitutional studies. You cannot order a business to put funds aside, no matter how good of an idea it may be. Only the courts can order that, and only after BP is legally found at fault.

I do agree that BP needs to pay for all damages. But if forced to put billions into escrow, they will have less available to drill for oil that brings in that money. If you hamstring someone, they simply cannot produce effectively. And the last thing we need is for BP to be so emasculated by Obama's lust for power to the point that they become UNABLE to pay.

But in any case, Mr. Obama has neither the authority nor the right to order that they put money aside. He is not KING, and this is not yet a dictatorship. He would do well to remember that, and leave his Marxism in the closet.

/

Maine Offered

2010-06-11T21:21:00.001-07:00

Shortly after the BP oil spill began, a Maine company, Packgen, offered to provide 20 miles of booms, with the capacity to produce another 20 miles every day.

The government ignored them, and the booms are not being used.

Just 3 days after the spill began, the Dutch goverment offered to provide skimmer ships that could clean up 20,000 tons of crude every day.

Our government turned them down.

A Texas businessman offered to send 25 skimmer ships.

Our government turned them down.

The Saudi's offered to clean up the spill.

Our government said, "No, thanks".

And Obama says we are doing everything possible, and BP is culpable.

I could be wrong (but I'm not), but it looks like the Obama administration is trying to guarantee terrible damage from the spill. If the spill is bad enough, and long enough, he increases his chances of passing his "Cap & Trade" bill that controls the energy industry, and he would be able to further the agenda of environmentalists who would let Mankind go extinct in order to protect some endangered snail somewhere. He could shut down drilling (which he has done), which is what the liberal environmentalists have wanted for a long time.

And I see that is exactly what is transpiring - the administration is using the oil spill, and demonizing the oil industry for strictly political purposes.

For those of you who voted for the bumbling, incompetent imbecile who cannot lead a thirsty horse to water, and who values political agendas above the welfare of America I say, "Thanks - for nothing!"

Since Day One, Obama has been playing the "blame game". He and his liberal cohorts in Congress only want to place blame, then punish.

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but a REAL leader would lead, and put all efforts into solutions. Placing blame and punishing, if appropriate, can come later.

Yes, BP has a lot to make up for, and we should hold them accountable. But our government also has made huge mistakes here, and should be held accountable. But right now, all eyes should be on solving the problem, not pointing fingers.

/

America's "New Image"

2010-06-11T19:04:00.001-07:00

One of Obama'a main "selling points" during the 2008 election was that he would improve America's image in the world, and build friendships and cooperation with other nations.

When I awoke this morning and turned on the news, I saw that Mexico is royally pissed at us, the UK, our staunchest ally is even angrier at Obama's politicalization of the BP disaster that will harm millions of Brits, and Israel is questioning, rightfully, whether America is still on their side.

The best and closest allies America has had, and Obama is successfully alienating them faster than the oil is spilling in the Gulf.

We have two other trusted allies - Canada and Australia. I'm waiting to see how he will turn them against America.

/

The Sandbox

2010-05-21T11:12:00.001-07:00

I don't know about anyone else but I am getting sick and tired of a government run by immature, highly incompetent imbeciles.

Today, on orders from the administration, ICE (immigration enforcement) has declared they
will refuse to do their job and not handle any illegal immigrants picked up by Arizona.

How childish - "If you don't want to play MY way then I'm going to pick up my ball and go home." Hey there, ICE - you are being PAID to do the job, so DO it or get the Hell out of the way for people who WILL do it!

Anyone - EVERYONE - who voted for Obama should be thoroughly ashamed and disgusted by now. So childish, yet still a Chicago mobster at heart. Remember when he said he was "going to focus like a laser on jobs"? Have you seen any of that yet? I haven't. Instead, he focuses on every socialist issue the progressives have been trying to get done for a century. Nothing on jobs. Nothing!

And how about that bipartisanship? His idea of bipartisan is "we'll make all the rules and laws - you just sit down, shut up and vote for it or we'll call you obstructionists."

Transparency? What a laugh. All back room, closed door dealing, and hiding everything. They won't even let the press ask a nominee for the Supreme Court any questions at all. None! And he has not had a press conference since last July!

Maybe would should include a "probationary period" with the presidency - if he isn't doing what he promised in the first year, we could simply pull his probation and send him packing.

I see all the terrible damage this "comic-in-chief" has wrought upon us in just 16 months and it really scares me that he has another two and a half years...

/

Once Again...

2010-05-20T13:28:00.000-07:00

No surprise here. Once again, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins were the two "Republicans" to vote with the democrats on a major issue.

I really do hate to call those two RiNO's Republicans because they obviously are not - EVERY time the chips are down, both of them vote Democrat.

Snowe and Collins are NOT Republicans. They are Democrats calling themselves Republicans. And any politician who is too dishonest and too cowardly to call themselves what they really are, are just too dishonest and cowardly to represent us.

They thoroughly disgust me. Not because they vote with the liberals, but because they LIE to us about being Republicans all the while being Democrats.

Snowe & Collins - if you do not have the courage of your convictions and run as the Democrats you are, then you do not deserve to hold ANY office. I would rather vote for an honest Democrat than a dishonest one that calls themselves Republican!

It's a little something called CHARACTER and INTEGRITY - words you seem not to know the meaning of.

I guess you simply are too blind to see what happened to the other betrayer on Tuesday - your little buddy, Arlen Specter has been put out to pasture. You may be next!

/

Moron - Or Con?

2010-05-05T17:13:00.000-07:00

OK, so the King of Global Warming hysteria is Al Gore. That's a given. We accept that. And according to "Chicken Little" Al, global warming will raise sea levels 20 feet - coastlines will be gone, and the oceans of the world will reach a mile or more inland.

But now we find out that Mr. Chicken Little just bought a $9,000,000 mansion in California - OCEANFRONT PROPERTY!

OK, Mr. Gore - either you believe your own hype and you are a complete moron for wasting money on a home soon to be under the Pacific, or you do not believe your own BS and you are a master con artist. I already know the answer. But each of you readers should think about this, and come up with your own.

My answer: he is a con artist when it comes to global warming, AND he is a moron for thinking we are all so brain-dead that we would not notice he bought this place. And frankly, I am sick and tired of politicians and elitists thinking the rest of us are a bunch of idiots and sheep.

/

Will The Insanity Never End?

2010-04-13T10:26:00.000-07:00

This is happening right here in Maine. The "Human Rights Commission" in Maine is trying to make it possible for gays to be able to use the ladies room instead of the men's room.

You heard right.

According to these nutcases, Maine should have NOTHING that is gender based. That includes toilets, locker rooms, sports teams or anything else.

Last I checked, if a man is gay he is STILL a man, and should use the men's room. Time enough to use the ladies room if and when he actually undergoes the surgery to become a female.

Being gay does not make a person into the opposite sex, and they should not be entitled to impose themselves onto the opposite gender. When a female uses the ladies room, she is entitled to do so without having to share it with any man, gay or straight.

But not according to these morons in the Human Rights Commission of Maine. They seem to think that a person's gender should no longer be considered as a difference bewtween the sexes. Men can use the ladies room, and vice versa. Girls can enter the boy's locker room - and even the showers.

The people at the Maine Human Rights Commission need to find themselves on the unemployment line before they succeed in making our entire state the laughing stock of the nation.

It's time we started to do more than just complain about these infringements on society, and begin ostracizing those who would do so. Anyone so stupid and arrogant as to think they have a right to do these things should be fired and publicly ridiculed.

/

Where Does YOUR Tax Money Go?

2010-04-12T12:54:00.001-07:00

It's pretty hard to comprehend billions, even trillions of dollars and how that relates to our own family. But now there is a Taxpayer Calculator available that can show you how much of your money goes where.

For example, for someone earning $50,000 a year, their share of the Stimulus Bill is $3,783.26. Do you think you would have spent $3800 of your own money for what little you got out of it?To find out how much of your taxes go for a variety of things, check it out at www.foxnews.com/yourmoney. That is where the calculator is. Simply type in your income and watch where YOUR tax dollars go.

Here is an interesting poll - when asked if taxes are too high, about right or too low, the results were:

Too High: 53%
About Right: 46%
Too Low: 2%

The reason this poll is so interesting - according to the IRS, 48% of the folks do not pay ANY taxes. And this poll shows that 48% of the folks have no problem with tax rates.

DUH! I would not have a problem with them, either, if I wasn't paying any.

/

They Are At It Again - Crashing The Tea Parties

2010-04-12T10:37:00.000-07:00

There is a website, http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/ that enlists and encourages progressive liberals who oppose the tenets of the Tea Party (smaller government, less taxes, more personal freedoms) and get them to attend Tea Parties with the express agenda of disrupting, and even making it appear that Tea Partiers are racists, nuts and illiterates.

You can check the site yourself, to see that these Marxists, in the truest form of Saul Alinsky Marxism plan to do whatever they can to discredit the tea partiers with their deceptions. They will infiltrate a party, and then raise racist signs, and signs misspelled. They will yell racist epithets. They will act inappropriately, perhaps even violently, all in an attempt to get the lamestream media to point out the bad behavior of the Marxists and say, "Look, we told you the Tea Partiers were nutty, illiterate, violent racists." And people who are no informed may believe it.

But now you are among the informed. If you hear of a "tea partier" who is acting racist or inappropriately, you can bet it is not a tea partier at all, as they are taking great care to behave well, simply because they know they are being targeted by the lamestream media and the current White House administration.

Once more, progressive liberals are showing their true colors of insidious deception. They simply cannot argue the merits of their beliefs, so they resort to lies and deception. Don't take my word for it - check out the site yourself. They are actually proud of being liars and deceivers. Last time I checked, no true, patriotic American would ever be proud of that sort of thing.

It matters not if you like or dislike the Tea Party. But one thing that certainly does matter is whether or not the discussion and debate is honest and forthright. The liberals obviously have no use for any honest debate.

/

Rural Areas of Maine Could Lose Their Doctors

2010-04-10T07:48:00.000-07:00

The Health Care bill, now law, could deprive rural areas of the country of their doctors. How so?

The law includes a section that gives the government the power and authority to conscript (draft) up to 6000 doctors, forcing them into servitude to the government, at the pay rate that Medicare allows. Those doctors will be forced to serve at the pleasure of the government, where the government directs. This will reduce or eliminate rural doctors in two ways:

1) the government will direct conscripted doctors to work where the need is greatest - in the cities, and

2) Rural doctors will abandon rural areas because, as the only doctor likely to live in that area, he is the only target when the feds come looking for doctors to bring to the cities.

If rural doctors move to metro areas, there is only a 1 in 40 chance of being conscripted because of all the other doctors in the area. If they stay in the rural area, the chances of being conscripted are almost 100%.

So, rural doctors that do not voluntarily leave when the conscription begins will likely be forcibly removed.

Now I wonder why the liberals never mentioned this part about forcing up to 6000 doctors into government service...

Probably for the same reason they did not tell you what is on pages 148-149. If you have read the law, you will know that is where the government panel can determine what care you do or do not get based on your age, condition and importance, and that their decision is final - there is no appeal.

In fact, there are roughly 2600 pages in the law that the liberals purposely kept hidden from the public until it was too late to dissect. I wonder what other nasty surprises are in store for "free America". Stay tuned...

