In doing some research on poverty in America, I ran across these statistics:
8 of the 10 states with the highest poverty level have NEVER had any Republican mayors in over 50 years. And the other two? They only had Republican leadership an average of 28% of the time, well below the national average.
One might try to rack this up to coincidence - but when you understand that Democrats tend toward entitlements that make poverty easier and Republicans tend toward programs that force folks to actually work and produce, you begin to see a pattern.
Now couple that pattern with this fact: 84% of poor people vote Democrat. When asked why, it boiled down to not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them. And this is why the poorest cities, like Detroit, keep electing the same party that put them in poverty in the first place.
It appears that the entitlement strategy of Democrats is DESIGNED to keep people poor, and make those people dependent upon the Democrats, resulting in votes.
Now, what ugly trend have we been seeing in Maine over the last two decades...
If I want something to lick me because I feed them, I'll get a dog, thank you.
/
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
A Capitalists' Response Socialism
There is much ado these days about the "need" for America to become more socialistic in nature, "for the betterment of the world." As "world citizens", some believe we have an obligation to lower our own standard of living in order to share with others, and raise them up. Level the field. Redistribute the wealth.
The theory almost sounds logical - until you actually THINK about it.
The first law of nature is "survival of the fittest." Survival of the strongest, to perpetuate the race. When we strive to weaken ourselves in an effort to strengthen others, we only serve to weaken the entire race.
Think about this for a moment: In what counties have almost all innovations and progress in technology, medicine, food and every other area of life come from?
They have all come from CAPITALIST countries. No socialist country has ever been able to contribute substantially to the greater good because their resources are so thinly spread out (wealth redistribution), and incentive is non-existent. After all, why try harder, work harder or think harder if you are only going to end up with the same as the lazy oafs who contribute little or nothing? In a socialist state the incentive is gone.
And there are no "rich" people to invest in research and development of products and services. In capitalist nations, there is great incentive and competition because there is the promise of wealth and prosperity for those who achieve. And it is that competition and incentive that begets innovation. Had it not been for Capitalist America, the world would be far worse off. Even the poorer people and nations would be worse off. Our capitalism gave birth to the innovations that raise us all.
Yes, the poor are still with us, but they are not AS poor, thanks to our capitalistic nature. Capitalism has given rise to great and powerful medicines and technology, and even the poor tend to own cellphones and computers.
No, America does not need to lower itself with socialism in order to make the world better.
Instead, we need to strengthen our capitalist free markets that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, because it is only through those that we can raise up the standards for all people.
/
The theory almost sounds logical - until you actually THINK about it.
The first law of nature is "survival of the fittest." Survival of the strongest, to perpetuate the race. When we strive to weaken ourselves in an effort to strengthen others, we only serve to weaken the entire race.
Think about this for a moment: In what counties have almost all innovations and progress in technology, medicine, food and every other area of life come from?
They have all come from CAPITALIST countries. No socialist country has ever been able to contribute substantially to the greater good because their resources are so thinly spread out (wealth redistribution), and incentive is non-existent. After all, why try harder, work harder or think harder if you are only going to end up with the same as the lazy oafs who contribute little or nothing? In a socialist state the incentive is gone.
And there are no "rich" people to invest in research and development of products and services. In capitalist nations, there is great incentive and competition because there is the promise of wealth and prosperity for those who achieve. And it is that competition and incentive that begets innovation. Had it not been for Capitalist America, the world would be far worse off. Even the poorer people and nations would be worse off. Our capitalism gave birth to the innovations that raise us all.
Yes, the poor are still with us, but they are not AS poor, thanks to our capitalistic nature. Capitalism has given rise to great and powerful medicines and technology, and even the poor tend to own cellphones and computers.
No, America does not need to lower itself with socialism in order to make the world better.
Instead, we need to strengthen our capitalist free markets that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, because it is only through those that we can raise up the standards for all people.
/
Monday, December 28, 2009
Amateurs
OK, so here is the series of events:
Goof #1: A father tells the FBI that his son has been radicalized for jihad, and needs to be watched. He is put on a "watch list", but NOT on the "no fly" list.
Goof #2: This radical jihadist is granted a visa to come to America by Hilary Clinton's State Department.
Goof #3: This radical jihadist, on a watch list, is not searched, while Grandma Jones must go through a strip search.
Goof #4: When this jihadist tries to blow up the plain over Detroit (which would have likely improved Detroit), it was the passengers, not air marshals, who stopped and held him.
Goof #5: Director of Homeland Security Napolitano immediately issues a statement that "the system worked."
Goof #6: Napolitano then flips the next day and says "the system obviously failed."
Goof #7: Staff awoke Obama to tell him he won the Nobel Prize, but waited three hours to tell him of this incident.
Goof #8: Obama took three days to make a statement, giving the impression this terrorist attack was not important.
Goof #9: Obama blamed Bush security policies for this, even though the policies did not fail - the PEOPLE who are now entrusted to follow through on them (Obama's team) are the ones who failed.
Goof #10: Obama's administration decided to treat this as a crime, not terrorism, and the radical jihadist will be arraigned in District Court. Who knows - he may even get bail.
No matter how the liberals try to put some pretty ribbons on their spin, there is absolutely no doubt that this country is now in the hands of rank amateurs.
/
Goof #1: A father tells the FBI that his son has been radicalized for jihad, and needs to be watched. He is put on a "watch list", but NOT on the "no fly" list.
Goof #2: This radical jihadist is granted a visa to come to America by Hilary Clinton's State Department.
Goof #3: This radical jihadist, on a watch list, is not searched, while Grandma Jones must go through a strip search.
Goof #4: When this jihadist tries to blow up the plain over Detroit (which would have likely improved Detroit), it was the passengers, not air marshals, who stopped and held him.
Goof #5: Director of Homeland Security Napolitano immediately issues a statement that "the system worked."
Goof #6: Napolitano then flips the next day and says "the system obviously failed."
Goof #7: Staff awoke Obama to tell him he won the Nobel Prize, but waited three hours to tell him of this incident.
Goof #8: Obama took three days to make a statement, giving the impression this terrorist attack was not important.
Goof #9: Obama blamed Bush security policies for this, even though the policies did not fail - the PEOPLE who are now entrusted to follow through on them (Obama's team) are the ones who failed.
Goof #10: Obama's administration decided to treat this as a crime, not terrorism, and the radical jihadist will be arraigned in District Court. Who knows - he may even get bail.
No matter how the liberals try to put some pretty ribbons on their spin, there is absolutely no doubt that this country is now in the hands of rank amateurs.
/
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Prostitutes
Well, it appears I called it accurately when I posted that the good folks of Nebraska would be insulted by their senator Ben Nelson's sell-out on the health care bill. It seems a vast number of Nebraskans called and emailed him saying "NO", that they do not appreciate being seen as leeches on society, or charity cases. Even the Governor asked Nelson to vote no.
Nelson said if the Governor were to declare he did not want the billions in bribe money, to just say so and Nelson would give it up. Well, the governor went on air yesterday and stated flatly that Nebraska does NOT want that graft money. But did Nelson give it back? Nope! So, apparently Nelson, already proven to be a corrupt, weak person and a political prostitute is also an abject liar. That does not come as any surprise - so far, roughly 51 "Blue Dog" Democrats have prostituted themselves by accepting payments for their votes. One Blue Dog Democrat, rather than descend to that level, chose to dump the Democrat party and became a Republican. Refreshing to find a man (of either party) with the conviction to stand by his principles. Now if we could find about 450 more like that...
