Just when I thought I had heard it all! The liberals are not satisfied with winning the election. They do not want to settle for making a pop star out of Obama. Now they want to pay his wife, Michelle, to be First Lady. They want to give her a "job description", complete with duties and subsequently, the powers to fulfill them.
They are going much too far! "First Lady" is not an employment position, nor a government post, nor a cabinet position. She is nothing more than the wife of the president-elect, just like all the First Ladies over the last 225 years.
Even more telling - the same people proposing that we pay Mrs. Obama for being the Great One's wife never, ever thought to pay Laura Bush for the same position.
Here's an idea - let us give Mrs. Obama a HUGE salary, paid 100% by the people who came up with this stupid idea.
Before these liberal nut-jobs go any further with this, they should consider the ramifications - all First Ladies - of presidents, governors etc. would be entitled to henceforth be paid taxpayer dollars for being a spouse. And even Sarah Palin's hubby would be getting a salary for being "First dude".
I am certain that the people behind the "pay Michelle" movement would strongly object to also paying the spouses of Republican leaders.
This simply goes to show the mentality (or lack thereof) of the folks behind liberalism in America. They are not for America. They are for themselves, only.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Propaganda
Hamas, working from within Gaza, has bombarded Israel with over 3000 mortar and rocket attacks over the last year, in spite of a "truce". The truce ended 8 days ago. And Israel today bombed Gaza, killing 225 and wouding 400.
For any sane person who has been observing the events over the last few years, it is painfully obvious that Hamas has purposely and with intent been aggressively trying to provoke Israel into making war. And when Israel does so, Hamas - supported by the liberal media, even in America - cries "foul", and points out all the dead and wounded, blaming Israel.
And too many ignorant fools buy into their propaganda. The media pumps out the pictures of Israeli bombs killing Hamas people in one attack, but fails to even mention that Israel has been attacked by Hamas rockets and mortars every single day for years.
I'm here to tell you that if anyone were to hit you over and over, there would come a point when you would draw the line, and pummel the SOB into the ground. And then the liberals would call YOU the bully, because you defended yourself.
It is a crazy world we live in, being made even more insane by the liberal media whose objective is to help destroy the "evil America", and take every opportunity to do just that. When I read in the media that Israel's attack was "unjustified", or that Israel should "back off" and just put up with the "minor little infringements" of Hamas, I think perhaps we would be far better off if Hamas would turn their rockets on the media instead of Israel.
/
For any sane person who has been observing the events over the last few years, it is painfully obvious that Hamas has purposely and with intent been aggressively trying to provoke Israel into making war. And when Israel does so, Hamas - supported by the liberal media, even in America - cries "foul", and points out all the dead and wounded, blaming Israel.
And too many ignorant fools buy into their propaganda. The media pumps out the pictures of Israeli bombs killing Hamas people in one attack, but fails to even mention that Israel has been attacked by Hamas rockets and mortars every single day for years.
I'm here to tell you that if anyone were to hit you over and over, there would come a point when you would draw the line, and pummel the SOB into the ground. And then the liberals would call YOU the bully, because you defended yourself.
It is a crazy world we live in, being made even more insane by the liberal media whose objective is to help destroy the "evil America", and take every opportunity to do just that. When I read in the media that Israel's attack was "unjustified", or that Israel should "back off" and just put up with the "minor little infringements" of Hamas, I think perhaps we would be far better off if Hamas would turn their rockets on the media instead of Israel.
/
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
T'was The Month Before Christmas
T'was the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.
See the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a 'Holiday'.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS , not Happy Holiday!
Merry Christmas to all our readers
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Michigan City Bans "annoying"
Ticking someone off could get you a ticket in one Michigan city. The Brighton City Council on Thursday approved an ordinance allowing police in the Livingston County community to ticket and fine anyone who is annoying in public "by word of mouth, sign or motions." The Livingston County Daily Press & Argus of Howell reports the measure is modeled on a similar ordinance in the Detroit suburb of Royal Oak. It will go into effect on January 2.
Gee, I guess these political clowns never heard of the Constitution. You know, that document that guarantees us certain unalienable rights, like free speech. In fact, though I find it repulsive, the US Supreme Court had already determined it was was freedom of speech to use profanity in public (a lady in Denver was arrested for "F*** Bush", sued, and won). and the same for obnoxious hand signals (you know the one I mean).
Personally, I think We, the People need to learn more civility, and police ourselves. But it is unconstitutional to legislate morality.
Why? Because WHO will decide what constitutes "annoying"? What are the standards? The limits? Can a person be arrested for saying "Bite Me"? Can a Republican be arrested and fined for being a Republican? Or a Democrat?
People like these dolts on the city council should be tossed out on their ear. While I agree that we should be nicer and more civil, they have no right to legislate it, or determine what is, or is not, "annoying".
Here are some examples of what I find annoying:
Now, I do not think those people should be arrested and fined - but with ordinances like this stupid one in Michigan, it could easily happen. And THAT is why no such law should ever be written, and why any politician supporting such a law should be arrested and fined for being both annoying AND stupid!
/
Gee, I guess these political clowns never heard of the Constitution. You know, that document that guarantees us certain unalienable rights, like free speech. In fact, though I find it repulsive, the US Supreme Court had already determined it was was freedom of speech to use profanity in public (a lady in Denver was arrested for "F*** Bush", sued, and won). and the same for obnoxious hand signals (you know the one I mean).
Personally, I think We, the People need to learn more civility, and police ourselves. But it is unconstitutional to legislate morality.
Why? Because WHO will decide what constitutes "annoying"? What are the standards? The limits? Can a person be arrested for saying "Bite Me"? Can a Republican be arrested and fined for being a Republican? Or a Democrat?
