I spend hours each day cruising the political blogs and boards. And if there is one thing that stands out above all else, it is that most "everyday liberals" who slam conservatives do not seem to have a clue what conservatives stand for. And if someone tells them, they don't believe it. I suspect this comes from a certain amount of brainwashing from the liberal media that tries to twist what conservatives stand for. For example, many media outlets tell you that conservatives are opposed to stem cell research, which is completely untrue, and they know it. What conservatives oppose is not the research, but the taxpayer funding of that research, since the research is controversial and may violate religious tenets of some taxpayers, and since private funding is available. Conservatives also have a problem with investing taxpayer money into private concerns without the benefit of owning any stock in the venture, to share in the profits.
Hence, this post. For anyone who cares to uplift themselves a little bit by learning what conservatism stands for, here it is, in plain English. Love it, hate it, agree with it or oppose it, this is what 84% of all conservatives believe in. If you agree with more than 50% of these principles, you may be a conservative and not have known it. Are you a closet conservative?
1) English should be the official language. Government should offer stipends to immigrants for the purpose of learning English
2) The United States should only grant citizenship to those who want to embrace American values and culture.
3) Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union, in order to protect workers from intimidation.
4) Statements regarding religion and morality made by the Founding Fathers are just as important today as they were 200 years ago.
5) Public schools should teach more American history.
6) Conservatives want to increase the number of visas for highly-educated immigrants or those with special skills, the so-called H1B and H2B visas.
7) The American people believe border control is a security issue. Terrorists are trying to enter the United States illegally.
8) Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should be deported after serving a prison term.
9) There should be a worker visa program making it easier for people to work legally in the United States, but not to include all the rights of a citizen.
10) A real time verification system should be established to verify immigration status and it should be outsourced to companies like American Express, Visa, or MasterCard so businesses can immediately identify whether or not someone has forged papers.
11) There should be heavy monetary fines against employers and businesses who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
12) We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education. We support giving large financial prizes to companies and individuals who invent an affordable car that gets 100 miles to the gallon, invents new ways to successfully cut pollution and who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products.
13) We can solve our environmental problems faster and cheaper with innovation and new technology than with more litigation and more government regulation.
14) We support giving tax credits to companies that cut carbon emissions as an incentive to cut pollution.
15) We should give tax credits to homeowners and builders who incorporate alternative energy systems in their homes, like solar, wind, and geothermal energy.
16) We support building more nuclear power plants to cut carbon emissions.
17) We are prepared to use public funds to preserve green space and parks to protect natural areas from development but especially with public and private partnerships.
18) We want our elected leaders in Washington to focus on increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the costs of gasoline and electricity.
19) To combat the rising cost of energy and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, we support the United States using more of its own domestic energy resources, including the oil and coal it already has here in the U.S.
20) Our current dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security and our economic state by making us vulnerable to dangerous dictatorships.
21) We believe that if research indicates we could build clean coal plants in the United States with no carbon emissions, it would be important to build such plants as rapidly as possible.
22) The federal income tax system is unfair and a fair tax introduced.
23) The death tax should be abolished. Taxes have already been paid on those assets.
24) We favor tax incentives for companies who keep their headquarters in the United States.
25) The option of a single rate fair tax system should give taxpayers the convenience of filing their taxes with just a single sheet of paper.
26) The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world making it difficult for U.S. corporations to compete internationally which gives incentives for companies to move overseas. To make America a more attractive place for businesses that provide good paying jobs, we favor a single 17% tax rate for corporations, with no loopholes.
27) The current Social Security systems is broken and, if it isn’t reformed, future generations will no longer have it as a safety net for retirement.
28) We favor a Social Security proposal in which, when a worker retires, he or she would use the money in the account to buy an annuity, which is a type of financial benefit that will give monthly payments for the rest of the worker’s life. The annuity will pay at least the same amount as traditional Social Security would. The purpose is to make the funds inheritable to family members.
29) Keeping the reference to “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is very important.
30) Separation between Church and State does not mean there can be no references to God in government sanctioned activities or public buildings.
31) The best way to ensure religious freedom is to protect ALL religious references and symbols; including those on public buildings, lands, or documents.
32) We support the right of high schools students saying thanks to God in a graduation speech, under both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
33) We must help defend America and her allies.
34) We have to be prepared to survive an attack by a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon.
35) Terrorism poses a very serious threat for the United States.
36) America should take the threat of terror by fanatical religious groups more seriously.
37) Congress should make it a crime to advocate acts of terrorism, violent conduct, or the killing of innocent people in the United States.