I don't think Nebraskans are proud of him Nelson, or the position he put them in. Looks like it's "Bye, Bye, Nelson" come election time. And about 40 others can kiss their collective butts good-bye next November. And that is how it should be.
/
Nelson said if the Governor were to declare he did not want the billions in bribe money, to just say so and Nelson would give it up. Well, the governor went on air yesterday and stated flatly that Nebraska does NOT want that graft money. But did Nelson give it back? Nope! So, apparently Nelson, already proven to be a corrupt, weak person and a political prostitute is also an abject liar. That does not come as any surprise - so far, roughly 51 "Blue Dog" Democrats have prostituted themselves by accepting payments for their votes. One Blue Dog Democrat, rather than descend to that level, chose to dump the Democrat party and became a Republican. Refreshing to find a man (of either party) with the conviction to stand by his principles. Now if we could find about 450 more like that...
I don't think Nebraskans are proud of him Nelson, or the position he put them in. Looks like it's "Bye, Bye, Nelson" come election time. And about 40 others can kiss their collective butts good-bye next November. And that is how it should be.
/
Code of Ethics - lol
The following is the Code of Ethics for U.S. Government Service, Resolved by the House of Representatives with the Senate concurring, That it is the sense of the Congress that the following Code of Ethics should be adhered to by all Government employees, including officeholders. Pay particular attention to #5 and #6, while recalling the sweetheart bribes Harry Reid has promised in return for votes:
CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Any person in Government service should:
1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.
2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
3. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving to the performance of his duties his earnest effort and best thought.
4. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.
5. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.
6. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.
7. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental duties.
8. Never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.
9. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
10. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.
/
CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Any person in Government service should:
1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.
2. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
3. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving to the performance of his duties his earnest effort and best thought.
4. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.
5. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.
6. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.
7. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental duties.
8. Never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.
9. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
10. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.
/
Monday, December 21, 2009
Br-r-r
As we roll up to Christmas, it is interesting to note the following:
1) The worst winter storm in decades has battered 1/3 of the country, with another on the way
2) The Eurotrain from Britain to Europe has been shut down indefinitely, due to severe winter weather
3) Almost all of Europe is being battered by the worst winter weather in over 30 years
4) Several volcanic areas throughout the Pacific "Ring Of Fire" are showing activity, most notably the one in the Phillipines. The last "little ice age" of the 1500-1850 era was triggered by such volcanic activity. Now imagine how much worse that ice age would have been if the people had reduced the natural warming of the Earth, as the global warming nuts want to do.
When I couple these news items with the fact that the last 11 years have actually been cooler than "normal", I find it amazing that so many people can keep a straight face as they declare that global warming is going to end life as we know it.
And it astonishes me that amid all of this, the President of the United States of America goes traipsing off to a climate change conference, espousing global warming trends that are not evident, and begging to give our wealth away to corrupt third-world nations to appease them, and to redistribute America's wealth to those who would use it against us.
But even more amazing is the fact that so much of the world is so fanatical about a perceived warming that writing this article is even necessary. Frankly, if given a choice between having to suffer 60 degree weather in winter, or 40 degree weather in summer, I'll take the heat, thank you very much. Throughout history, human activity progressed and prospered much faster during the warming periods, and human populations were decimated during cooling periods. We should put our efforts into insuring the Earth does not cool because if history and geology tell us anything, they tell us that there will always be another ice age in our future.
/
1) The worst winter storm in decades has battered 1/3 of the country, with another on the way
2) The Eurotrain from Britain to Europe has been shut down indefinitely, due to severe winter weather
3) Almost all of Europe is being battered by the worst winter weather in over 30 years
4) Several volcanic areas throughout the Pacific "Ring Of Fire" are showing activity, most notably the one in the Phillipines. The last "little ice age" of the 1500-1850 era was triggered by such volcanic activity. Now imagine how much worse that ice age would have been if the people had reduced the natural warming of the Earth, as the global warming nuts want to do.
When I couple these news items with the fact that the last 11 years have actually been cooler than "normal", I find it amazing that so many people can keep a straight face as they declare that global warming is going to end life as we know it.
And it astonishes me that amid all of this, the President of the United States of America goes traipsing off to a climate change conference, espousing global warming trends that are not evident, and begging to give our wealth away to corrupt third-world nations to appease them, and to redistribute America's wealth to those who would use it against us.
But even more amazing is the fact that so much of the world is so fanatical about a perceived warming that writing this article is even necessary. Frankly, if given a choice between having to suffer 60 degree weather in winter, or 40 degree weather in summer, I'll take the heat, thank you very much. Throughout history, human activity progressed and prospered much faster during the warming periods, and human populations were decimated during cooling periods. We should put our efforts into insuring the Earth does not cool because if history and geology tell us anything, they tell us that there will always be another ice age in our future.
/
For Our Nebraskan Friends
Some folks are saying Nebraskans will overlook Senator Ben Nelson's willingness to be corrupted because his corruption brought a lot of benefits to Nebraska.
Maybe. But I like to think that Nebraskans are more grounded in morality than that. I think they are apt to say, "Thanks for the perks, Nelson, but we're voting you out because you are corrupt, and you can be bought. And we are opposed to the crooked politics in Washington - next time, we could be the victims instead of the beneficiaries. And we do not appreciate looking like a state full of charity cases, in need of such special exemptions from having to pay our share, and forcing other hard-working families to pay our way."
I hope my take on Nebraskans is closer to the truth than what Nelson obviously thinks of them.
/
Maybe. But I like to think that Nebraskans are more grounded in morality than that. I think they are apt to say, "Thanks for the perks, Nelson, but we're voting you out because you are corrupt, and you can be bought. And we are opposed to the crooked politics in Washington - next time, we could be the victims instead of the beneficiaries. And we do not appreciate looking like a state full of charity cases, in need of such special exemptions from having to pay our share, and forcing other hard-working families to pay our way."
I hope my take on Nebraskans is closer to the truth than what Nelson obviously thinks of them.
/
Friday, December 18, 2009
Sedition
The definition of "sedition" is the act of attempting to overthrow, or incite to overthrow the government.
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, which is the ultimate law of the land reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Therefore, any person who acts to overthrow the Republican form of government is guilty of sedition, a crime against the United States.
What this means is that any person who acts to change our Republic into a socialist, Marxist, Communist or other form of government is guilty of sedition, as they are acting to overthrow the Republican government guaranteed under the Constitution. Almost all of President Obama's advisors are self-proclaimed Marxists or socialists - one (Van Johnson) was even a communist (his own words). All are actively inciting or acting to overthrow the Republican government and instituting a socialist government.
And many of the liberal Democrats in the House and Senate are guilty of sedition, as they are actively working to turn America into a socialist state by passing unconstitutional bills designed to move us into socialism.
And other so-called Americans who stand on the far left, are also guilty of sedition, including Michael Moore, Ariana Huffington, George Soros and many, many others. You know who they are - the ones who praise Chavez and Castro. The ones who always find it necessary to insult, then apologize for America.