/

Who's Who On Social Security

2010-04-05T17:05:00.000-07:00

Sent in by Steve Flynn. Feel free to check out these FACTS at Snopes or FactCheck. Regardless of which party you belong to, facts are facts.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary. It is no longer voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program. It is now 7.65% of most all income, and if you are self-employed it is 15.3%

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year. It is no longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can now be taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: Democrats. It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, wit h Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

A: Democrats. Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take yourSocial Security away!

And the worst part about it is that uninformed citizens - and almost all Democrats - believe it!
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

/

Holding Them Accountable

2010-04-02T18:05:00.001-07:00

I was watching a most interesting tape this evening, featuring Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL). A reporter asked Congressman Hare "Where in the Constitution does the government finf the right to mandate health care?"

The Congressman responded, "I don't care about the Constitution."

Well, Mr. Hare, I'm sorry to hear that, considering that in order to BE a Congressman you had to swear an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution. Your response indicates that you have no interest in upholding the law of the land, so you are in breach of your oath of office and need to step down. (It does not help that when asked, he did not know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.)

People of Illinois, if you believe in the Constitution - you know, the little thing that makes sure you have basic human rights - then you owe it to yourselves and to the nation to impeach this clown. He is unworthy of holding ANY elected office anywhere in America.

It is thoroughly disgusting to see exactly what our Congress actually thinks of us, the Constitution and our rights. Let's change that in November. We do not need Congressmen who do not care about the Constitution, like Hare, or who think an island can capsize, as does Johnson. We need reasonably intelligent and educated people.

/

Double-Speak

2010-04-02T07:02:00.000-07:00

"AP - The nation's economy posted its largest job gain in three years in March, while the unemployment rate remained at 9.7 percent for the third straight month."

[Editor] I hope I am not alone in noticing what appears to be administration double-speak here. If there are significant job gains, as touted here, then should not the unemployment rate show that?

"The Labor Department said employers added 162,000 jobs in March, the most since the recession began but below analysts' expectations of 190,000. The total includes 48,000 temporary workers hired for the U.S. Census.'

[Editor] I see - a full 25% of those "gains" are bogus - not only are they government jobs, which do not count because they put no new money into the economy, but they are VERY temporary.

"More Americans entered the work force last month, which prevented the increase in jobs from reducing the unemployment rate."

[Editor] This sounds plausible and makes this liberal-slanted story appear legitimate until you actually stop and think:

There is not a month goes by that more Americans do not enter the workforce - every month, kids turn of working age.Using that as an excuse this month and not taking it into account in previous months is disingenuous, to say the least. In ANY month where the unemployment rate remains unchanged, that shows that jobs were gained and lost at the same rate because more workers entered the job market. It is simple math. If someone gets a job but the jobless rate is unchanged, then someone else must have either lost a job or a new worker did not find one. If you have ten people and only five are working, the unemployment rate is 50%. If you add two people who turn of age, and one of those finds a job, you STILL have an unemployment rate of 50%. Are more people working"? Yes - six are working. But more people are also unemployed, because in order for the rate not to change, six, instead of five are now unemployed.

In short, this AP article is the typical liberal spin that AP churns out. The facts are far different from the story they paint - because the rate is unchanged, yet people were added to the job market, that can only mean that more people (numbers, not percentage) are unemployed than before.

When you add people to the job market, yet the unemployment rate remains the same, that means at least half the new job seekers are now joining the ranks of the unemployed. So, while the "rate" is unchanged, the number of unemployed is up, not down as this story intentionally tries to falsely imply.

/

This Is No April Fool's Prank...

2010-04-01T18:29:00.000-07:00

But this clown is certainly an fool. When I first heard of this, I thought it was a prank. Come to find out, it is true - a Democrat Congressman from Georgie, Hank Johnson, was taped making the statement in a Congressional hearing that if we add more troops to Guam, he was afraid the island "would tip over and capsize." You can see the actual video and read the actual transcripts here - it's so-o-o funny.

To the people of Georgia, you should be fully ashamed of yourselves for electing such an obvious moron to represent you. Do you not believe you deserve better?

/

Is Free Speech Infinite?

2010-04-01T17:14:00.000-07:00

When the Westboro Baptist Church, an anti-gay group based in Topeka, Kan., picketed the 2006 funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder bearing signs that read "God Hates the USA," "God Hates Gays" and God Loves Dead Soldiers", the serviceman's father, Albert Snyder, sued for infliction of emotional distress, winning an $11 million judgment in 2007. But that did not end it.Upon appeal, Snyder's award was overturned and a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge last week ordered Snyder to pay $16,510.80 of the Westboro Baptist Church's almost $100,000 in legal fees.

Bill O'Reilly of FOX NEWS' "The O'Reilly Factor" says he will pay the legal tab for the father of the fallen Marine. Said O'Reilly,: "I'm not going to let this injustice stand."

On Good Morning America Snyder stated, "It was bad enough that they reversed the decision, but then to tell me I had to pay them money so they can do this to more military funerals, that's what hurts the most."

The so-called "church", which bears no resemblance to anything Christian is well-known for it vile hatred of almost everyone but themselves. They make it their life's work to promote hatred for gays, soldiers and almost anyone else not in their little clicque. According to them, God does not love; God hates. And there is nothing Christian in that.

But the legal argument is what I find interesting here. In the first court action, the judge determined the "church" had over-stepped their right to free speech by imposing their hate speech at a funeral, where a certain decorum is expected and deserved. The appeals court found otherwise - that people have the right to ANY speech, any time and any place.

I believe the appeals court has conveniently overlooked the concept that freedom of speech is not infinite. It does not permit libel. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And you cannot incite violence or a riot. Exceptions to free speech are made because there is an unspoken part in all our rights - while we do have certain rights, we do not have the right to abuse those rights. Rights come with responsibilities. And this "church" completely ignores responsibilities and overtly abuses their right to free speech.

This will go to the Supreme Court. It's hard to say how they will find, since several of the justices are activists, and do not pay much heed to the Constitution. But I suspect Snyder will win in the end, because this, so far, is a horrible miscarriage of justice. It always is, when the bad guys win and the honorable are beaten down.

So, folks, what do you think? Would you feel this "church" has a right to come to the funeral of one of your own loved ones, and picket, protest and denegrate the memory of that loved one? Or if they came and did that at your own wedding - should "free speech" allow that?

/

Should (Ex) Cons Vote?

2010-04-01T07:47:00.000-07:00

The misnamed Democracy Restoration Act, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., (whose politician wife is a convicted felon) would force all states to immediately restore the voting rights of convicted felons the moment they leave prison -- even if they're on probation or have paid none of the civil penalties imposed on them.

I have a problem with restoring the right to vote to ex-cons, and so should everyone. Here's why...

Paying your debt does not make you any less a shopaholic. You pay your debts, presumably, but you keep shopping. Ex-cons paid their debts, presumably, but that in no way means they will not continue on as criminals. The recitivism rate is extremely high.

Assuming 4 million ex-cons, that would represent a huge bloc of voters, since only 60 million people vote. Ex-cons could swing elections. And, since they want the "system" to be friendlier to them, they would vote for politicians that are soft on crime. This would encourage crime, and that is not something that would be a good thing for America.

The Democrats (in Congress, which is not the same as Democrats on the street) in particular want to restore voting rights to cons because more than 80% of ex-cons tend to lean Democrat. And Democrats are well-known to be the party of "bleeding heart liberals" - the same people who want gang murderers and cop killers freed. Democrats would treat ex-cons "better".

So it would seem the Democrats in Congress (not the Democrats on the streets of America) are trying to put another "voting bloc" in their corner as they did with welfare. I understand that. But what I fail to understand is why even left-wing loons like Conyers would want to do that in ways that will harm all Americans by giving ex-cons the ability to change the face of America in ways that benefit criminals.

And it is interesting to note, and to show as proof that this is an attempt at buying votes, that Conyers and his liberal ilk are not advocating for the restoration of any other rights for cons. Nope - just voting rights. The liberals are not requesting that ex-cons be allowed to serve on jury duty, or to possess firearms.

Apparently even Conyers does not trust ex-cons very much. He just wants their votes. I find it despicable when anyone, particularly a politician, so blatantly tries to "use" people in that manner, for their own personal gain.

/

Interesting Figures

2010-03-30T18:05:00.001-07:00

No, not the girls of Hooters. At least, not for the purposes of this post. This has to do with some interesting figures that have surfaced that have relevance to the newly passed Health Care bill.

Congress depended a LOT upon the guesstimates of the CBO in order to con people into supporting the bill. But are you aware that in 1965 the CBO estimated Medicare would cost 12 billion, and escalate to 36 billion by 1990. However, it actually escalated to a whopping 107 billion by 1990 - the CBO was off by 300%. And 20 years later it is costing 500 billion a year. Why anyone would trust CBO guesstimates is beyond me.

Here is another - when Universal Health Care was passed in Massachusetts in 2006 it was said it would only cost 88 billion. Just 4 years later and that paltry 88 million is up to 900 million - more than 1000% higher than promised.

Based on such "estimates", it seems that Obama's health care bill will likely cost us at least three times the amount the CBO estimated, or roughly 3 TRILLION dollars over 10 years, pushing up the deficit by more than 2.3 trillion. And that is a LOW estimate based on history.

Brace yourselves, folks. It's gonna be a long, bumpy and dangerous ride.

/

When Is A Loan Not A Loan?

2010-03-30T10:37:00.000-07:00

When the government chose to do the bailouts, Obama referred to it as "the American people were loaning this money" to those entities. The term "loan" infers that the people doing the loaning will get their investment back.

Well, the government "loaned" $45 billion taxpayer dollars to Citibank. The government now plans to sell much of those shares for $32.5 billion.

However, we, the "loaning" taxpayers will never see a dime of that money back. If, indeed, that money were used to pay down the deficit, then yes, we would be getting the money back. But it can pretty much be guaranteed that the government will use that money for other government programs.

What this means: the government STOLE $45 billion dollars from us with no intention of ever paying it back. It simply gets added to the debt that WE will have to pay off in the form of higher taxes. So, if you think you have not been "taxed", think again!

That money was taken from our children - it needs to be given back. But it will not be. Mark my word - that money will NEVER be used to pay back the taxpayers.

/

It Does Not Get More Obvious

2010-03-28T14:37:00.000-07:00

For years I have been exposing how the progressives on the left use "spin" to distort the truth. But rarely does it get more obvious than the following example. In it, spinmeister Bruce Drake (Politics Daily) stated this about the new health care law:

"However, a plurality -- 48 percent -- say it will improve peoples' chances to get health insurance compared to 25 percent who say it will not and 25 percent say things will remain about the same."

Now look closely - he has broken up those who do not think it will improve the chances into two separate groups - those who say it will not improve, and those who say it will stay the same - in other words, will not improve.

Like most progressives who rely upon deceit, Drake is so caught up in his own lies that he cannot even hide it anymore. In order to make it LOOK like "the plurality" is the 48%, he had to break up the true plurality of 50% into two pieces - those who do not think it will improve, and those who do not think it will improve (because it will remain the same). That is like saying 48% think tomorrow will be sunny while 25% do not think it will be sunny and 25% think it will be overcast. Any way you cut it, that means 50% think it will not be sunny.

Folks, it matters not where you stand politically. What does matter is that you look more closely at the garbage you are being fed, even by those you trust, and do not allow them to spin you into a world of lies and distortions. Look closely at what they are really saying - and even more closely at what they are not saying. Lying by omission is still deceitful.