38) Terrorist websites at home and abroad should be closed down using computer warfare.
39) We believe it is wrong to use taxpayer money to fund controversial things, as doing so could violate a citizen's right to honor the tenets of his or her religion. This includes paying for abortion, stem cell research etc. If private sources wish to fund such things, that is not a problem.
40) We strongly oppose partial birth abortion.
41) Abortion laws or regulations is a state's rights issue, and each state should determine what is best for themselves. The government should only declare that abortion shall be legal if the life of the mother is seriously at risk. Any additional requirements, regulations or allowances should be up to the individual states, as dictated by the United States Constitution.
42) We believe the people can manage their money more efficiently and with less waste than the government. Government should be smaller, and assist people to achieve goals rather than get in the way, or compete with them.
43) We believe all adult couples, regardless of gender, should have the right to enter into a legal union and be entitled to all state and federal rights of married couples. However, we hold that marriage shall be defined, as it always has been, as a union between one man and one woman.
Now, very few people will agree 100% with these principles. But polls indicate that 62% of all Americans favor the vast majority of these, and 84% favor more than half. Any person who favors more than half of these principles should accept the fact that they may be far more conservative than they have been led to believe by disingenuous media.
Think about it. Now that you know who we are, do you still hate us? If your answer is yes, then you hate more than half the people in America - including members of your own family, and friends.
/
Friday, January 30, 2009
Backward Thinking
It is always amzing to realize that so many people, particularly liberals, do not understand how money works, so they want to tax the rich even more. But before going into the actual "how to" of money, perhaps it is time to explain WHY so many people have the wrong idea.
Liberals exist to create bigger government, and a nanny state. Their objective is to take all the wealth they can via taxes, and use it to create a more socialistic nation, where there are no poor (or rich). In order to accomplish this, they have to get voted into office, so they do two things:
1) They try to keep the poor from being anything but poor. They accomplish this with entitlements like welfare, and get the poor hooked on it. They NEED it. It becomes a drug - I know, as I was once addicted to it. And the Democrat politicians are the drug dealers. If the poor stay poor, they must vote Democrat in order to keep their "fix" of welfare coming. They dare not bite the hand that provides the welfare they depend upon.
2) Liberals must also convince the masses that the economy runs backward, that "trickle-down economics" is wrong. By convincing people of this, they create a class warfare in which the greatest number of people (the NOT rich) will gang up on the smallest number (the RICH). Ever play "King Of The Mountain" as a kid? All the kids at the bottom try to take down the ONE at the top. Not because he is bad, but because THEY want to be at the top. Human nature, and that is good - the strongest is supposed to be the leader. But the liberals play on that to get their agenda through. They make the guy at the top a "bad guy", deserving of being tumbled, because no one should be on top. There should be no rich - all that money should go to the poor. They say no one should be "King of the Mountain". But think about that - if no one is "King of the Mountain", the game is over! Imagine a country with no leader. An army with no general. A family with no parent.
Now, when Democrat politicians say they want to tax the rich and give it to the poor, it is the same as buying votes.
But here is the truth.
Wealth is not created by the poor. Wealth is created by the rich, and the poor benefit from it in the way of jobs, products and services.
Rich Guy invests in innovative ideas, and a business is born. Rich guy took all the risks. The business must hire employees (jobs) to produce products and/or services. Consumers buy those products and services, infusing money back into the businesses so they can grow, and hire more people, and produce more products.
A recession occurs when the money from investors dries up, and fewer products and services can be produced, resulting in the need for fewer employees (layoffs). Only a fool would believe this is done intentionally by the rich, to "punish" the poor. Why would any business go out of business just to punish the poor? It happens because the money the rich would invest is taxed too high, and they do not have enough to invest. And it happens when government gets too big, and interferes in the private sector, or competes with it. This occurs when liberals take congress.
So, here it is in a nutshell:
Businesses and investors (the RICH) are the Golden Goose that lays Golden Eggs (jobs, products, services). If you want more golden eggs, you feed the goose well. If you want fewer eggs, you starve the goose. It is not rocket science.
Higher taxes only serve to starve the goose. If you take away the hard-earned money of the rich, they cannot invest in businesses., Businesses cannot hire, or expand or they are forced to go to other countries. The economy tanks.
Get it? Trickle-Down Economics is the ONLY system that works. After all, when was the last time the poor people created wealth? When was the last time you got a job from a poor person? If there are no rich, who will invest in businesses? Who will pay our salaries? Liberals want the government to do that - socialism. Conservatives want the true leaders to do it - democracy. Liberals want no one but government on top of the mountain, and all the people subservient to it. Conservatives want the strongest, smartest leaders as King of the Mountain, and all the people working together to make sure our leaders ARE the best, by challenging them - not destroying them.