Do not misunderstand - dissent is a good thing. But what the far left liberals are doing goes well beyond dissent. It is sedition, plain and simple. If you actively incite or work to change our form of government, you are guilty of sedition.
One of the earliest and most successful seditionists was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was he who removed the word "Republic" from the description of America, and replaced it with "Democracy." No one noticed. To this day, almost no one has noticed that in one simple stroke, he caused the entire nation to forget we are a Republic, and are, instead, a Democracy, which is entirely different. He even had it changed in the textbooks. Roosevelt changed the Republic to a Democracy in 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression. The people were so preoccupied with the depression that they took no notice - and really did not care. By the time things got back to normal, Democracy had already entrenched itself for 15 years, so it still went unnoticed. Even back then the socialists lived by the decree not to let a good crisis go to waste. (Hilary Clinton still uses that phrase). And they are doing it again, with TARP, Stiumulus Bills, bank and automaker takeovers, cap & trade, and now health care. Next it will be amnesty for illegal immigrants.
AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT IS SO DEVREED IN THE CONSTITUTION. ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO PROMOTES ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REPUBLIC IS GUILTY OF SEDITION.
The Founding Fathers had considered a Democracy, and rejected that in favor of a Republic. They did so because they (like Roosevelt) knew that a Democracy always leads to socialism - and Roosevelt was an admitted socialist, whose chief advisor was a card-carrying communist.
Here is the major difference: in a Republic, every person, and his/her rights, are equal, and cannot be over-ridden by anyone else. But in a Democracy, it is "majority rules", which means if the majority want to deprive you of a right, they may do so. (This is how the Supreme Court was able to change eminient domain in the constitution from "public use" to "public benefit". Now, your land can be taken even if the public cannot get use of it, but if a private party can make better use of it and pay higher taxes, which is a public benefit).
The Supreme Court committed an unconstitutional act - only the legislative body, with three-fourths of states ratifying it, can change a single word of the Constitution. So, their ruling is unconstitutional, and any Justice who voted for the change should be recalled and replaced as incompetent and grossly negligent.
When the majority rules (Democracy), they soon learn that they can vote themselves in certain perks and entitlements. And they do - the temptation is too strong. And that is the road to socialism, as those entitlements must come from the government. This gives the government more power over our lives, and power corrupts. More entitlements equals more government, until the people become completely subservient to the government.
What patriotic Americans must do is first reinstate the Republican form of government the Constitution guarantees - throw out any official who resists, or who pursues a more "democratic, socialist" view. Take the word DEMOCRACY out of the description of America and replace it with REPUBLIC. And learn the differences.
Then insist that ALL elected AND non-elected officials follow the Constitution, as written. It does not require "interpretation". Interpretation is whatever a reader wants. The Constitution is clear and simple - do not interpret it - just follow it or get out. Do not vote for anyone who will not pledge to do the above, and if they reneg, throw them out of office. It matters not what party they belong to - either they are FOR America, a Republic, or they are not.
/
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, which is the ultimate law of the land reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Therefore, any person who acts to overthrow the Republican form of government is guilty of sedition, a crime against the United States.
What this means is that any person who acts to change our Republic into a socialist, Marxist, Communist or other form of government is guilty of sedition, as they are acting to overthrow the Republican government guaranteed under the Constitution. Almost all of President Obama's advisors are self-proclaimed Marxists or socialists - one (Van Johnson) was even a communist (his own words). All are actively inciting or acting to overthrow the Republican government and instituting a socialist government.
And many of the liberal Democrats in the House and Senate are guilty of sedition, as they are actively working to turn America into a socialist state by passing unconstitutional bills designed to move us into socialism.
And other so-called Americans who stand on the far left, are also guilty of sedition, including Michael Moore, Ariana Huffington, George Soros and many, many others. You know who they are - the ones who praise Chavez and Castro. The ones who always find it necessary to insult, then apologize for America.
Do not misunderstand - dissent is a good thing. But what the far left liberals are doing goes well beyond dissent. It is sedition, plain and simple. If you actively incite or work to change our form of government, you are guilty of sedition.
One of the earliest and most successful seditionists was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was he who removed the word "Republic" from the description of America, and replaced it with "Democracy." No one noticed. To this day, almost no one has noticed that in one simple stroke, he caused the entire nation to forget we are a Republic, and are, instead, a Democracy, which is entirely different. He even had it changed in the textbooks. Roosevelt changed the Republic to a Democracy in 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression. The people were so preoccupied with the depression that they took no notice - and really did not care. By the time things got back to normal, Democracy had already entrenched itself for 15 years, so it still went unnoticed. Even back then the socialists lived by the decree not to let a good crisis go to waste. (Hilary Clinton still uses that phrase). And they are doing it again, with TARP, Stiumulus Bills, bank and automaker takeovers, cap & trade, and now health care. Next it will be amnesty for illegal immigrants.
AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT IS SO DEVREED IN THE CONSTITUTION. ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO PROMOTES ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REPUBLIC IS GUILTY OF SEDITION.
The Founding Fathers had considered a Democracy, and rejected that in favor of a Republic. They did so because they (like Roosevelt) knew that a Democracy always leads to socialism - and Roosevelt was an admitted socialist, whose chief advisor was a card-carrying communist.
Here is the major difference: in a Republic, every person, and his/her rights, are equal, and cannot be over-ridden by anyone else. But in a Democracy, it is "majority rules", which means if the majority want to deprive you of a right, they may do so. (This is how the Supreme Court was able to change eminient domain in the constitution from "public use" to "public benefit". Now, your land can be taken even if the public cannot get use of it, but if a private party can make better use of it and pay higher taxes, which is a public benefit).
The Supreme Court committed an unconstitutional act - only the legislative body, with three-fourths of states ratifying it, can change a single word of the Constitution. So, their ruling is unconstitutional, and any Justice who voted for the change should be recalled and replaced as incompetent and grossly negligent.
When the majority rules (Democracy), they soon learn that they can vote themselves in certain perks and entitlements. And they do - the temptation is too strong. And that is the road to socialism, as those entitlements must come from the government. This gives the government more power over our lives, and power corrupts. More entitlements equals more government, until the people become completely subservient to the government.
What patriotic Americans must do is first reinstate the Republican form of government the Constitution guarantees - throw out any official who resists, or who pursues a more "democratic, socialist" view. Take the word DEMOCRACY out of the description of America and replace it with REPUBLIC. And learn the differences.
Then insist that ALL elected AND non-elected officials follow the Constitution, as written. It does not require "interpretation". Interpretation is whatever a reader wants. The Constitution is clear and simple - do not interpret it - just follow it or get out. Do not vote for anyone who will not pledge to do the above, and if they reneg, throw them out of office. It matters not what party they belong to - either they are FOR America, a Republic, or they are not.
/
Pardon Me
According to my education in basic civics, the government cannot spend money without it first being appropriated and allocated by the legislative body.
So it strikes me as more than just strange that no one seems to have picked up on, or questioned, Hilary Clinton's promise in Copenhagen that the "United States is willing to commit 100 billion dollars a year" to third-world nations.
I guess I must have been napping when Congress, with a three-fourths majority of all states, passed a Constitutional Amendment giving Mrs Clinton the sole authority to commit even so much as a dime without Congressional action and approval.