/

Some Of You Will Love This

2010-03-28T13:21:00.000-07:00

I will assume there are those readers who are, at the very least, skeptical about Al Gore's "Global Warming" rant. This one is for you. Taken from today's news...

Climate Change Killed Dinosaurs, Scientist Says

"(March 28) -- Was it long-term climate change, rather than a rogue asteroid, that killed off the dinosaurs?That's the conclusion of German paleontologist Michael Prauss, who studied 65-million-year-old fossils drilled out of the earth in the Brazos River area of Texas and argues that radical changes to the flora and fauna of the era began long before arrival of the massive space rock widely associated with one of the largest mass extinctions in the history of the planet."

If this "scientist" (remember, "scientists" claim global warming) is correct, then it seems climate change is not exactly a new phenomenon, nor is it caused by driving our SUV's. If this scientist is incorrect, then it only goes to prove that "scientists" can be - and often are - wrong, and major, costly geo-political decisions that affect the people should not be based solely on the theories of scientists.

But it is good to know that there apparently is NOT a "consensus" that man's activities are responsible for any global warming.

If you recall, I have previously published charts - by a compendium of scientists using scientific data - that plainly shows the Earth is normally much warmer than it is now, by nature, and there has been constant back-and-forth climate change since the Earth was formed. It is something that many scientists of today should learn more about - it's called CYCLES. Everything has a cycle. Even climate. And there is nothing anyone can, or should, do about it.

Dissing Those Who Play By The Rules

2010-03-28T08:12:00.000-07:00

Once again Democrats in Congress have chosen to disrespect and penalize marriage, as they have done every time they have held office since FDR. The new "health care" bill, now law, penalizes marriage. If you are married, the most you can earn before getting hit with serious additional tax is $250,000. But single people are exempt up to $200,000 each. So, if you merely live together without benefit of marriage, your total exemption is a whopping $400,000.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of the government penalizing one group while coddling and rewarding another. It peeves me even more when the penalties are on those who play by the rules while the rewards go to those who refuse to.

Responsible companies - no breaks. Irresponsible companies - bailouts.
Responsible homeowners - no breaks. Irresponsible homeowners - bailouts.
Married people - penalized. People shacking up - rewarded.
Hard workers - taxed heavily. Lazy non-workers - free support from those tax dollars.

I know a man who never works - but he gets numerous young girls pregnant, then gets them on welfare and takes half of their welfare benefits. He lives like a king, on OUR MONEY, while we slave and those girls live in poverty with their illegitimate children.

As manager of the largest homeless shelter in New Hampshire for 6 years, I saw perpetual drunks stumble out of the free shelter to the welfare office, get their food stamps paid for with our hard-earned money, then stumble on down to the local corner store where they traded them at 60 cents on the dollar for more booze. Then they stumble back to the free shelter and eat in the free soup kitchen.

If they are getting free food at the soup kitchen, and free housing at the shelter, why in Hell are we paying to give them free food stamps they can use for booze and drugs?

The system is wrong. And it was made wrong by those who created the entitlements - FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and now Obama, along with a corrupt Congress.

We should not allow the federal government to even be involved in entitlements - Constitutionally that is the job of the states and the people. And any entitlements should be governed not by financial condition, but by need. There is a big difference between being poor and being needy. The needy are those among the poor who are unable, through no fault of their own, to care for themselves. The rest of the poor are not needy - they could do better if they chose to. They could choose to not be lazy. They could choose to not get started on drugs and alcohol. They could make a lot of choices that would get them out of poverty. They are not needy - just wanting.

Our tax money, designated to help the needy should be limited to the actual needy. Every dollar not spent to support a lazy person who gets young girls pregnant is another dollar that could be used to help someone in real need.

Help the truly helpless, not the truly clueless.

It is time we told the government to stop wasting money on unnecessary entitlements to unworthy people, and to stop penalizing those who play by the rules while rewarding those who do not.

Take your country back. Make it the America that it once was when we were growing to become the strongest, greatest nation on Earth. See you at the polls - be there, or don't complain when things go wrong.

/

Fixin' It

2010-03-27T19:17:00.000-07:00

Let us take a little journey of the mind for a few moments, to see if we can determine first WHAT is wrong with America today, and what is the BEST way to fix it. Let us leave out all political parties and talking points. Let us set aside all the BS and distractions that politicians toss out there to keep us confused. Let us just use simple logic, just for a few moments.

First, what is wrong? I'll punch up the things I believe are in serious disrepair, and why:

1) Our nation owes too much money - the wealth of the world is attracted to the safest, strongest most stable places. We grew strong because that USED to be America. If you had money to invest, is that not what you would do? By owing so much money, we show the world that their wealth would not be safe here, and they will look elsewhere. China is getting the money. Even ours.

2) The ONLY reason we owe so much is the cost of government. The only way to reduce the cost of government is to reduce its size.

3) Wealth goes where it is welcome, and treated well. Countries with the lowest taxes are the countries that atttract business, jobs and wealth. Currently, our tax structure is very unfriendly for businesses and investors. And the reason our taxes are so high is the cost and size of government, above

4) Loss of freedom. Government can only grow when we give it the power. To give power to the government, we must give it up for ourselves. You cannot give it, and still keep it. When government grows, we lose freedoms, as well as our wealth. When freedom is lost, we lose incentive to work, incentive to innovate. We lose some of the lust for life. We also tend to anger more quickly and easily.

5) Illegal immigration is tearing us apart, causing major divisions in our nation I believe those are the major problems that, if not fixed, will destroy America. And the only people who can fix it is - US. We control these things at the voting booth.

I will not advocate voting for any party - party voting is what got us into this mess. Instead, every American citizen has an obligation to vote for whichever candidate promises to actively work to fix our problems and leave partisan politics at the door. Some may be Republican, some Democrat, some Independent and some Libertarian. But that does not matter. All that matters is whether they will sign a contract that they will work to fix these problems.

We should vote for whichever candidate agrees, in writing, to do all of the following:

1) Cut the costs of government by at least 40% over the next 4 years, even if it means cutting programs we like. Give the wealth of the world a little security in bringing the wealth here. And then keep that cost down.

2) Cut the size of government enough to effect the 40% cost cuts.

3) Reduce all taxes - a flat tax for personal taxation, and the lowest tax rate in the world on businesses, to attract them - and the jobs - back to the USA. Set up a national "debt surcharge" tax of 2% on any purchase of any non-essential item (food & medical are exempt), with every penny going to pay off our deficit. The tax is terminated as soon as our debt is paid. This plan would instill greater confidence in America's future, which would attract the wealth, businesses and jobs.

4) Restore our freedoms. Americans should be free to do whatever they choose provided it harms no one else, and does not preclude anyone else from doing the same. The government, as Reagan so aptly put it, should "get out of the way."

5) Our immigration policy should change radically. No amnesty - anyone here illegally would not be eligible - go home and do it the right way. But make the right way a GOOD way, as follows:

a) Anyone can come here, provided they submit to and pass a background check and pass a medical exam and get necessary shots

b) Anyone who comes must be taught - and must learn - English before they can become legal citizens. They have 5 years to comply

c) Anyone who comes here must learn our history and our culture before they can become legal citizens. They have 5 years to comply

d) Once the immigrant follows through on the above, he or she may apply for legal citizenship. If they do not comply within 5 years, they are then deported and may not try again for 2 years.

The main difference between this and the current system is that the current system limits the number of new immigrants. That makes it almost impossible for immigrants to come legally, forcing them to come illegally so we have no controls over whether they are criminals, terrorists or carriers of disease.

Any politician who agrees to do these things should win our votes overwhelmingly. Those who do not should be told, overwhelmingly, to hit the road.

I would like to hear your comments and suggestions - click the COMMENT link below. Please, keep it clean, and withour personal attacks or partisan BS. Constructive, well-thought-out comments welcome.

/

Facts About the Supremacy Clause

2010-03-27T15:10:00.000-07:00

Some people not really familiar with either the Constitution OR the law (though they may be lawyers) are attempting to say that the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution allows any and all federal laws (like the health care law just passed) to always trump state law.

Nothing could be further from the truth - again, liberals are trying to spin the Constitution, hoping you will not know any better.

Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"

The key point in the clause that liberals conveniently overlook is the part that says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..." In short, this clause states that laws passed by Congress are Supreme ONLY IF THEY ARE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO BEGIN WITH. In other words, if the law is Constitutional to begin with. If Congress passes a law that is not Constitutional, then it is not the supreme law of the land. In fact, it is unenforceable and illegal. Period.

The health care law is unconstitutional in (4) respects. Therefore, it is not supreme and does not trump state law. First, the so-called "commerce clause" only pertains to international or interstate commerce. If a citizen chooses NOT to engage in commerce, then he obviously does not fall under the scope of the commerce clause. Nor do the Powers of Congress (Article 1 section 8) give Congress the power to FORCE any citizen into commerce just so they can then regulate his actions. That is entrapment.

It is also unconstitutional for Congress to pass any unfunded mandates to the states. The health care bill only pays the higher Medicare costs for two years. After that, the states are forced to do so. That is an unfunded mandate.

And under the 5th Amendment, Congress may not take personal or private property without fair and just compensation. Forcing a citizen to buy a product he neither wants nor needs deprives the citizen of some of his personal assets, without fair and just compensation being given. The insurance cannot qualify as just compensation because there can be no assumption that it will ever be used.

There are other Constitutional violations, as well. But the major, blatant one is that Congress has no authority under ANY part of the Constitution to force its citizens to buy a product.

/

Digging the Truth Out Of Health Care

2010-03-27T09:30:00.000-07:00

For a year the Democrats pushing the health care bill have been spouting two pages of "talking points" that were designed to get fools to support the bill. Talking points like "It will cover pre-existing conditions" and "it will reduce the deficit". Two pages of benefits out of a 2,733 page bill.

This should not be a party issue. It should be about what is best for the country. And while there are a few good things about this law, the law in general breaks bad for the country. It is the right idea with the wrong approach. It's like finding yourself in the right pew, but in the wrong church. It was designed by partisans, for partisans. It should have been designed by Americans, for Americans. It was not.

First, however, I will address those who claim that there are some nice goodies in the law. I do not dispute that. But I would make two important points:

1) Goodies are NOT FREE. They cost money. And ALL the money the government spends comes from taxpayers (you)

2) You can cover a poison pill with ice cream, cherries and chocolate sauce, but it will still kill you.

Now that the health care bill has become law, we can now see what is in the other 2,731 pages, and you are not going to like it! This new law will do ALL of the following, guaranteed!

1) Raise health care costs
2) Raise insurance premiums
3) Cost America a million jobs
4) Reduce R&D for new medical technology, thereby reducing quality of care
5) Reduce access to care

For over a year Republicans tried to warn us that such things were in the bill, and for a year the Democrats in Congress - and Obama himself - kept saying, "No, those things are not in the bill." And now that it is law and we can see for ourselves, we discover the Republicans were right - they ARE in this law, and the Democrats have been intentionally lying to us for over a year.