People like these dolts on the city council should be tossed out on their ear. While I agree that we should be nicer and more civil, they have no right to legislate it, or determine what is, or is not, "annoying".
Here are some examples of what I find annoying:
- Elevator Music (or ON HOLD music)
- Profanity in comedy skits (there's nothing funny about ignorance)
- Atheists who try to push religious folks into the closet
- Gays who try to force their lifestyles into public view
- Activists who invade church services
- Politicians who vote for bailouts
- News media that are biased
- Liberals who rewrite history
- Uninformed people voting (go ahead and vote, but GET INFORMED!)
- People who disagree with me
Now, I do not think those people should be arrested and fined - but with ordinances like this stupid one in Michigan, it could easily happen. And THAT is why no such law should ever be written, and why any politician supporting such a law should be arrested and fined for being both annoying AND stupid!
/
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Forbidden Skit
Apparently, SNL did a "Bailout" skit, which has created some incredible problems for NBC. They have pulled the video and apparently gone after anyone who put the video out there,because the video has all but disappeared off the internet. It seems that too much of this skit came a bit too close to the truth, and Democratic leaders was not pleased.
Please note: SNL has run many "embarrassing" skits about Republicans, and has never pulled any of them. Maybe that's because Republicans do not have an aversion to the truth.
Click on the link below to see one copy still out there:
http://msunderestimated.com/SNLBailoutSkit.wmv
Please note: SNL has run many "embarrassing" skits about Republicans, and has never pulled any of them. Maybe that's because Republicans do not have an aversion to the truth.
Click on the link below to see one copy still out there:
http://msunderestimated.com/SNLBailoutSkit.wmv
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Barstool Economics 101
Bar Stool Economics, simple but effectively explained !!!!
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls , journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, or attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier, leaving the rest of us to pick up the entire tab.
David R. Kamerschen
Ph.D. Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no further explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls , journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, or attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier, leaving the rest of us to pick up the entire tab.
David R. Kamerschen
Ph.D. Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no further explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
You Can See It Coming
I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us. Bear in mind that the following refers to a "democracy". Though America is now being run as a democracy, it was not founded to be one - it was founded as a Republic. FDR changed it to a democracy, without benefit of amending the Constitution which states that we are to always be a Republic. The founding fathers specifically rejected a democracy precisely for the reasons given below.
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury (not possible in a true Republic).'
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury (in America that is the Democrat Party), with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline UniversitySchool of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19, Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000, Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million, Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2, Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, ignore this. If you are not, then copy this and pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
/
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury (not possible in a true Republic).'
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury (in America that is the Democrat Party), with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline UniversitySchool of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19, Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000, Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million, Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2, Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, ignore this. If you are not, then copy this and pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
/
Friday, December 12, 2008
Unnerving
If I were a gambling man, I would bet heavily that Rod Blagojevich will meet a violent, untimely (but not unexpected) end. This man knows where ALL the "bodies are buried" in Chicago politics, and that has to make some very powerful people as nervous as chickens in a den of wolves.
He's been busted! And he's a weasel. He will flip, if it will get him an easier stint in the graybar hotel. And people have worn cement shoes for less. Does the name Jimmy Hoffa ring a bell?
I do not hope he will become a victim of his associates. I would prefer to see him get put away, and squeal on all the other rats in Illinois. It's time to put those folks on notice that "politics as usual" will no longer be tolerated.
But these are nasty, evil people, and we should expect almost anything.
/
He's been busted! And he's a weasel. He will flip, if it will get him an easier stint in the graybar hotel. And people have worn cement shoes for less. Does the name Jimmy Hoffa ring a bell?
I do not hope he will become a victim of his associates. I would prefer to see him get put away, and squeal on all the other rats in Illinois. It's time to put those folks on notice that "politics as usual" will no longer be tolerated.
But these are nasty, evil people, and we should expect almost anything.
/
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Welcome
There is so much going on in the world these days, and so few places where you can get the truth. The purpose of this blog is to help uncloak the spinmeisters, and to keep a close eye on those whose actions affect us all.
Much of what you find here will be my opinion, but opinion or not, it will always be the truth. While I am generally an Independent who leans to the right, I will tackle the wrongdoers on both sides, without undue favoritism.
Many of you are familiar with my other blogs (I have quite a few). This particular blog was developed to provide a harbor for political commentary, so I no longer need to insert it into other blogs that really are not designed for politics.
Much of what you find here may rile you, and that is not a bad thing as long as you get riled at the real offenders, and not the messenger (me). For as I said earlier, I intend to be completely honest here, and if that honesty offends you, then perhaps you are on the wrong side of the issue.
That said, I hope you will find value in this blog, and enjoy it. Feel free to post your own comments - but keep it clean, honest, and devoid of unfounded "talking points". Be prepared to back up what you say, with facts.
I shall return regularly to post - sometimes several times a day. Other times I may go several days without much to say (unlikely - VERY unlikely :o)
Later!
Bill
Much of what you find here will be my opinion, but opinion or not, it will always be the truth. While I am generally an Independent who leans to the right, I will tackle the wrongdoers on both sides, without undue favoritism.
Many of you are familiar with my other blogs (I have quite a few). This particular blog was developed to provide a harbor for political commentary, so I no longer need to insert it into other blogs that really are not designed for politics.
Much of what you find here may rile you, and that is not a bad thing as long as you get riled at the real offenders, and not the messenger (me). For as I said earlier, I intend to be completely honest here, and if that honesty offends you, then perhaps you are on the wrong side of the issue.
That said, I hope you will find value in this blog, and enjoy it. Feel free to post your own comments - but keep it clean, honest, and devoid of unfounded "talking points". Be prepared to back up what you say, with facts.
I shall return regularly to post - sometimes several times a day. Other times I may go several days without much to say (unlikely - VERY unlikely :o)
Later!
Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)