This only goes to further prove (as if it were necessary) that the socialist-minded politicians currently in control of the government seem to think they can do whatever they want, without having to answer to anyone. Well, that certainly is the socialist mindset!
Such arrogance - and ignorance. Mrs. Clinton, if you want to commit your own money, go right ahead. But you have absolutely zero authority to commit mine, or anyone elses's. Keep your grimy mitts outta my wallet.
I understand that Webster's Dictionary plans on adding "pickpocket" as a synonym for "liberal".
Also not to be ignored: according to a university study, twice as much stimulus money is going to democrat districts than to republican districts, apparently in an attempt to keep buying the democrats their seats. What is worse: it doesn't even matter what the unemployment rate is. Areas with the highest rates of unemployment are not getting the money unless they are in democrat districts. Hey Congress - this is America, and it's America's money. It is not to be used for partisan purposes.
Meanwhile, according to the Washington Examiner, Florida congressman Grayson (D) has asked to have a woman tossed in prison because her website criticizes him for his uncouth remarks against Republicans. And once again the liberal tendancy to shut down dissent is clear to all. What a loser that clown is - how on Earth did he or Franken get elected? Are the people in their districts comatose? In the Senate hearing yesterday, Franken shut down Lieberman because franken did not like what he was saying. So, he refused to let him finish.
Time to take your country back, America!
/
So it strikes me as more than just strange that no one seems to have picked up on, or questioned, Hilary Clinton's promise in Copenhagen that the "United States is willing to commit 100 billion dollars a year" to third-world nations.
I guess I must have been napping when Congress, with a three-fourths majority of all states, passed a Constitutional Amendment giving Mrs Clinton the sole authority to commit even so much as a dime without Congressional action and approval.
This only goes to further prove (as if it were necessary) that the socialist-minded politicians currently in control of the government seem to think they can do whatever they want, without having to answer to anyone. Well, that certainly is the socialist mindset!
Such arrogance - and ignorance. Mrs. Clinton, if you want to commit your own money, go right ahead. But you have absolutely zero authority to commit mine, or anyone elses's. Keep your grimy mitts outta my wallet.
I understand that Webster's Dictionary plans on adding "pickpocket" as a synonym for "liberal".
Also not to be ignored: according to a university study, twice as much stimulus money is going to democrat districts than to republican districts, apparently in an attempt to keep buying the democrats their seats. What is worse: it doesn't even matter what the unemployment rate is. Areas with the highest rates of unemployment are not getting the money unless they are in democrat districts. Hey Congress - this is America, and it's America's money. It is not to be used for partisan purposes.
Meanwhile, according to the Washington Examiner, Florida congressman Grayson (D) has asked to have a woman tossed in prison because her website criticizes him for his uncouth remarks against Republicans. And once again the liberal tendancy to shut down dissent is clear to all. What a loser that clown is - how on Earth did he or Franken get elected? Are the people in their districts comatose? In the Senate hearing yesterday, Franken shut down Lieberman because franken did not like what he was saying. So, he refused to let him finish.
Time to take your country back, America!
/
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Would Be Funny If Not Pathetic
White House Advisor David Axelrod was asked if the $450 billion in cuts to Medicare that is proposed in the health care bill would hurt the elderly on Medicare. His answer was "No", and he went on to say those cuts were to the doctors and hospitals, not the patients.
Guess Mr Axelrod forgot - as Medicare pays doctors less and less, more and more doctors and hospitals refuse to take on medicare patients. How, exactly, does that NOT harm the elderly if they have medicare coverage, but there are no doctors or hospitals that will accept it?
/
Guess Mr Axelrod forgot - as Medicare pays doctors less and less, more and more doctors and hospitals refuse to take on medicare patients. How, exactly, does that NOT harm the elderly if they have medicare coverage, but there are no doctors or hospitals that will accept it?
/
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Unspinning The Spin
According to Obama and the liberals that are pushing the health care bill:
CLAIM: "It will cut the cost curve."
FACT: It will add 2.4 trillion dollars to the deficit and increase premiums. It will increase cost of medical devices and tests because of the tax being included on those things. For example (one of many) there is an $80 billion dollar tax to be imposed on drug companies. Since drug companies cannot print their own money, there is only one way for them to raise that kind of money - higher prices on drugs. YOU pay. And when they cut the $450 billion from medicare, guess who pays for that?
CLAIM: "It will cover 35 million people currently uninsured."
FACT: It would cover illegal immigrants. Also, only 14 million people do not have health care by default. The rest are either rich and pay their own way, or others who CHOOSE not to carry insurance. If a person has enough money to pay his own way (self-insure), why should he be penalized for that with a fine? Since when did personal responsibility and independence become a BAD thing in America? (Of course, it is actually a crime in socialist countries where you are not permitted to step outside "the collective" - remember the Borg in the Star Trek Next Generation series?)
CLAIM: "We need to prevent Medicare from going bankrupt."
FACT: Medicare was the LAST attempt by liberals to provide medical services on the taxpayer dime, and is already 36 trillion dollars in the hole. Now they want to expand it, to prevent it from going broke. That is not even logical. It is the basis of a Ponzi scheme - and Ponzi schemes are illegal (Google "Bernie Madoff")
CLAIM: "This bill does not provide for use of taxpayer funds for abortion."
FACT: Actually, the current bill does not PREVENT the use of taxpayer funding for abortion, and therefore permits it.
CLAIM: "This bill will reduce insurance premiums."
FACT: According to the group that monitors Medicare, and the CBO, premiums are likely to rise as much as 10%-25% if this bill passes.
CLAIM: "We can make this work, and save all Americans money. The government can do this better than private enterprise."
FACT: The government has never succeeded in any commercial venture, including the Postal Service (broke), Medicare (broke), Social Security (broke), Amtrak (broke) etc. The list goes on.
CLAIM: "The CBO says this bill is deficit neutral."
FACT: Only because the tax increases, fees and penalties get paid, up front, for 5-7 years before services become available for the remaining three years. So, the only reason it is deficit neutral is because we are going to pay 10 years for only 3 years of services. That is fuzzy math, to say the least. In reality, it is simply dishonest.
CLAIM: "This is what America needs."
FACT: Americans do not need, nor want the government to FORCE them to buy health insurance, or pay fines for failing to do so. That is fascism. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the government the power or authority to require its citizens purchase things they neither want nor need. They try to equate this with car insurance, but that is not the same - if you don't want to pay car insurance, you can simply choose to use public transportation. Driving is a privilege, not a God-given right. But with health insurance, you have no such choice - you either buy it, or pay fines, or even go to jail. Your health, and right to life ARE God-given, and therefore cannot be regulated by force of government.
85% of Americans have health care. So we do not "need" to change the entire structure. We simply need to make health care accessible to the remaining 15%. And that is easily accomplished, without costing the taxpayer a dime, with tort reform, allowing folks to shop anywhere (across state lines) for the coverage they need, and by other, similarly simple steps, all of which have long been advocated by Republicans and conservatives.
It is unnecessary to toss out the baby with the bath water. We already have the best health care in the world. The problem is the EXPENSE. Deal with the problem, and don't throw out everything that is already the best in the world. Don't fix what ain't broke.
/
CLAIM: "It will cut the cost curve."