Here are just a few of the dirty little secrets the Democrats in Congress - and Obama - intentionally kept from you. Bear in mind, this is not a complete list of the devastation to be wreaked upon you - this is just the first few that have been found. And this is why the bill was crafted behind closed doors, and not made available until 3 days before being voted on. How many people can read - and understand - 2,733 pages of legaleze and political gobbledegook in three days? I'm pretty smart and well educated, and I was not able to do it in 3 days.

Let's start with the Democrats strongest selling point - children with pre-existing conditions will be covered beginning immediately. Well, that is not true. According to the actual bill, there is a clause that specifically states that benefit does not begin until 2014. I believe Congress now plans on passing a law that changes that (because they got caught in their lie), but the point is that their biggest selling point was a lie, and they knew it.

The law includes the CLASS Act, which states the government, beginning in January 2012 will begin an AUTOMATIC deduction from every paycheck, forever. That deduction from your income is expected to be between $149-$240 per month. Bear in mind, this is in addition to the money you will be forced to pay for insurance.

The law requires every medical record be made electronic, and in 2014 will be posted ONLINE, where virtually anyone will be able to access it (though perhaps only by hacking, or by getting the info from the hundreds of thousands who will have legal access). If you or your child has any embarrassing or detrimental condition, prospective employers can use that info to deny a job. Insurance companies will increase your premiums. Your medical records can come back to haunt you in many aspects of your life. Bear in mind - those records will include your DNA, so the government will be able to track all generations of your family, forever. And since no government lasts forever, whose hands would that information end up in?

Companies across America, having noew read the bill, have discovered the law will rob them of millions of dollars in extra taxes. Caterpillar will lose $100 million the first year alone. AT&T a billion. 3M will lose 90 million. Now I ask you - what do companies do when they lose large amounts of money? They do one or more of the following:

1) Send jobs overseas so they can compete
2) Move their entire operation overseas
3) Increase the cost of their products - the prices YOU pay will go up
4) Lay off workers
5) Reduce R&D for new and better products you will never get

When the losses nationwide are combined, it is estimated to cost businesses - and therefore the people - over a trillion dollars.

The clause that brings on these losses is the one that says companies who provide RETIREES with health benefits will no longer be able to deduct that expense on their taxes. So, the choice is to either drop all the retirees (not a good option), or find ways (see above) to offset the added expenses.

There is a new, high tax being applied to companies that manufacture the medical devices we need. Naturally, at the very least that will result in higher prices for medical devices. How does this REDUCE medical costs? One company, the maker of defibrilators, operating and employing people in Massachussets is a company named ZOLL. Last year its profits were about $9 million. The health care bill just passed will tax them 7.5 million of that. Guess what? They will either have to jack up costs considerably (higher health care costs), or go out of business (lost jobs) or move overseas (lost jobs). I would like to know how this benefits anyone at all. And if that tax prevents companies from developing nerw and better products, the health care law will then be responsible for lives lost for want of better devices.

This law will pay the states increased costs for medicare for two years. But after that, the states will be on the hook for picking up those additional Medicare costs - many millions of dollars. This will bankrupt many states, already in trouble. States will then be FORCED to increase the taxes for its residents - YOU.

OK, so now you have the privilege of being forced to buy insurance PLUS lose $50 per week to the CLASS act PLUS lose jobs PLUS pay higher costs for care (not to mention that all accountants now indicate insurance premiums will rise 13-17% EXTRA because of this law), but you will also get hit with higher state taxes in a couple of years. I sure hope you folks can afford all that.

Oh, but there is more....

Kids will have to get their student loans from the government, at higher interest rates which will be used to pay for health care. And there is a provision in the law that concerns - and even allows for the government to mandate - preventive care. Under that clause, the government may, at their discretion, begin to force people into a healthy lifestyle. They can eliminate salt from your diet. Tobacco? Gone. Alcohol? Say good-bye to your martinis. Eliminate any foods they think are unhealthy, like soda and chips. Force you to exercise a certain amount each week. While the law does not YET mandate such things, it does open the door by granting the government the right to enforce preventive care.

Well, folks, this is only the beginning. I'm sure we will find a lot more as we peruse through this monstrosity of 2.733 pages. Stay tuned for updates on how badly we have all been screwed.

/

Thoughts To Self - STUFF

2010-03-26T09:54:00.000-07:00

PALIN: As much as I like what Sarah Palin stands for, and I generally support her (but would not vote for her to be president - she is not ready), I am sorely disappointed in her endorsement of John McCain in his Senate campaign.

Like Lindsey Graham, John McCain is a progressive, and wants amnesty for 12-20 million illegals. That is contrary to what conservatives believe. So I found it disturbing that the de facto leader of the Tea Party would endorse him. I do understand loyalty, and perhaps she is simply repaying a debt because McCain put Palin onto the national stage. And loyalty is fine - up to the point where it begins to compromise your core values. That is where the line should be drawn.I don't believe Sarah really wants to endorse McCain. I think the McCain camp boxed her into it. But I would have greater respect for her if she were to say "no", and tell McCain that, to repay her debt, she would not actively work AGAINST him.

ANOTHER DIRTY SECRET: Something almost no one knows about - included in the new health care law is a completely new "Social Security" type plan to drive America further into debt AND taking money out of YOUR pocket with every paycheck. Beginning in 2012, your employer must automatically deduct from your paycheck an average of $146-$240 each and every month, for life. Supposedly, this will provide you with $75 a day in long term care when you get old. The figures, however, show that, like Social Security, it will not have the funds necessary to pay out when the time comes. Meanwhile, you will lose at least $1500 every year (subject to increases) out of your paycheck. Didn't know that, didja? Neither did the people who supported this bad bill. Yes, it is possible to opt out, if you learn how, and don't forget about it between now and 2012. I've been watching the lamestream media - they all are calling this "CLASS Act" a "great benefit", and describe how it helps pay long-term care. But not one tells you that YOU will be paying about $50 a week for it for the rest of your lives. They conveniently leave out that little tidbit of information (except FOX News - they actually told the WHOLE story).

Oh, and didn't they tell you? Beginning in 2014, the health care bill REQUIRES you to have electronic medical records - and they will be posted online, where any doctor or hospital can access it. We all know how insecure that information online can be. And any medical person, even if not your own doctor, will have access to your medical records. And that means that every person on Earth can get that information about you and every member of your family. The information can now, by law, be used and shared without your permission. (For those of you who voted for Obama, don't expect thanks any time soon.)

[Some of you will refuse to believe these things are in the bill, but they definitely are. And as time passes, I suspect we will find a lot more. The Congress spent a year repeating two measly pages of talking points describing what is in a 2700 page bill, all the while telling us the other 2,698 pages are nothing - don't worry about them. Now we start to discover what is in those other pages - and why they kept them secret]

ARMS CONTROL: Obama and his liberal friends believe there is strength in weakness. They actually believe that if you get rid of your defenses, the bad guys will leave you alone. But any school kid knows better - the weak are the ones the bullies pick on most. That's because it is natural and instinctive for the strong to prey upon the weak. The first law of nature is "survival of the fittest."

When a wolf follows a herd, which member of the herd does he target? The weakest. This is how a species is made and kept strong - predators remove the weak. That is how it should be. And always will be.

Obama and the liberals should learn one fact of life - you either eat or get eaten. Nothing - and I literally mean nothing - can live without consuming something else. Nothing lives but what something else must first die. And there is no way around it.

When Obama says, as he did, that he wants to be free of nuclear weapons, and that it will make for a safer world, he is being foolish and ignorant. Reducing our arms makes us weaker. Period. And the very minute that an enemy believes us to be significantly weaker than they are, that is when they will go to war with us. The predator preying on the weak.

In 1941, Americans were complacent. The Japanese mistook that complacency for weakness and attacked us - they thought they were stronger, and we were seen as weak. The mistake they made was that we were asleep, not weak. And they awoke an angry and strong nation.

But in the case of arms control, Obama and the liberals are actually making America weaker. It matters not if Russia agrees to do the same, for two reasons: the Russians cannot be trusted to do their part, and there are nuclear countries that are NOT going to sign on. North Korea and Iran will continue building nuclear arsenals. By reducing our defenses, we strengthen the enemy without them having to lift a finger.

Here's the short take - liberals actually believe the parable about the lion and the mouse. But in the real world, even if the mouse pulls the thorn from the lion's paw, the lion will still EAT THE MOUSE.

HEALTH CARE: It is a fact that Hugo Chavez is a socialist, and he makes no bones about it. And it is a fact that Fidel Castro is another form of socialist - a communist. And BOTH of those individuals are praising America's new health care plan as the best piece of socialist legislation they have seen since they took over their own nations. Yet, liberals here in America do not see it as socialism. I guess that's because we never see ourselves as others see us. But if it flies like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...

FORECLOSURES: Natural laws prove that hardships and failures makes us stronger, which is a good thing. Yet, once again, liberals in congress plan on protecting fools from having to pay the price for their foolishness. Banks and Congress will be giving major, costly breaks to homeowners who bought more home than they could afford. Being deemed "too small to fail", the Obama administration is now bailing out more irresponsible people, rather than allow them to take responsibility for their choices. So, those people will not get stronger. They will get weaker. The trouble is, a nation is only as strong as its people, and our people are being made weak by bleeding-heart liberals who mistakenly believe that pain and hardship are bad things. They are not. They are the fire that tempers the steel.

LEGALIZING DRUGS: As a Libertarian primarily, I believe every person should be free to live as they please, as long as it harms no one else or precludes anyone else from doing the same. On the other hand, I believe drugs are bad - very bad - and need to be regulated. So I have a suggestion: legalize, but regulate, and make it expensive. A person who wants to waste their life stoned should have the same right as the guy who wants to spend his life drunk. But like the drunk, if the stoner causes harm, he is punished. Also, make them responsible for their choices - since substance abuse is a choice a person makes, they should not have any right to use the tax dollars of others to support their habit, nor pay for any damages incurred. In other words, if you choose to abuse substances like alcohol and drugs, you will not be eligible for free or subsidized health care - you cannot destroy your body by your own choice and expect everyone else to pay for repairing it. If you work at killing yourself, don't expect me to give you CPR when you succeed.

Further, drug users should not be eligible for any kind of welfare, and anyone found "under the influence" while driving or engaging in any other dangerous activity would be subject to jail time.What it boils down to: each of us should be able to make our own choices, but we should also be held responsible for whatever choices we make. If you want to dance, you gotta pay the band.

GAY MARRIAGE: Marriage was originally a religious rite. It came to be, wrongly, a state's right. Much anger exists over this issue - an issue that need not be an issue at all, if states had not breached the wall of separation between church and state, and stayed out of the marriage business. So here's an easy fix: states remove themselves from the marriage business and put it back into the hands of the church. States would then instutute Civil Unions. Any couple - regardless of sexual orientation - would enter a Civil Union if they want to receive the legal rights and benefits usually (and previously) associated with marriage.

For religious people who ALSO want to be joined in the eyes of their chosen God, they would petition their church to be MARRIED. This would be in addition to the Civil (legal) Union. Marriage would incur no special benefits or privileges from the state or government - it is a union in the eyes of the church, only.In this way, any couple can enter into a legal union and enjoy the benefits derived from it. And those who are religious and want God's blessing may enter into the separate union, marriage, by church decree.