Face ONE indisputable fact: short of doing something illegal there are only TWO ways you can put money in your pocket.
1) You can create a business and have consumers pay you, or
2) You can work for someone who has created such a business
In either case, the money you earn, in one way or another, comes from business. It comes from the wealthy. After all, no one else can afford to pay you. If you wait to get a salary from a poor person, you will starve.
/
Liberals exist to create bigger government, and a nanny state. Their objective is to take all the wealth they can via taxes, and use it to create a more socialistic nation, where there are no poor (or rich). In order to accomplish this, they have to get voted into office, so they do two things:
1) They try to keep the poor from being anything but poor. They accomplish this with entitlements like welfare, and get the poor hooked on it. They NEED it. It becomes a drug - I know, as I was once addicted to it. And the Democrat politicians are the drug dealers. If the poor stay poor, they must vote Democrat in order to keep their "fix" of welfare coming. They dare not bite the hand that provides the welfare they depend upon.
2) Liberals must also convince the masses that the economy runs backward, that "trickle-down economics" is wrong. By convincing people of this, they create a class warfare in which the greatest number of people (the NOT rich) will gang up on the smallest number (the RICH). Ever play "King Of The Mountain" as a kid? All the kids at the bottom try to take down the ONE at the top. Not because he is bad, but because THEY want to be at the top. Human nature, and that is good - the strongest is supposed to be the leader. But the liberals play on that to get their agenda through. They make the guy at the top a "bad guy", deserving of being tumbled, because no one should be on top. There should be no rich - all that money should go to the poor. They say no one should be "King of the Mountain". But think about that - if no one is "King of the Mountain", the game is over! Imagine a country with no leader. An army with no general. A family with no parent.
Now, when Democrat politicians say they want to tax the rich and give it to the poor, it is the same as buying votes.
But here is the truth.
Wealth is not created by the poor. Wealth is created by the rich, and the poor benefit from it in the way of jobs, products and services.
Rich Guy invests in innovative ideas, and a business is born. Rich guy took all the risks. The business must hire employees (jobs) to produce products and/or services. Consumers buy those products and services, infusing money back into the businesses so they can grow, and hire more people, and produce more products.
A recession occurs when the money from investors dries up, and fewer products and services can be produced, resulting in the need for fewer employees (layoffs). Only a fool would believe this is done intentionally by the rich, to "punish" the poor. Why would any business go out of business just to punish the poor? It happens because the money the rich would invest is taxed too high, and they do not have enough to invest. And it happens when government gets too big, and interferes in the private sector, or competes with it. This occurs when liberals take congress.
So, here it is in a nutshell:
Businesses and investors (the RICH) are the Golden Goose that lays Golden Eggs (jobs, products, services). If you want more golden eggs, you feed the goose well. If you want fewer eggs, you starve the goose. It is not rocket science.
Higher taxes only serve to starve the goose. If you take away the hard-earned money of the rich, they cannot invest in businesses., Businesses cannot hire, or expand or they are forced to go to other countries. The economy tanks.
Get it? Trickle-Down Economics is the ONLY system that works. After all, when was the last time the poor people created wealth? When was the last time you got a job from a poor person? If there are no rich, who will invest in businesses? Who will pay our salaries? Liberals want the government to do that - socialism. Conservatives want the true leaders to do it - democracy. Liberals want no one but government on top of the mountain, and all the people subservient to it. Conservatives want the strongest, smartest leaders as King of the Mountain, and all the people working together to make sure our leaders ARE the best, by challenging them - not destroying them.
Face ONE indisputable fact: short of doing something illegal there are only TWO ways you can put money in your pocket.
1) You can create a business and have consumers pay you, or
2) You can work for someone who has created such a business
In either case, the money you earn, in one way or another, comes from business. It comes from the wealthy. After all, no one else can afford to pay you. If you wait to get a salary from a poor person, you will starve.
/
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
An Idea
Much of the problems we face in America today are the direct result of a serious disconnect with the political elite and the everyday folks. Politicians think with their fat wallets. The folks think with the holes in their pockets.
When a politician has an "evening out", it is likely to include a dinner at a $100 a meal restaurant, followed by a Broadway play or a Penthouse party featuring champagne and caviar. When "the folks" have an evening out, it is more likely to consist of dinner at Pizza Hut and either a movie at the local cinema or a house party featuring beer and chips.
So, when a politician writes a bill, or votes for it, he is looking at the issue from a completely different viewpoint than the folks.