FACT: It will add 2.4 trillion dollars to the deficit and increase premiums. It will increase cost of medical devices and tests because of the tax being included on those things. For example (one of many) there is an $80 billion dollar tax to be imposed on drug companies. Since drug companies cannot print their own money, there is only one way for them to raise that kind of money - higher prices on drugs. YOU pay. And when they cut the $450 billion from medicare, guess who pays for that?
CLAIM: "It will cover 35 million people currently uninsured."
FACT: It would cover illegal immigrants. Also, only 14 million people do not have health care by default. The rest are either rich and pay their own way, or others who CHOOSE not to carry insurance. If a person has enough money to pay his own way (self-insure), why should he be penalized for that with a fine? Since when did personal responsibility and independence become a BAD thing in America? (Of course, it is actually a crime in socialist countries where you are not permitted to step outside "the collective" - remember the Borg in the Star Trek Next Generation series?)
CLAIM: "We need to prevent Medicare from going bankrupt."
FACT: Medicare was the LAST attempt by liberals to provide medical services on the taxpayer dime, and is already 36 trillion dollars in the hole. Now they want to expand it, to prevent it from going broke. That is not even logical. It is the basis of a Ponzi scheme - and Ponzi schemes are illegal (Google "Bernie Madoff")
CLAIM: "This bill does not provide for use of taxpayer funds for abortion."
FACT: Actually, the current bill does not PREVENT the use of taxpayer funding for abortion, and therefore permits it.
CLAIM: "This bill will reduce insurance premiums."
FACT: According to the group that monitors Medicare, and the CBO, premiums are likely to rise as much as 10%-25% if this bill passes.
CLAIM: "We can make this work, and save all Americans money. The government can do this better than private enterprise."
FACT: The government has never succeeded in any commercial venture, including the Postal Service (broke), Medicare (broke), Social Security (broke), Amtrak (broke) etc. The list goes on.
CLAIM: "The CBO says this bill is deficit neutral."
FACT: Only because the tax increases, fees and penalties get paid, up front, for 5-7 years before services become available for the remaining three years. So, the only reason it is deficit neutral is because we are going to pay 10 years for only 3 years of services. That is fuzzy math, to say the least. In reality, it is simply dishonest.
CLAIM: "This is what America needs."
FACT: Americans do not need, nor want the government to FORCE them to buy health insurance, or pay fines for failing to do so. That is fascism. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the government the power or authority to require its citizens purchase things they neither want nor need. They try to equate this with car insurance, but that is not the same - if you don't want to pay car insurance, you can simply choose to use public transportation. Driving is a privilege, not a God-given right. But with health insurance, you have no such choice - you either buy it, or pay fines, or even go to jail. Your health, and right to life ARE God-given, and therefore cannot be regulated by force of government.
85% of Americans have health care. So we do not "need" to change the entire structure. We simply need to make health care accessible to the remaining 15%. And that is easily accomplished, without costing the taxpayer a dime, with tort reform, allowing folks to shop anywhere (across state lines) for the coverage they need, and by other, similarly simple steps, all of which have long been advocated by Republicans and conservatives.
It is unnecessary to toss out the baby with the bath water. We already have the best health care in the world. The problem is the EXPENSE. Deal with the problem, and don't throw out everything that is already the best in the world. Don't fix what ain't broke.
/
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Unintended Consequences
Unintended consequences. No matter what we do, there will be unintended consequences. But there is a way to reduce the damage - simply think things out to the logical conclusions BEFORE you make changes. Look past your nose, and think past today.
The government wants to make really huge changes in how we live, with "green" technologies which for the most part do not even exist yet. And the "smart grid" that will regulate the amount of power that can get to your home has already been started. And with such massive changes, there will be huge unintended consequences because the people putting these things in place cannot see past their noses.
Here are some lesser examples:
1) Ethanol. Now required to be 10% of gasoline, soon to be expanded to 20% or more. However, the unintended consequences are higher food prices (we are burning our food supply), higher cost (it costs 1.7 times more to make ethanol than to make gasoline) and more, not less, pollution (it takes 1.4 gallons of fossil fuels to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, with plowing, irrigating, weeding, fertilizing, harvesting, transporting and processing).
2) "Green" fluorescent lights - the goivernment is mandating in the future that no more incandescents be made. However, fluorescents have been shown to trigger seizures in epileptics. And the "green" bulbs cost 4 times as much to make. Since they also use twice as much glass, it requires twice as much fossil fuels in the manufacturing process. And because they use mercury, a dangerous toxin, they must be disposed of at hazardous waste sites. Most folks live an average of 20 miles from such a site, which means we all burn an extra two gallons of gas to dispose of a stupid bulb. Most folks won't bother, so our water supply will eventually be tainted with mercury.
3) The new, "green" LED street lights. They burn 80% less energy, which is good. But because they do not burn hot enough to melt ice and snow, they get covered and drivers cannot see them under some winter situations. So far, they have caused dozens of accidents and at least one death that has been substantiated. The cost to try and keep the lights clear are out-weighing the savings. It costs a bundle to pay the person who uses a high-pressure compressed air unit to clear them. The air compressor uses a lot of fossil fuel. The truck needed to transport the compressor around the city uses a lot of fossil fuel. So, just how "green" is green?
4) By law, all communications are being relegated to satellites - TV, radio, computers and phones. What is not considered is the result if a major solar flare smacks us - it would fry the satellites, and all communications necessary for survival will be gone, perhaps for a year or more. Such a solar flare just glanced us in 1998 and knocked out all power throughout eastern Canada. And don't forget that China and Russia - neither of them allies - have the technology to knock out our satellites anytime they choose.
And now the government wants to start sweeping changes, none of which have been thought out any better than the above examples. And since the plans are so massive, the unintended consequences will also be massive.
We, the People, need to tell our leaders to stop rushing us to extinction, and take the time to think things out into the foreseeable future. If they don't, we are all in big, big trouble.
/
The government wants to make really huge changes in how we live, with "green" technologies which for the most part do not even exist yet. And the "smart grid" that will regulate the amount of power that can get to your home has already been started. And with such massive changes, there will be huge unintended consequences because the people putting these things in place cannot see past their noses.
Here are some lesser examples:
1) Ethanol. Now required to be 10% of gasoline, soon to be expanded to 20% or more. However, the unintended consequences are higher food prices (we are burning our food supply), higher cost (it costs 1.7 times more to make ethanol than to make gasoline) and more, not less, pollution (it takes 1.4 gallons of fossil fuels to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, with plowing, irrigating, weeding, fertilizing, harvesting, transporting and processing).
2) "Green" fluorescent lights - the goivernment is mandating in the future that no more incandescents be made. However, fluorescents have been shown to trigger seizures in epileptics. And the "green" bulbs cost 4 times as much to make. Since they also use twice as much glass, it requires twice as much fossil fuels in the manufacturing process. And because they use mercury, a dangerous toxin, they must be disposed of at hazardous waste sites. Most folks live an average of 20 miles from such a site, which means we all burn an extra two gallons of gas to dispose of a stupid bulb. Most folks won't bother, so our water supply will eventually be tainted with mercury.
3) The new, "green" LED street lights. They burn 80% less energy, which is good. But because they do not burn hot enough to melt ice and snow, they get covered and drivers cannot see them under some winter situations. So far, they have caused dozens of accidents and at least one death that has been substantiated. The cost to try and keep the lights clear are out-weighing the savings. It costs a bundle to pay the person who uses a high-pressure compressed air unit to clear them. The air compressor uses a lot of fossil fuel. The truck needed to transport the compressor around the city uses a lot of fossil fuel. So, just how "green" is green?