Could gays still "marry"? First, there would be no need, as they have the same rights as heterosexuals - they may enter a Civil Union, and they may petition their church for a God-sanctioned marriage. The church would reserve the right to authorize or decline the request for marriage - even among heterosexuals. If a specific church wants to recognize a union of marriage among gay couples, that is the choice for that church. Since "marriage" would have no legal status, being denied marriage would be a personal issue between the couple and the church, and not a matter for the states nor the courts. Separation of church and state. No different from saying, "Yeah, you can come and visit in my house, " or "No, you are not welcome in my house." And everyone gets what they want.

/

T 'N T

2010-03-25T18:42:00.000-07:00

No, not dynamite.

Trials & Tribulations. You are familiar with all the phrases like, "Anything that doesn't kill you makes you stronger" and "Adversity builds strength." Well, they are true. It is the trials and tribulations, the hardships of life that make us, as individuals and a specie, strong enough to survive. Even in today's "civilized" world, the first law of nature is still "Survival of the fittest."

So, it is not only natural, but necessary for us to endure hardships. The more the better. It is how we learn, grow, get stronger and survive.

So why is it that progressive liberals work so hard to get us to believe otherwise? Why do they go to such great lengths to remove hardships from the lives of people? The liberals in government keep pushing bailouts and entitlements, as if to say, "We will protect you from failure. We will cover your losses. We will support you if necessary."

They do it because liberals do not LIKE nature. They do not LIKE hardships. They do not LIKE strong people, because they feel threatened by the strong. And because it is difficult for them to control the strong. It is much simpler controlling the weak, so their priority is to create as many weak, dependent wusses as they possibly can. Then, provide welfare for their support, so they will not bite the hand that feeds them. The weak will vote for those who feed them.

In many, if not all cases, the progressive liberals are, themselves, weak. They could never survive if civilization were to crumble. There isn't a John Wayne or Charleton Heston type among them. In the natural world of "eat or be eaten", liberals would be known as "prey". And that is their motivation - in order to survive, they must weaken the strong. Instead of becoming strong themselves, they prefer to weaken the strong.

That is precisely why Europe tries so hard to bring us down, particularly in the United Nations. America is the power, and that frightens them. To be less frightened, they need to knock us down a few pegs. France, Germany, Russia and China actively tried that before and during the beginning of the Iraq war.

Trials and Tribulations. As humans, we need them. And the last thing we need is someone who makes it their life's work to make us weak by removing the hardships we endure. We must sometimes fail. We must sometimes get hurt. And yes, some must die. For those liberals who do not like to accept such things, it is called "LIFE".

/

Pindarovia

2010-03-25T08:05:00.001-07:00

The people of the kingdom of Pindarovia were strong and independent. So much so that the tryannical king needed to find a way to weaken them enough so he could keep them under his complete control. He knew the best way to do that would be to first weaken them, then make them dependent upon him for their very lives.

The king went to his wizard to find a way to accomplish the task. The wizard gave the king a potion that, when ingested, would weaken even the strongest of men.

The king, being a wiley man, knew his people would not willingly drink of the foul potion. So he had his cooks make a recipe to make the potion appealing. They added sugar, blueberries and served it up with ice cream on the side.

When one wise man stood and tried to warn the people that this would be bad for them, the king merely said, "Why would you want to keep the people from having blueberries? Why would you want to deprive them of ice cream? How can you be so cruel and wrong-headed?"

And the people, wanting the ice cream and blueberries, were fooled into taking the potion. And they were weakened, and became dependent upon the king for their survival.

Now, you might think this is only a cute little story. But it is much more than that. This sort of thing goes on all the time. Remember all those people who drank the poison believing it to be Kool-Aid at Jonestown?

And now this health care bill. The liberals added a few good things, like covering children with pre-existing conditions, and used those things to "sweeten" the poison that is in the bill. And when a conservative steps up and says this is a bad bill, the liberals say, "Why would you be against covering kids with pre-existing conditions? What kind of monster are you?"

The truth is, conservatives are not against the blueberries or the ice cream. They are against the poison that is being delivered with it.

And when liberals try to accuse conservatives of not caring about the people, they are blatantly lying. They know that is not true, but they use that to con the people into thinking that conservatives are bad.

So here is the difference - liberals give you blueberries and ice cream to get you to eat the poison. Conservatives want you to have the blueberries and ice cream, but without the poison.

And the sooner people stop being fooled by the wiley king and begin listening to the truth, the better off we will all be.

/

Freedom to Succeed

2010-03-25T07:36:00.001-07:00

I have often stated that success is dependent upon freedom to a great extent. And nothing could be more true.

In today's America, freedoms are being assailed and trampled, and the biggest offenders are the courts and politicians. Activist judges and corrupt politicians take it upon themselves to do something they have no right to do - "interpret" the Constitution in such ways as to actually change the meaning and intent.

The Founding Fathers did not just throw the Constitution together over a few quaffs of ale at the local tavern. They knew that the strength of the nation would depend upon every citizen to fully understand their rights and responsibilities, so they made it a point to say what they meant, precisely and with deep thought. They wrote it so that it could be taught to, and understood by every school-age child in America. They wrote it so that "interpretation" was neither necessary nor allowed.

So, why would judges believe it needs to be "interpreted"? They don't. Instead, they intentionally use interpretations to push their own personal activist agendas. And that is so very un-American and unconstitutional.

The Constitution even deals with this issue by stating that its content and meaning cannot be changed except by a lawfully executed amendment - and the amendment process is intentionally long and arduous.

But our judges, and even our politicians have been making loads of changes to the Constitution by the method of "interpretation" instead of the amendment process. By circumventing the Constitution and its intent, they are robbing all of us of our freedoms.

So what is the answer? A Constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits any judges or elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution from making any interpretations, and from passing laws based on interpretations, and that the Constitution is to be taken as it was written - literally. And in the event that the people should choose to interpret it differently, the interpretation can only be effected by an amendment to the Constitution. In other words, if the people choose that health care, welfare or gay marriage should be basic human rights, they may make that the law only by passing an amendment to the Constitution to that effect. Until then, the Constitution may only be followed to the letter, as written.

Such an amendment would serve to protect everyone from activist judges and corrupt politicians on both sides, and would go a long way toward restoring our freedoms. And restoring freedoms is good for the nation, the economy and the people.

/

The True History of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

2010-03-24T21:54:00.000-07:00

I find it not only interesting, but also confusing that the black community votes pretty much as a bloc for the Democrat party. They claim it is because the Democrats have their best interests at heart. Upon investigation, it appears that it is the black community that may be confused and not me.

The man who signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves was the nation's first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. The only high-ranking member of the KKK who was elected to the Senate and is still there - and who voted against the Civil Rights Act - is a Democrat (Senator Byrd of WV).

But get this - minorities claim, as do the Democrats, that it was the Democrats who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But that is untrue, and here are the actual historical statistics:

* In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights act, while 80% of Republicans voted for it. 34 Republicans voted "no", but 96 Democrats voted "no".

* In the Senate, 69% of Democrats voted for the act, while 82% of Republicans voted for it.

So history tells us the Democrats' claims to passing the Civil Rights Act are incorrect. The only reason they can make that claim is because a Democrat president signed the bill into law. What they do not tell you is that he had no choice - the majority was so large, they would have over-ruled his veto by putting the bill before him a second and third time. According to the Constitution, the president may only veto a bill twice. If it comes to his desk a third time, it becomes law whether he signs it or not.

So, besides being lied to and conned by the Democrat party, why would minorities continue voting for them? Because Democrats are the party of entitlements, and entitlements are just as addictive as any drug. And because of the discrimination that used to be widely prevalent years ago, it was minorities who ended up on the welfare rolls. And now they are trapped by the very party that provided them the drug.

Republicans wanted to take a different tack - to provide minorities with greater opportunities rather than making them dependent. But once addicted to a drug, it is very difficult to kick the habit.

As a drug addict protects his dealer, minorities protect the Democratic party.

So, if you belong to a minority and vote Democrat, stop BS'ing people that you vote that way because the Democrats treat you better and own up to the real reason you support them - they provide you with all the excuses for not bettering yourself. They make it easy for you to fail. And now they are doing it again with a new entitlement aimed at another group of people. By getting people addicted to nationalized health care, they are buying votes yet again, because they give weak people the excuses necessary to explain their failures.

No, I am not saying we should ignore the needs of the helpless. All Republicans want to help the helpless. But unlike Democrats, Republicans tend to draw the line at supporting the clueless, the lazy, the useless. They deserve to be on their own. Because Republicans understand that money wasted on those who are wasted is money that cannot be used for those who really need it.

/

Pingree Strikes Again

2010-03-24T13:05:00.001-07:00

As if it were not bad enough to push through a lousy piece of legislation against the will of the people, and as if killing off the "public option" because only the whackierst liberals was for it, Chellie Pingree plans on co-sponsoring a bill to reinstate the public option into the health care bill, even though 84% of the people rejected it. She wants socialism.

Most of us do not. But then, Pingree, like all other Maine politicians does not really care what we want. Progressives have an agenda - growing a bigger government that, by its growth, requires more taxes and therefore a redistribution of the wealth. Call it by whatever name you wish - it is socialism.

Pingree, Michaud, Collins and Snowe do not represent the majority of their constituents. Nor do they want America to remain as a Republic. They all need to be replaced with people who will actually make a stab at upholding the Constitution.

/

Oh, What A Tangled Web They Weave...

2010-03-24T09:15:00.000-07:00

I am going to go on record with another dire prediction. As many of my regular readers know, my predictions tend to be painfully accurate.

Throughout the health care debate, the progressive liberals who pushed the bill kept refuting that illegal aliens would be covered - that American taxpayers would not be required to provide free or subsidized care to people who came here illegally, broke our laws and took our jobs.

But here is the clincher, folks - while they may have been technically accurate, they were very deceptive.

The next major legislation to go before Congress will be "immigration reform" (by the way, whatever happened to their promise to take care of Americans by addressing JOBS???). And here is my prediction: The "comprehensive immigration reform bill" will include simple methods for illegals to become legal. 12,000,000 or more illegals will suddenly become legal, and as such will have access to the taxpayer-funded health care. So, this bill will not stop at adding "only" 32 million people into the waiting rooms. That figure will quickly rise to 50 million or more, as the new "legals" begin bringing in their families. After all, bleeding heart liberals will tell you that we must let the families in because it would be cruel to separate families. They will liken it to the Berlin Wall of the 50's. So the immigration reform will, at some point, also allow illegals to bring in their families, adding much greater strain to the shrinking jobs market and overburdened schools and hospitals.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying they will pass such a bill. Only that they will certainly try, and will use every dirty trick (again) at their disposal.

o, here is what the dishonest liberals are doing - first, they pass a health care bill with assurances that illegals will not burden the system. And they keep those promises by making the illegals "legal".

This is the kind of deceit that we have come to expect from liberal progressives - they will tell any lie, use any trick to push their socialism on America. And they are winning because the voters are being taken in by the grand promises without bothering to look to the end game - the real purpose the liberals are pushing.

When Obama promised "change", too many voters never bothered to ask WHAT change. And when liberals promise no illegals will be entitled to coverage, people never bothered to ask if illegals would be made legal.

As voters, if you care at all about the kind of America you will be leaving for your children and grandchildren, you need to start asking the right questions, and demand straight answers. Do not let them answer a question with another question. And do not let them redirect and answer a different question so as to confuse the issue.

I realize that many of you may not like Fox News, believing it to be too conservative. But one thing is absolutely certain and easily documented - the only news programs asking the right questions are the Fox people. O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Hume, Van Susteren - these are the only ones who ask the right questions that pointed out the truth about the liberal agenda.

It was FOX watchers who knew about the ACORN scandal nearly a month before non-watchers. It was FOX viewers who knew about the John Edwards issues nearly 2 months before non-viewers. And it is Fox fans that knew about Jeremiah Wright nearly 6 months ahead of everyone else.

Look, folks, you do not need to agree with the political views of FOX in order to watch it to learn both sides of an issue, and be better informed. Ignorance does not serve anyone well. If you want to be the "hear no evil, see no evil..." sort, that's fine. But then you can expect to get taken advantage of, like when the progresssive Marxists told you that the 12-15 million illegals would not get treated on your dime.

Regardless of your political affiliation, it is wise to be well-informed, even when that means you have to hear things you would rather not hear.

And while I am in the mood for predictions, I'll make another - within the next 24 months, our government will attempt to institute a consumption tax - a national sales tax. Or even more dastardly and devastating, a VAT (Vakue Added Tax). This will be IN ADDITION TO the income tax, which, if passed, will result in double taxation - taxed when you earn it, and taxed again when you spend it.

Make no mistake - progressive liberals want to control all the money. To get that control they must create a socialist government. And that is why they push nationalized health care, nationalized education, immigration "reform", cap and trade and the global warming crap, nationalizing everything. By nationalizing, government is forced to grow, and the cost of government grows with it. The ONLY way to cover those rapidly rising costs is to tax the people more and more. And that, my friends, is how they will win - and we will lose.

Whenever you allow government to grow, you make it cost more. Whenever it costs more, they MUST tax you more until everyone but the government is in poverty, and the people enslaved.

Take Cleveland, where the liberals in control for decades made the local government grow beyond the people's capacity to pay for it. The city is bankrupt and in decline, rated as the worst city in America. Houston, on the other hand, has very little government, resulting in lower taxes and more personal freedoms. And it is rated one of America's top cities, experiencing growth and prosperity. Look at the states facing bankruptcy and moral decline - every one has been under the control of liberal progressives for at least two decades. Now look at the most successful, prosperous states - they have the least government and lowest taxes, and have been run by conservatives for at least two decades. Do you not see a pattern, folks?

Don't let the liberal lies of "redistributing the wealth to benefit everyone" fool you into thinking the La-La Land mindset actually works in the real world. It does not. Just look at California - a wonderful state that had it all, driven into bankruptcy and decline because the people allowed the state government to give them everything they wanted. Like children who want to have all the candy and ice cream they can eat, and the parents giving it to them.

/

Health Care Solutions

2010-03-23T11:30:00.000-07:00

The health care bill has been passed, but the battle has only begun. So there is still good reason to investigate better solutions. I'll pop out the ones I came up with several years ago, just to get the imagination fired up.

1) All medical and drug research and development that proves to have promise should be paid for by taxpayer dollars. Then when the medical procedure, equipment or drug becomes available, the makers cannot add R&D costs to the prices they charge. A $150 prescription would fall to under $20. A $500,000 machine would cost the hospital less than $50,000. Also, since R&D dollars do not need to be recouped, the drug companies do not need exclusive licenses, and generics can be made available much sooner. Instead, a flat 15% tax on medicine and new developments would help fund the R&D. That would still mean a huge savings - the $150 prescription would still only be $23.

2) Insurance companies would list the various components of their coverages - major medical, catastrophic, prescriptions etc. Consumers can put together a personalized policy based only on their needs. All insurance can be purchased anywhere, regardless of the state in which you live. You could shop around and get your major medical from company A, your prescriptions from company B etc. Comparison shopping for components always reduces overall costs, as insurers must then compete with one another.

3) Medical malpractice suits limited to actions involving wrongful intent or wrongful gross negligence. Mere negligence, caused by an unintended accident is only human. Gross negilgence is different - and would have to have a degree of intent to it. Lawsuits for accidental harm would be limited to actual losses. In other words, punish those who do wrong, but not those who simply make a human mistake.

4) Lawyers in malpractice suits should be limited to a fair wage for the number of hours involved. No more of this collecting a large percentage equaling millions.

5) Like drivers who pay higher premiums if they are accident prone, people who make poor life choices would pay higher insurance premiums. If you smoke, drink, eat too much sugar or salt - well, expect to pay more, because you are the one who is driving up costs for everyone else.

6) Require "food" manufacturer's to limit additives, chemicals, antibiotics and pesticides in their foods to only the necessary amounts for preservation. The so-called "food" available in supermarkets is so inferior as food that it causes nearly 60% of all maladies. Perhaps subsidize producers of natural, organic foods to make good, wholesome food less costly. Subsidies could be paid for from taxes or fees imposed on manufacturer's for their use of chemicals. If they add high fructose corn syrup, or hydrolized vegatable protein for example, they must pay a tax to do so. That tax income would subsidize the production of wholesome foods. If healthy foods cost less than unhealthy foods, more people will eat the healthy foods, resulting in a healthier nation. That means less burden on the health care system, resulting in better quality and lower costs. The biggest (no pun intended) users of the health care system are the poor among us, because they simply cannot afford wholesome foods or a healthy diet.

These few simple things are estimated to reduce costs of health care by at least 22%. And since the only thing wrong with America's health care is its expense, this reduction in cost would not affect quality of care, but would put millions more people in reach of affordable health care.

The ONLY people who should be getting free or subsidized care are children and those who, by no fault of their own, cannot care for themselves. This would not include people who are capable but unwilling to care for themselves.

/

Impact - Unintended Consequences

2010-03-22T19:40:00.000-07:00

As a small business owner, beginning in 2014 I will be forced to insure all of my employees. At $800/month per employee, times 3 employees, that comes to an annual cost of nearly $29,000.

My employees have an average salary, with benefits, of roughly $30,000/year.In order to cover all my employees without going bankrupt, I will have to lay off at least 1 employee. That is 1/3 of the entire work force. So, I will also have to cut back on the services my company provides.

There are over 9 million small businesses like mine across the country. If each only has to lay off one person, that will result in another 9,000,000 unemployed persons that the rest of us will have to support.

And Obama, Pelosi and Reid say this health care bill will create jobs. Maybe government jobs, but businesses will have to cut jobs to pay the additional costs being forced upon them.

I also have a neighbor who used to earn over $60,000/year, but the poor economy has forced him into a $30,000/year job. But his mortgage is still $1500+ per month (about $19,000/year). That leaves him $11,000 per year to support his family of four. The government will require he buy insurance (family plan of roughly $800/month, or about $10,000/year). That leaves his family $1000 to live on for a year. Impossible. He will lose his home, everything he has invested in it, and be forced into bankruptcy.

And that, my friends, will be the real impact of this health care plan. Lost jobs. Lost wealth. Bankruptcies and foreclosures. More people on the public teat, with fewer people producing anything.And to make things worse - many will be forced to pay for insurance they cannot use, anyway. There is always a co-pay for care. If my neighbor needs a colonoscopy, his "share" of the cost would be $300. With only $11,000 a year to live on (before insurance costs), he certainly cannot afford that, so he will not get that colonoscopy. Hence, he'll be forced to pay big bucks for something he cannot even use.

It's a lot like having a car payment, but no money for gas.

That's the way progressives run a country. Either get used to it, or change it by getting rid of the progressive liberals, which, here in Maine consists of Representative Michaud (D), Representative Pingree (D), Senator Collins (R) and Senator Snowe (R). Some are republicans, some democrats. But all four are progressives who think their jobs are more important than this country, and believe the collective is more important than the individuals.

If you don't get rid of the progressives, it will only get much, much worse...

/

Just So You Know

2010-03-22T13:39:00.000-07:00

Regardless of where you stand on the so-called "health care reform" bill, you should know how your representatives voted.

Both Michaud and Pingree voted for it. They voted yes because it has some good parts, and because they are partisan - voting for whatever benefits the party and to Hell with the people or the country. But representatives should never pass a very bad bill just because there are a few good things about it. That's like eating poisoned food just because sugar was added.

Personally, inasmuch as I am sympathetic toward those who may not be getting the health care they like at a cost they can afford (no one in my family is insured), I opposed the bill on several Constitutional grounds. It matters not if it is a good or bad idea. It only matters if it is legal within the Constitutional boundaries. It is not.

Parts of the bill were good, and most Republicans agree. But many more parts were bad - very bad - and that is where we parted company with the liberals. Constitutional issues are not the only problem. Here is just one example of several hundred: businesses with 50 or more employees will be required to provide insurance. If a business has 49 employees now, and it hires just one more person his costs go up by $600,000 the FIRST YEAR ALONE, and every year thereafter. That's because hiring that person will now force the business owner to pay $1000/month for all 50 employees. That's $600,000. I do not know of any small business that could afford such a huge hit, so they simply will not hire. Jobs lost. Growth stunted. Liberals just do not think ahead to the unintended consequences. They look to see if it LOOKS good. They never look deeper to see if it IS good.

Thanks to our own representatives who voted for this, the door has now been opened for the government to force free citizens to buy whatever products the government deems beneficial to the country. After all, if they can force a free citizen to buy health insurance - even when he neither needs nor wants it, and can afford to self-insure - then they can also force you to buy only GM cars (American, owned by the government, and pays union dues), or they can force you to buy Treasuries to help keep the nation afloat. In fact, this establishes a precedent to allow the government to force us to do whatever they decide is good for the government.

And that, my friends and neighbors, is socialism and tyranny, not democracy.

When you give up self-reliance in favor of entitlements, you also give up your freedoms.

/

Jobs???

2010-03-22T12:31:00.000-07:00

After Scott Brown walked away as the new Senator from Massachusetts, President Obama promised that he got the message - to work on JOBS and put health care on the back burner. Jobs first, he said, which is what the people have been saying for over a year.

Well, as usual he did not tell the truth. Jobs continued to take a back seat to health care, roiling the people. But he did not care - the progressives have an agenda they think is much more important than the people or the nation.

OK, so now they have their socialist health. Now can we concentrate on jobs, please?

Apparently not. It seems Congress is now preparing to put its efforts into yet another radical, socialist venture - immigration "reform". Another word for amnesty for illegals and imposing a national ID on real citizens. And the Prez? Well, he's going "on the road" to try and convince the people that his health bill is a GOOD thing, in the hopes of saving a few Democrat seats in Congress come November - good luck with that!

So, it still is not about jobs. Or the people. Or the country. No, it's about keeping power for themselves and pushing America closer to a socialist state.

Welcome to the Union of Socialist States of America. It's not the change that 53% of the people thought they were getting, but that's only because they weren't really listening. He said he would "fundamentally change America." But 53% of the voters never bothered to ask WHAT needed to be "fundamentally changed", and HOW would he change it.

Folks, we knew nothing of this person. He had no management experience whatever. Every name in his address book was a socialist, marxist or communist. Yet 53% of the people blindly voted for this empty suit with a marxist in it.

When you buy a "pig-in-a-poke", you deserve to be taken in. And you were!

/

Have You Seen My Country?

2010-03-21T16:26:00.000-07:00

Has Anyone Seen My Country?

When I was a young lad, Americans were proud to proclaim their self-reliance. Independence and self-sufficiency was a thing to be proud of. I had to build my first bicycle from random parts from around town. I had to barter, trade, and even work to get what I wanted.