4) By law, all communications are being relegated to satellites - TV, radio, computers and phones. What is not considered is the result if a major solar flare smacks us - it would fry the satellites, and all communications necessary for survival will be gone, perhaps for a year or more. Such a solar flare just glanced us in 1998 and knocked out all power throughout eastern Canada. And don't forget that China and Russia - neither of them allies - have the technology to knock out our satellites anytime they choose.
And now the government wants to start sweeping changes, none of which have been thought out any better than the above examples. And since the plans are so massive, the unintended consequences will also be massive.
We, the People, need to tell our leaders to stop rushing us to extinction, and take the time to think things out into the foreseeable future. If they don't, we are all in big, big trouble.
/
Monday, December 14, 2009
Betrayal - Behind Closed Doors
The other day, in secret and behind closed doors, the Democrat Congress killed a program that allowed poor inner-city DC kids to go to better schools. As everyone knows, the public schools in DC are among the worst in the nation, and the only hope those kids had for a decent future lay in being able to attend better schools. And it was WORKING.
And that is precisely why the powerful unions, which traditionally support liberal agenda and socialism, told Congress to either end the program or forfeit their considerable financial help in the next elections.
You see, the teacher's union does not want poor schools to die out, because that means the lousy teachers responsible for those lousy schools will lose their jobs. And they simply want to protect their own, even if they are worthless, and even if the children have to forfeit their futures.
So, we can again thank the Democrats for destroying another little piece of America by sucking up to self-serving unions, just so they can keep buying their congressional seats.
The question is: Do we really want politicians who cannot get re-elected on their merits, and must, instead, buy their seats by kowtowing to those who want to destroy America?
Another question: Should we permit our elected officials to act in secret, behind closed doors, as if WE were working for THEM?
/
And that is precisely why the powerful unions, which traditionally support liberal agenda and socialism, told Congress to either end the program or forfeit their considerable financial help in the next elections.
You see, the teacher's union does not want poor schools to die out, because that means the lousy teachers responsible for those lousy schools will lose their jobs. And they simply want to protect their own, even if they are worthless, and even if the children have to forfeit their futures.
So, we can again thank the Democrats for destroying another little piece of America by sucking up to self-serving unions, just so they can keep buying their congressional seats.
The question is: Do we really want politicians who cannot get re-elected on their merits, and must, instead, buy their seats by kowtowing to those who want to destroy America?
Another question: Should we permit our elected officials to act in secret, behind closed doors, as if WE were working for THEM?
/
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Did You Know?
As President Obama was in Oslo, Norway preparing for his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, a Russian Inter-Continental Ballistic Missle fizzled in the night sky above Oslo.
It has come to light that Russia is modernizing and upgrading its missle and military arsenal, even while they are engaged in "arms reduction" talks with the U.S.
But did you know that every nuclear nation is doing the same - modernizing and upgrading, except for one? That's right - the United States is the only nuclear power that has decided to put all its chips on the arms reduction talks while letting its arsenal corrode and fall into disrepair. In fact, many of the missile silos have been sold to developers and private enterprise to be put to new uses.
It will not be long before the United States finds itself at the bottom of the heap, and unable to protect itself or maintain its power in the world.
The liberals hail that as a victory, believing an unarmed America is not a threat to anyone, so we would be left alone. But the sane people see it for what it is - an open invitation to destroy our way of life, and succumb to socialism and fascism. Unarmed, we become what is known as "prey".
This administration needs to get a dose of reality - you simply cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Those with nuclear arms will keep them, improve them and use them to threaten the rest of the world. That will result in the rest of the world having a need to follow suit, in self-defense. And if America is not going to stay strong and stand by and protect the rest of the unarmed portions of the world, then we lose our relevance, our strength, our credibility, and eventually, our freedom.
Kahlil Gibran once wrote that only the strong can afford to be kind. America is kind, almost to a fault. But to be able to be kind, we must remain strong. And like it or not, strength lies in ones military capability.
That is not to say we have to USE that capability. But HAVE it we must.
/
It has come to light that Russia is modernizing and upgrading its missle and military arsenal, even while they are engaged in "arms reduction" talks with the U.S.
But did you know that every nuclear nation is doing the same - modernizing and upgrading, except for one? That's right - the United States is the only nuclear power that has decided to put all its chips on the arms reduction talks while letting its arsenal corrode and fall into disrepair. In fact, many of the missile silos have been sold to developers and private enterprise to be put to new uses.
It will not be long before the United States finds itself at the bottom of the heap, and unable to protect itself or maintain its power in the world.
The liberals hail that as a victory, believing an unarmed America is not a threat to anyone, so we would be left alone. But the sane people see it for what it is - an open invitation to destroy our way of life, and succumb to socialism and fascism. Unarmed, we become what is known as "prey".
This administration needs to get a dose of reality - you simply cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Those with nuclear arms will keep them, improve them and use them to threaten the rest of the world. That will result in the rest of the world having a need to follow suit, in self-defense. And if America is not going to stay strong and stand by and protect the rest of the unarmed portions of the world, then we lose our relevance, our strength, our credibility, and eventually, our freedom.
Kahlil Gibran once wrote that only the strong can afford to be kind. America is kind, almost to a fault. But to be able to be kind, we must remain strong. And like it or not, strength lies in ones military capability.
That is not to say we have to USE that capability. But HAVE it we must.
/
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Maine's RiNO's
Most of the RiNO's (Republican in Name Only) were voted out in '06 and '08. The three exceptions were Specter (who turn-coated and became a Democrat in mid-stream), and both Snowe and Collins, both of Maine (who should have followed suit).
Snowe and Collins have a long history of siding with the Democrats more often than with Republicans, and really should consider registering as Democrats if they want to be honest and do the honorable thing, and stop lying to the voters.
Today, both of them voted with the Democrats (the only Republicans to do so) in shooting down an amendment in the health care bill that would have prohibited the use of taxpayer money to fund abortions.
This article is not about the pros and cons of abortion. It is about whether or not all Americans, even those morally opposed to abortion, should be forced to pay for abortions.
Apparently, Snowe and Collins are fine with using tax dollars to fund something that half the people find immoral.
They need to get something straight - you do NOT have any right to force citizens to participate in what their religion deems to be a sin. For those of you who claim to be Christian, bear in mind that the Bible states if you participate, even by silence, in a sin, or if you allow it to happen without fighting against it, then you are just as guilty of the sin as the person committing it. So, if tax dollars are allowed to be used to fund abortions, every single Christian in America becomes complicit, and is guilty of every abortion that tax dollars fund.
It would seem that neither Snowe nor Collins is a Christian, because they find no problem with forcing Christians into sin.
So, Maine has two Republican Senators, neither of which is Republican nor Christian. That means they are 1) dishonest, and 2) willing to compromise our right of religious freedom in their quest to kill babies.
By forcing abortion opponents to help pay for abortions is like forcing honest people to pay for the training of pick-pockets, or asking Jews to help pay to build a Roman Catholic Cathedral. It is unconscienable. I wonder how "fair" the abortion crowd would think it would be if taxpayer money were used to promote pro-life causes. I'm sure they would scream bloody murder - and they do not even have moral grounds to stand upon!