When Dad needed to build a new addition because of yet another brother coming into the world. he simply built it. No permission or permits were necessary.

There were no mandatory laws that forced people to be safe - if we wanted to risk ourselves, being a free people we could do so. There were no laws to determine what we ate, nor regulations on how high the grass in our lawns could grow, or whether we could fly the American flag.

My friends and I could camp at Amy Brook, stick a nightcrawler on the hook and catch a mess of trout, build a campfire and fry 'em up, all just for the doin'. Now, you need a camping permit, a fire permit and a fishing license. And no more nightcrawlers - it's fly fishing only.In the first 150 years, Americans were actually FREE. And it was that freedom and the strength it nurtures that made this the greatest, strongest, wealthiest nation the Earth has ever known.

But that is all gone. No longer are Americans free to be strong, self-reliant and independent. Where once those traits were considered good, we are now penalized for them, as a liberal "progressivism" started by Woodrow Wilson and pushed by FDR, LBJ and now Obama are making this a country where the weak are in charge. Those who are self-reliant and play by the rules are forced to pay the way of those who are weak, lazy and unwilling to play by the rules. That which made America strong and great is now outlawed, and the very traits that are destroying the European nations are being adopted here.

It reminds me of the weak little geek who, in school, never had a hot muscle car or a hot girlfriend, and hated the people who did. And now those geeks have taken control, and are punishing those with the muscle cars and pretty women, and are passing regulations and laws that make muscle cars obsolete.

Our nation, once built by the strong to protect the weak is now a nation being run by the weak we protected. And from their envy and jealousy they are now penalizing the strong for being strong.

When America was born, the People were king, and the government served us. We were free to grow, expand, build, innovate. Now the government is our tyrant, and we are forced to serve it. No longer are we permitted to grow, individually. Only collectively. And that, my friend, whether you like it or not is the very basis of communism.

Where once we were like the crew of the Starship Enterprise, we are, unfortunately, being forced to become more like the Borg collective. Has anyone seen my country lately?

/

Maybe He Should Not Compare

2010-03-21T13:30:00.001-07:00

Connecticut Rep. John Larson, chairman of the Democratic Caucus, said flatly Sunday morning that "we have the votes" to pass health care reform legislation in the House.

Speaking on ABC's This Week, Larson said, "We are going to make history today. Not since President Roosevelt passed Social Security, Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare, and today, Barack Obama will pass health care reform, demonstrating whose side we're on."

Perhaps someone should remind Rep. Larson that the "history" made by both Roosevelt and Johnson are both bankrupt. Neither came close to costing as little as was promised, both are bankrupt, and the American people now owe nearly 70 trillion dollars in unfunded future payouts - 32 trillion for Medicare, alone. And now the Democrats want to expand that.

So, he compares this health care bill to two other massive, budget-busting boondoggle entitlements. Great! That's just what we need.

NOT!

/

Funny - And Pathetic

2010-03-20T19:00:00.000-07:00

I was cruisin' through the news today, and found this:

"WASHINGTON – Thousands of protesters — many directing their anger squarely at President Barack Obama — marched through the nation's capital Saturday to urge immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan."

Typical liberal BS.

Today was the day that Tea Partiers were scheduled to rally in Washington to oppose the Health Care bill. And show up they did - busload after busload came to DC to rally against Obama-care.

Cindy Sheehan and a handful of her fellow malcontents decided to use that backdrop to stage their own little protest, to make it look like all those folks were there to protest the wars (Sheehan was arrested, by the way).

And the liberal lamestream media fell in line - the news of the day was as you see, above.

But a few intrepid reporters, among them FOX NEWS, were on-site to report the truth. If not for them, the media would successfully "kill" the Tea Party rally against Obama-care and paint the entire thing as a "popular protest against the wars."

Only goes to prove what I have been saying for years - if you want to know the truth of what is really going on, blow off the lamestream media and watch FOX. They may, indeed, have a conservative bent, but at least they tell the truth.

/

16 Health Care Myths

2010-03-20T10:25:00.000-07:00

(These facts are derived from The Firedoglake health care team which has been covering the debate in Congress since it began last year.)If the American public is going to be mandated to pay almost as much to private insurance companies as they do in federal taxes, they ought to know what they're getting. So, we've also taken a detailed look at the bill, and have come up with 16 often-stated myths about this health care reform bill.

Myth 1: Insurance companies hate this bill.

Fact: This bill is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009. The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former WellPoint vice president. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on Oct. 30, health care stocks have risen 28.35 percent.

Myth 2: The bill will significantly bring down insurance premiums for most Americans.

Fact: The bill will not bring down premiums significantly, and certainly not the $2,500 per year that President Barack Obama promised during his campaign.

Annual premiums in 2016: status quo / with bill:Small group market, single: $7,800 / $7,800Small group market, family: $19,300 / $19,200Large group market, single: $7,400 / $7,300Large group market, family: $21,100 / $21,300Individual market, single: $5,500 / $5,800Individual market, family: $13,100 / $15,200
(The cost of premiums in the individual market goes up somewhat due to subsidies and mandates of better coverage. The CBO assumes that cost of individual policies goes down 7 to 10 percent, and that people will buy more generous policies.)

Myth 3: The bill will make health care affordable for middle class Americans.

Fact: The bill will impose a financial hardship on middle class Americans who will be forced to buy a product they can't afford to use. A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After taxes and basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income -- out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to up to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible.

Myth 4: This plan is similar to the Massachusetts plan, which makes health care affordable.

Fact: Many Massachusetts residents forgo health care because they can't afford it. A 2009 study by the state of Massachusetts found that:

21 percent of residents forgo medical treatment because they can't afford it, including 12 percent of children
18 percent have health insurance but can't afford to use it

Myth 5: This bill provides health care to 31 million people who are currently uninsured.

Fact: This bill will mandate that millions of people who are currently uninsured purchase insurance from private companies, or the IRS will collect up to 2 percent of their annual income in penalties. Some will be assisted with government subsidies. This does not mean 31 million poor people. The figure comprises mostly middle-class people, since the poor are already covered under Medicare.

Myth 6: You can keep the insurance you have if you like it.

Fact: The excise tax will result in employers switching to plans with higher co-pays and fewer covered services. Older, less healthy employees with employer-based health care will be forced to pay much more in out-of-pocket expenses than they do now. Also, if employers can save money by ending insurance coverage and forcing employees to take the government plan, eventually most, if not all people will lose their current insurance.

Myth 7: The "excise tax" will encourage employers to reduce the scope of health care benefits, and they will pass the savings on to employees in the form of higher wages.

Fact: There is no evidence that employers will pass savings from reduced benefits on to employees.

Myth 8: This bill employs nearly every cost control idea available to bring down costs.

Fact: This bill does not bring down costs and leaves out nearly every key cost control measure, including:

Tort Reform
Buying Insurance across state lines
Drug re-importation ($19 billion)
Medicare drug price negotiation ($300 billion)
Shorter pathway to generic biologics ($71 billion)

Myth 9: The bill will require big companies like Wal-Mart to provide insurance for their employees.

Fact: The bill was written so that most Wal-Mart employees will qualify for subsidies, and taxpayers will pick up a large portion of the cost of their coverage. Big companies may opt to pay fines rather than provide insurance.

Myth 10: The bill "bends the cost curve" on health care. Fact: "Bends the cost curve" is a misleading and trivial claim, as the U.S. would still spend far more for care than other advanced countries.

In 2009, health care costs were 17.3 percent of GDP
Annual cost of health care in 2019, status quo: $4,670.6 billion (20.8 percent of GDP)
Annual cost of health care in 2019, Senate bill: $4,693.5 billion (20.9 percent of GDP)

Myth 11: The bill will provide immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition.

Fact: Access to the "high-risk pool" is limited, and the pool is underfunded. Only those who have been uninsured for more than six months will qualify for the high-risk pool. Only 0.7 percent of those without insurance now will get coverage, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report estimates it will run out of funding by 2011 or 2012.

Myth 12: The bill prohibits dropping people in individual plans from coverage when they get sick.

Fact: The bill does not empower a regulatory body to keep people from being dropped when they're sick. There are already many states that have laws on the books prohibiting people from being dropped when they're sick, but without an enforcement mechanism, there is little to hold the insurance companies in check.

Myth 13: The bill ensures consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to challenge new insurance plan decisions.

Fact: The "internal appeals process" is in the hands of the insurance companies themselves, and the "external" one is up to each state.Ensuring that consumers have access to "internal appeals" simply means the insurance companies have to review their own decisions. And it is the responsibility of each state to provide an "external appeals process," as there is neither funding nor a regulatory mechanism for enforcement at the federal level.

Myth 14: This bill will stop insurance companies from hiking rates 30 to 40 percent per year.

Fact: This bill does not limit insurance company rate hikes. Private insurers continue to be exempt from anti-trust laws and are free to raise rates without fear of competition in many areas of the country.

Myth 15: When the bill passes, people will begin receiving benefits under this bill immediately.

Fact: Most provisions in this bill, such as an end to the ban on pre-existing conditions for adults, do not take effect until 2014. Six months from the date of passage, children could not be excluded from coverage due to pre-existing conditions, though insurance companies could charge more to cover them. Children would also be allowed to stay on their parents' plans until age 26. There will be an elimination of lifetime coverage limits, a high-risk pool for those who have been uninsured for more than six months, and community health centers will start receiving money.

Myth 16: The bill will end medical bankruptcy and provide all Americans with peace of mind.

Fact: Most people with medical bankruptcies already have insurance, and out-of-pocket expenses will continue to be a burden on the middle class.

In 2009, 1.5 million Americans declared bankruptcy.
Of those, 62 percent were medically related.
Three-quarters of those had health insurance.
The Obama bill leaves 24 million without insurance.
The maximum yearly out-of-pocket limit for a family will be $11,900 on top of premiums.
A family with serious medical problems that last for a few years could easily be financially crushed by medical costs.

Real health care reform is needed. But this bill falls short of that on many levels.

/

Maybe There Is Hope...

2010-03-19T12:34:00.001-07:00

Three years ago I began blogging that American voters should seriously consider voting out every single incumbent, if only to teach Congress who is in charge. At first, there seemed to be little interest in such a proposal.

But thanks to the helping hand I am getting from a very corrupt Congress and corrupt administration, polls have just come out that show, of registered voters, the following snapshots have appeared:

78% of Independents are in favor of voting out ALL incumbents
72% of all Republicans are in favor of replacing all incumbents
52% of all Democrats are in favor of dumping all incumbents.

In the coming months, with Congress already stating that they intend to use these same corrupt processes to try and force other unpopular socialist policies upon America, those polls just may get up to 100% by November.

And that would be the best thing that could happen to America right now.

But do not be complacent even if that happens. Remember, the people who actually write the bills and tell their Congressmen how to vote are the Congressional Aides. We should insist that our new Congressmen also replace the aides, as they have considerable power and are not elected into office.

/

My Dog

2010-03-19T09:49:00.000-07:00

I went down this morning to sign up my Dog for welfare. At first the lady said, "Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare".

So I explained to her that my Dog is mix in color, unemployed, lazy, can't speak English and has no frigging clue who his Daddy is. He expects me to feed him, provide him with housing and medical care, and feel guilty because he is a dog. So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify.

My Dog gets his first check Friday. Damn this is a great country.