Snowe and Collins should be ashamed of themselves - as Senators, as Republicans, as Christians and as human beings! They disgust me.
For those who would ask where I stand on abortion...
As a Christian, I believe it to be a sin, but that is only my belief, and I do not impose that on others. If a person wants an abortion, that should be their choice, and they, alone, should have to face any consequences if they later discover there really is a God. But do not ask me to condone it, or pay for it. Whether it is abortion or anything else, I do NOT appreciate being forced to pay for other people's mistakes. Can't pay the mortgage because you bought a home you could not afford? Let the taxpayer take care of that for you. Didn't use a condom? Slept around? Got pregnant? No problem - get others to pay for your abortion.
Since when did America become so weak in character that no one is required to accept responsibility for their own mistakes and failures? We NEED to be able to fail, as that is how we learn, and grow. Thomas Edison gave us electricity to use only because he tried, and failed, over 400 other times to produce electric light. He learned what WOULD work by discovering what would NOT work. He failed his way to success - as we all must. You fall down a lot before you are finally able to walk.
But the liberals among us want to take all that away. They do not want to allow for failure, or have folks be responsible for their own actions and choices. And that is a very sick mentality to have.
Snowe and Collins -get your heads out of your butts and get acquainted with the real world if you want to represent the good folks of Maine.
/
Snowe and Collins have a long history of siding with the Democrats more often than with Republicans, and really should consider registering as Democrats if they want to be honest and do the honorable thing, and stop lying to the voters.
Today, both of them voted with the Democrats (the only Republicans to do so) in shooting down an amendment in the health care bill that would have prohibited the use of taxpayer money to fund abortions.
This article is not about the pros and cons of abortion. It is about whether or not all Americans, even those morally opposed to abortion, should be forced to pay for abortions.
Apparently, Snowe and Collins are fine with using tax dollars to fund something that half the people find immoral.
They need to get something straight - you do NOT have any right to force citizens to participate in what their religion deems to be a sin. For those of you who claim to be Christian, bear in mind that the Bible states if you participate, even by silence, in a sin, or if you allow it to happen without fighting against it, then you are just as guilty of the sin as the person committing it. So, if tax dollars are allowed to be used to fund abortions, every single Christian in America becomes complicit, and is guilty of every abortion that tax dollars fund.
It would seem that neither Snowe nor Collins is a Christian, because they find no problem with forcing Christians into sin.
So, Maine has two Republican Senators, neither of which is Republican nor Christian. That means they are 1) dishonest, and 2) willing to compromise our right of religious freedom in their quest to kill babies.
By forcing abortion opponents to help pay for abortions is like forcing honest people to pay for the training of pick-pockets, or asking Jews to help pay to build a Roman Catholic Cathedral. It is unconscienable. I wonder how "fair" the abortion crowd would think it would be if taxpayer money were used to promote pro-life causes. I'm sure they would scream bloody murder - and they do not even have moral grounds to stand upon!
Snowe and Collins should be ashamed of themselves - as Senators, as Republicans, as Christians and as human beings! They disgust me.
For those who would ask where I stand on abortion...
As a Christian, I believe it to be a sin, but that is only my belief, and I do not impose that on others. If a person wants an abortion, that should be their choice, and they, alone, should have to face any consequences if they later discover there really is a God. But do not ask me to condone it, or pay for it. Whether it is abortion or anything else, I do NOT appreciate being forced to pay for other people's mistakes. Can't pay the mortgage because you bought a home you could not afford? Let the taxpayer take care of that for you. Didn't use a condom? Slept around? Got pregnant? No problem - get others to pay for your abortion.
Since when did America become so weak in character that no one is required to accept responsibility for their own mistakes and failures? We NEED to be able to fail, as that is how we learn, and grow. Thomas Edison gave us electricity to use only because he tried, and failed, over 400 other times to produce electric light. He learned what WOULD work by discovering what would NOT work. He failed his way to success - as we all must. You fall down a lot before you are finally able to walk.
But the liberals among us want to take all that away. They do not want to allow for failure, or have folks be responsible for their own actions and choices. And that is a very sick mentality to have.
Snowe and Collins -get your heads out of your butts and get acquainted with the real world if you want to represent the good folks of Maine.
/
Monday, December 7, 2009
BEEZID Warning
I saw a commercial for a new "online auction" website called BEEEZID. It aroused my curiosity, so i checked it out.
On the surface (and to those who are always looking to get something for nothing), it seemed promising: every item, even cars, begin at $0.00, and each bid only ups it by a penny. You could end up getting an item for pennies on the dollar, as they advertise cars being sold for just a few hundred dollars - or so it seems.
Yes, you can possibly get a $20,000 vehicle for a few hundred bucks. But there is a catch - a very expensive one. You see, you must buy "bids". You get (15) one cent bids for $15, so each bid costs $1.00. In order to get a car for, say, $500, would require that bidders, collectively, buy and use 50,000 one cent bids - for which BEEZID collected up to $50,000. So, while the winning bidder may get the car for $500, he must be the LAST person to bid.
Therein lay other problems. First, it is unlikely that other bidders will let it go to you for $500 - not when they could buy another bid for a buck - and the price keeps going up until all bidders have bought all the bids they can afford.
Second, every time someone bids, it resets the timer - which can be set for 24 hours or more. There is no limit to how many times the timer can be reset because there is no limit on the number of bids that can be placed. IF you happen to be the last bidder and the timer times out, you win.
It's a lot like musical chairs that could take weeks to play out - but even more like a Ponzi scheme.
In short, if BEEZID sells a $20,000 car for $500, they actually make about $30,500 profit on that $20,000 car because they solf 50,000 bids and got the $500 winning price to boot.
If you decide to get involved in the hopes of "winning" something great, at least now you have been warned. But do yourself a favor - place only one or two bids on an item over the course of the auction. If you get lucky and win, you come out ahead. If not, you only lost a couple bucks.
Make no mistake - BEEZID is not so much an auction site as it is a lottery - and your chances of winning are no better than in any other lottery.
/
On the surface (and to those who are always looking to get something for nothing), it seemed promising: every item, even cars, begin at $0.00, and each bid only ups it by a penny. You could end up getting an item for pennies on the dollar, as they advertise cars being sold for just a few hundred dollars - or so it seems.
Yes, you can possibly get a $20,000 vehicle for a few hundred bucks. But there is a catch - a very expensive one. You see, you must buy "bids". You get (15) one cent bids for $15, so each bid costs $1.00. In order to get a car for, say, $500, would require that bidders, collectively, buy and use 50,000 one cent bids - for which BEEZID collected up to $50,000. So, while the winning bidder may get the car for $500, he must be the LAST person to bid.
Therein lay other problems. First, it is unlikely that other bidders will let it go to you for $500 - not when they could buy another bid for a buck - and the price keeps going up until all bidders have bought all the bids they can afford.
Second, every time someone bids, it resets the timer - which can be set for 24 hours or more. There is no limit to how many times the timer can be reset because there is no limit on the number of bids that can be placed. IF you happen to be the last bidder and the timer times out, you win.
It's a lot like musical chairs that could take weeks to play out - but even more like a Ponzi scheme.
In short, if BEEZID sells a $20,000 car for $500, they actually make about $30,500 profit on that $20,000 car because they solf 50,000 bids and got the $500 winning price to boot.
If you decide to get involved in the hopes of "winning" something great, at least now you have been warned. But do yourself a favor - place only one or two bids on an item over the course of the auction. If you get lucky and win, you come out ahead. If not, you only lost a couple bucks.
Make no mistake - BEEZID is not so much an auction site as it is a lottery - and your chances of winning are no better than in any other lottery.
/
Remember This Date
On December 7, 1941 the Japanese led a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. As Roosevelt said, it was a day that would live in infamy.
Today, December 7, 2009 is another day of infamy, with its own sneak attack against America - it is the day that the liberals have forced the United States of America to formally drop the "of the people, by the people, for the people" guarantee. We are no longer a country where the people govern, through elected representatives. Instead, we are now a country governed by the will of unelected agencies, "czars", unions and special interests.
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency, an unelected body, has determined that global warming IS a real threat (and not the theory that it actually is) and IS caused by carbon dioxide (though numerous studies show no correlation). Therefore, President Obama may now circumvent Congress and pass his "cap and tax" agenda without any input from Congress, or we, the people. In fact, he can begin signing liberal executive orders restricting carbon dioxide, and may do so without consent of the people.
That rumbling you hear is the sound of our Founding Fathers collectively rolling over in their graves.
That the EPA has any authority whatever is in direct opposition to the Constitution - all powers, by law, are vested in the people, except for the limited powers vested in the government, BY the people.
So, the people officially no longer have any say in how the government does things. The government rules the people, rather than vice versa.
When Obama was running for office, he did state, clearly, that he would "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE" America.
Well, he has done that. It is no longer a Republic, even though the Constitution specifically dictates in Article IV, Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." In a Republic, the power lies with each individual person and their elected officials, and not with the government, its agencies or any unelected officials.
For those of you who are not familiar with being subservient, I suggest you stock up on knee pads.
/
Today, December 7, 2009 is another day of infamy, with its own sneak attack against America - it is the day that the liberals have forced the United States of America to formally drop the "of the people, by the people, for the people" guarantee. We are no longer a country where the people govern, through elected representatives. Instead, we are now a country governed by the will of unelected agencies, "czars", unions and special interests.
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency, an unelected body, has determined that global warming IS a real threat (and not the theory that it actually is) and IS caused by carbon dioxide (though numerous studies show no correlation). Therefore, President Obama may now circumvent Congress and pass his "cap and tax" agenda without any input from Congress, or we, the people. In fact, he can begin signing liberal executive orders restricting carbon dioxide, and may do so without consent of the people.
That rumbling you hear is the sound of our Founding Fathers collectively rolling over in their graves.
That the EPA has any authority whatever is in direct opposition to the Constitution - all powers, by law, are vested in the people, except for the limited powers vested in the government, BY the people.
So, the people officially no longer have any say in how the government does things. The government rules the people, rather than vice versa.
When Obama was running for office, he did state, clearly, that he would "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE" America.
Well, he has done that. It is no longer a Republic, even though the Constitution specifically dictates in Article IV, Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." In a Republic, the power lies with each individual person and their elected officials, and not with the government, its agencies or any unelected officials.
For those of you who are not familiar with being subservient, I suggest you stock up on knee pads.
/
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Imagine...
If someone were to say that our finest military academies were "the enemy camp", you would logically figure the person speaking was an enemy of the United States, such as Ahmadinejad, or bin Laden.
Unfortunately, it is the far left loony liberals who view our military as the enemy. In fact, Chris Mattews of MSNBC used just those words last evening when he said Obama "went to the enemy camp (West Point)".
And after Obama's speech, some of you may have noticed that it is the far left liberals who are calling for Obama's head, for his decision to actually try to win in Afghanistan. They would rather we pull out, which, as everyone knows, will mean the Taliban take control again, giving safe harbor for Al Queda to grow once again - and might even threaten the nation of Pakistan - which, as you recall, has nuclear weapons.
But the liberls do not seem to care about any of that - as evidenced by the far left folks on the left coast, they want our military to be disbanded altogether. Like blind fools, they think if you are defenseless, bad guys will leave you alone because you are not a threat. But the fact is, bad guys prefer to pick on people who are not a threat - that is the very premise behind being a bully.
Well, as far as this writer is concerned, MSNBC and Chris Matthews long ago gave up any right to be considered good Americans, and if this were pre-1950, they, Jane Fonda and many other liberal loons would have been tried for treason. They should consider themselves fortunate to be living in a country that has been strong enough to provide them the freedoms they have. Instead, they hate Americ and almost everything it stands for.
But while they adore Castro and Chavez, I notice they are not rushing to move to Cuba, or Venezuela...
/
Unfortunately, it is the far left loony liberals who view our military as the enemy. In fact, Chris Mattews of MSNBC used just those words last evening when he said Obama "went to the enemy camp (West Point)".
And after Obama's speech, some of you may have noticed that it is the far left liberals who are calling for Obama's head, for his decision to actually try to win in Afghanistan. They would rather we pull out, which, as everyone knows, will mean the Taliban take control again, giving safe harbor for Al Queda to grow once again - and might even threaten the nation of Pakistan - which, as you recall, has nuclear weapons.
But the liberls do not seem to care about any of that - as evidenced by the far left folks on the left coast, they want our military to be disbanded altogether. Like blind fools, they think if you are defenseless, bad guys will leave you alone because you are not a threat. But the fact is, bad guys prefer to pick on people who are not a threat - that is the very premise behind being a bully.
Well, as far as this writer is concerned, MSNBC and Chris Matthews long ago gave up any right to be considered good Americans, and if this were pre-1950, they, Jane Fonda and many other liberal loons would have been tried for treason. They should consider themselves fortunate to be living in a country that has been strong enough to provide them the freedoms they have. Instead, they hate Americ and almost everything it stands for.
But while they adore Castro and Chavez, I notice they are not rushing to move to Cuba, or Venezuela...
/
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Who Is Larry Summers?
This is about Larry Summers - who he was, and who he is.
He was the Dean of Harvard University. He decided to invest the university's endowment fund into high-risk investments. His advisors warned him against doing that, but he fancied himself a financial whiz, so much smarter than they. He lost $1.8 BILLION of the university's funds. In other words, what he knows about money, finance and investing can fit into a thimble.
Now for who Larry Summers is today.
He is President Obama's Chief Financial Advisor. I guess the president was impressed with Mr. Summers' financial acumen. No one else is.
Oh, and a couple years ago he got into hot water when, in a public speech, he stated that women were not as capable as men in the subjects of science and math. Apparently he knows as much about women as he does about finance.
'Nuff said.
He was the Dean of Harvard University. He decided to invest the university's endowment fund into high-risk investments. His advisors warned him against doing that, but he fancied himself a financial whiz, so much smarter than they. He lost $1.8 BILLION of the university's funds. In other words, what he knows about money, finance and investing can fit into a thimble.
Now for who Larry Summers is today.
He is President Obama's Chief Financial Advisor. I guess the president was impressed with Mr. Summers' financial acumen. No one else is.
Oh, and a couple years ago he got into hot water when, in a public speech, he stated that women were not as capable as men in the subjects of science and math. Apparently he knows as much about women as he does about finance.
'Nuff said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)