/

Mommy Is Watching

2010-03-19T09:37:00.000-07:00

Rep. John Boccieri, D-Ohio, announced that he would support the bill despite voting against an earlier version. "I'm not worried about the election."

And then the truth came out when he said he changed his vote to make his mother happy.

Boccieri, perhaps it slipped your mind, but you were not elected to do the will of your mother. You were elected to do the will of the people.

Maybe Ohio should have elected Boccieri's mother...

No, he's not worried about the election, and that's a good thing since he just kissed his Congressional seat good-bye. Another liberal lemming, unable to stand on principle, bites the dust. Good riddance to bad representation.

/

BS Obama

2010-03-19T08:59:00.001-07:00

I'm listening to Obama's health care speech this morning, and never in my life have I heard so many half-truths and lies in so short a time. Like when Obama said the CBO says his health care bill will cut a trillion off the deficit. The truth: the CBO says only 120 billion would be cut, BUT that is conditional, since the only numbers they can crunch are the numbers provided to them by Congress. And the CBO further warns those estimates from Congress are not realistic.

He says his bill is all about reforming insurance. It is. It's not about health care. It's about insurance. But he says he will force insurers to cover pre-existing conditions (which increases costs to insurers that must be passed on or they will go bankrupt), and will force insurers to pay heavier fees (same as above - must pass it on), but then says OUR costs for premiums will miraculously go down. Not even the CBO agrees with that, as they claim premiums are likely to go up about 17%.

And I notice that Obama is purposely avoiding saying anything about the terrible parts of the bill. He never mentioned the 47 new taxes we will pay. He never mentioned that we will be forced to buy insurance. He did not mention the 15,000 new jobs at the IRS because THEY will be empowered to monitor us monthly, to insure we get insurance or pay a $2250 fine. He did not mention the board that will determine who gets what care, based on actuarian tables and the persons expected "value" to society. And he never mentioned that the make-believe $500 billion that would be cut from Medicare (but never will be) is somehow being spent twice - I wish I could do that!

And he never mentioned all the new "deals" being cut, even as I write this.

And he failed to mention that we will have to pay the taxes and fees for ten years in order to get benefits for only six years. And he never mentioned where we will find the doctors, nurses, hospitals and equipment to serve 30 million more people, particularly since the New England Journal of Medicine writes that a poll indicates up to 46.3% of all doctors may retire if this bill passes.

Look, we don't need better insurance. And we donb't need to drive insurers out of business, resulting in only a socialist government plan being available. What we need is better HEALTH CARE, and LOWER COSTS. And a little more HONESTY in the discussion would help a lot.

I would not have such an issue with his lies if only he would tell the folks EVERYTHING that is in the bill, and not just the parts that make good sound bytes.

/

Confidential? Who Says?

2010-03-19T06:47:00.000-07:00

This morning, from a CNN Money report:

"How to cash in on the census
"It's way more than just a headcount -- it's market intelligence used by companies to make decisions about what people buy, what they eat, and even what they watch on TV. Mark Roden owns 48 Subway franchises in Arizona and plans his beverage offerings based on census demographics distilled by third-party market researchers like PopStats or Nielsen Claritas."

On the Census form it states the information you provide is confidential. Yet somehow, "third party market researchers" seem to be able to access that "confidential" information and sell it to others who use it to make more money from us.

Yet another reason why the only question I answer is the actual number of persons living in my household.

/

St Patrick

2010-03-17T21:58:00.001-07:00

Yesterday was St Patrick's Day, and in retrospect I was recalling how he had driven all the snakes out of Ireland. Oh, to have him return and work his miracle in Washington DC.

/

Surprise! (Not)

2010-03-17T08:05:00.000-07:00

Well, now we know exactly how much value some of our elected officials place on their oath to serve the people.Until yesterday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) was voting "no" on the travesty that is laughingly referred to as the Health Care bill. That is, until he got to take a spin on Air Force One. That was all it took to get this bulwark of principle to switch his vote.

If Kucinich can be bought so cheaply as to switch his vote for a ride, perhaps the Republicans can offer him a one-day pass to Disney World where he can go on many rides.I would enumerate all the Democrats who have SOLD their votes on this, but there are just too many. Just about the only Democrat currently serving that seems to have any real principles at all is Bart Stupak.

But I have to wonder how much bribery, blackmail and browbeating he will be able to withstand from the most corrupt Congress and administration in the history of America. So far, he has withstood a severe whipping from Pelosi and her minions, while politicians like Kucinich, Landrieu and Nelson succumbed to two lashes from a wet noodle and a pocketful of taxpayer-funded benefits.

A word to the Democrats on Capitol Hill: it's not the Republicans who will be voting you out of office in November - it will be your own party. No one forgives being betrayed by their own. You should have learned from the errors of the Republicans - it was Republicans who voted them out in '06 and '08. And now you idiots are making the same mistake.

I truly pity any party whose representatives and senators are as corrupt as the current Democrats in office today. It makes the entire party look corrupt. After all, and I have asked this before, if you can't even get your own party to vote for your bill without having to resort to buying their votes, then just how bad IS this bill?

/

Always Good For A Laugh

2010-03-14T14:36:00.000-07:00

I have to hand it to the progressive liberals - they're nothing if not good for a few laughs.

You know about the "tea parties", a spontaneous grass roots swell of folks wanting their country back. Well, in retaliation, the liberals have decided to organize their own movement. And can you even guess what those great thinkers are calling it? Yep, it's "coffee parties."

It seems to me they could at least have used some imagination and come up with their own name. Instead, they took the tea party name and just changed the name of the beverage. That, itself, was worthy of a snicker, since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (but imitation none the less). But it gets better - MUCH better.

This organized "movement" was deliberately set up to take place - hold on - in coffee shops across the nation. At first blush that might seem innocuous enough, but there is a reason for choosing coffee shops - you cannot get huge crowds of 5000 (like tea parties) in a coffee shop. By choosing little coffee shops, if they get 10 people to stop in (mostly out of curiosity, I would suppose), it actually looks like a real crowd. But those same 10 people gathering in Central Park would be nothing more than 10 missing persons. It's called DECEIT - making something that is not a crowd to look like a crowd.

Anyway, their first "coffee shop" day was today. And a handful of people showed up in a handful of coffee shops around the country. And they are tooting it on TV and the internet as "a raging success." For progressives, who only represent about 20% of the people, perhaps they consider that a great success. I call it a bunch of "sour grapers" gathering to console one another and making a stab at being relevant in some way.

But here is where it really brings in the laughter. CNN, MSNBC and other liberal media had ignored the massive tea parties for months, and only began reporting on them, negatively, after the movement got so big it could not be ignored. And even then they called the folks a bunch of un-American, brown-shirt, rabble-rousing, trouble-making, far-right lunatics. But guess - just try and guess - how they are covering these insignificant "coffee parties"?

For starters, on the first day out the media are giving them full coverage, instead of ignoring them for months. And their reports, instead of being negative, are filled with high praise for these "great, patriotic Americans."

But they don't stop there - the liberal media is screaming from the rooftops about how these coffee parties are such a raging success, and they show a few photos of five or six people in a coffee shop. And you can't even tell if the people are there to be "coffee partiers", or just stopped in for their morning cup-a-joe.

These people behind the "coffee parties", like far-left socialist loon George Soros are a joke, and a bad joke at that. The real joke here is the "lamestream media" who, because of their socialist agenda, attack anything sane and conservative while immortalizing every whacky far-left cause that comes along. I hope to see Beck's or O'Reilly's take on these non-events. I'm sure they, too, are getting a good chuckle from them.

Attendees voiced support for health care reform. Anti-corporate sentiment was prevalent as well. So, these are socialists. Socialists blame corporate America for almost everything, and socialists want government to control every aspect of our lives, i.e. health care. They never stop to think that if not for corporate America, no one would have jobs, no products would be available to buy, and few services available. There would be no research and development, not in technology and not in medicine - the world would not have any of the amenities it now has, and modern medicine would still be at the 1880 stage. It was corporate America that is responsible for most of what is good. Of course there will be some bad along the way.

Imagine - 75,000 tea partiers gather in Washington, and that is not news. But let 5 liberals sip coffee in a coffee shop, patting each other on the back, and that is not only big news, but is tooted as a "movement".

I have a movement every day, and they smell better than these bogus, orchestrated coffee parties.

/

Constitution

2010-03-14T09:59:00.000-07:00

For those of you who may have an interest, or if you would like your kids to better understand their rights under the Constitution, I have embarked on a series of entries at my other blog at http://success-by-design.blogspot.com/ that is designed to explain the Constitution in simple terms, piece by piece.

While I am not necessarily an "expert", I did study law for two years and specialized in Constitutional Law. So I believe I have a fair understanding that I can pass on to others.

Feel free to check it out - as of this writing, I have already made the first two entries which cover freedom of religion (with the so-called "separation of church and state") and the section that details the census, which is a timely piece since most of us already have our census forms.

Enjoy!

/

Moronic Ramblings

2010-03-13T10:07:00.000-08:00

No, not necessarily mine. But here is a quote written by Rodney Quinn, who lives in Gorham, and is a former Maine secretary of state, which he published in the Lakeside Weekly:

"How about a version of the Bible justifying the Tea Bagger belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Or one explaining why Republican senators should have another six years in the U.S. senate to vote no against everything but their own pay raises?"

Mr. Quinn is anything but an objective individual, and includes phrases in his diatribe that reflect a good deal of "jackass" ideology.

First, only far-left liberal loons refer to the Tea Partiers as "Tea Baggers". And only far-left loons would so denegrate more than 70% of his fellow Americans in such a way. And his obvious distaste for the Bible (seen in the rest of his article) insults the 84% of Americans who believe in God.

But the worst part of his tripe is his claim that conservatives (the "Tea Baggers") believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. That is a made-up attack created by atheists who, in THEIR own ignorance and arrogance thought to add up the "years" mentioned in the Bible to see when Adam was born and the Earth created. But conservative Christians do not really believe that atheist tripe - we know better. We know, for example (and Mr. Quinn is undoubtedly ignorant in such matters) that the Bible as ATHEISTS read it is only the loose English Translation. In the original Hebrew text, "years" are seldom mentioned. For example, the Creation, according to King James, took place in 6 days. But in the Hebrew text, it is written as "six TIMES." And a "time" can be a day, year, or even an eon.

Mr. Quinn, I hope you are reading this, if only to provide yourself with an actual education in matters of which you obviously have no knowledge (in which case you should not be boring us with your ignorance).

And as for your completely moronic statement "why Republican senators should have another six years in the U.S. senate to vote no against everything but their own pay raises?", all I can say is that you certainly have as little knowledge of politics as you do religion or Tea Partiers. Because sane, reasonable and knowledgeable people know that Republicans only say "no" when "no" is the right answer from a conservative viewpoint. Of course, being a loon from the left, you probably think that Republicans should agree with Democrats, but if that were the case, there would only be ONE party. NEWSFLASH: Republicans and Democrats, by nature, must disagree on most political issues.

Yes, Republicans say no to a government take-over of health care, but say "yes" to real health care reform. Republicans say "no" to cap and trade, but "yes" to a sound energy policy.

So, Quinn, in case you do not understand, sometimes "NO" is the right answer. Oh, and in case you missed it, it was the Democrat majority that has voted all Senate raises over the last few years....

/