Ergo, I have an idea how we might be able to help reconnect the politicians with the folks. Every state or federal politician should be required by law to spend two consecutive weeks each year living with a family of everyday folks with holes in their pockets. Much like the Foreign Exchange Student program. The politician would be required to eat what they eat, go where they go, and do what they do. He must become part of the family for two glorious weeks of reality. I'm not talking families in abject poverty - just normal, everyday lower-middle class families. Preferably with teenagers.
I believe this may provide an important new perspective to our leaders.
/
When a politician has an "evening out", it is likely to include a dinner at a $100 a meal restaurant, followed by a Broadway play or a Penthouse party featuring champagne and caviar. When "the folks" have an evening out, it is more likely to consist of dinner at Pizza Hut and either a movie at the local cinema or a house party featuring beer and chips.
So, when a politician writes a bill, or votes for it, he is looking at the issue from a completely different viewpoint than the folks.
Ergo, I have an idea how we might be able to help reconnect the politicians with the folks. Every state or federal politician should be required by law to spend two consecutive weeks each year living with a family of everyday folks with holes in their pockets. Much like the Foreign Exchange Student program. The politician would be required to eat what they eat, go where they go, and do what they do. He must become part of the family for two glorious weeks of reality. I'm not talking families in abject poverty - just normal, everyday lower-middle class families. Preferably with teenagers.
I believe this may provide an important new perspective to our leaders.
/
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Lost His Mind
Obama gave his first TV interview - on a muslim station. In the interview he stated that President Bush had been wrong, and Obama wanted to have a "do-over" and the "friendly" relationship we had with them 20-30 years ago.
Our president, and the liberals that support this action have lost their minds!
Let's start with the fantasy world Obama THINKS existed 20-30 years ago. Twenty years ago it was the bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Niger on 19 September, the execution of U.S. Marine Corps Colonel William R. Higgins on July 31. And just one year earlier, in 1988, 193 attacks were directed against the United States (see http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_89/review.html).
Thirty years ago, when Carter, another pansy president of appeasement sat in the Oval office for a year while terrorists held and mistreated 52 American in Iran until a new president, Reagan, effected their release. Reagan had said as President he would take the hostages back even if he had to destrot Tehran. On the day he was inaugurated, the terrorists suddenly freed the hostages. Get it?
And even ten years before that, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine blew up a Swiss airliner just after it has taken off from Zurich, Switzerland, killing all forty seven people on board, and on September 6, "Skyjack Sunday" takes places at Dawson Field, in Jordan. TWA, Swissair, BOAC aircraft, along with more than four hundred hostages, were hijacked and ordered to the Jordanian airport by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Another terrorist team tried to hijack an El Al Boeing over London but security staff foiled the attempt and captured one of the hijackers, Leila Khalid, alive. The German, Swiss and British Governments all agreed to the PFLP's demands and released a number of terrorists, including Khalid, held in their jails. Just two of roughly 20 terrorist acts that year.
So, just what "relationship of mutual respect and friendship" was Obama referring to?
And every SANE person understands that a sitting president should never, ever denigrate the actions of the previous president and say he was wrong. Even if you do not agree with the previous president, you avoid knocking him in public, as it shows a sign of weakness on the American people. It sends the message, "We don't know what we're doing; we can't make up our minds. Maybe next time we'll elect a person who wants to enslave you. Who knows? With us, you roll the dice and take your chances."
No, you do NOT admit that a previous president was wrong. You simply say, "Here is the direction we will be taking going forward."
The liberals just do not get it. They do not have a clue what is really going on, even though the terrorists actually TOLD them what is going on. But it seems they refuse to believe it.
The terrorists sent us a memo, many times. The memo says, "We have only one goal, one purpose: to force the world to accept Allah as their God. Anyone who will not worship Allah must die. There are no other choices. There is nothing else we want. There is nothing to negotiate. All infidels such as Jews and Christians must convert or die. Period."
Liberals do not recognize that this is not an ordinary war - to the terrorists, it is a religious war. In a religious war, you can neither negotiate nor reason with the enemy, because you have nothing they want except your allegiance to their God.
You can be mean. You can be nice. You can pay them. You can help them when a tsunami hits. But no matter what you do, it will not change their desire to destroy you. It will not change their minds because to them, this is what their God requires. We are the Devil, and the Devil must be destroyed. Period. End of discussion.
When the enemy fights for his own agenda, he can be negotiated with. But when the enemy fights for his God's agenda, he cannot be negotiated with - he must do as his God wishes or suffer the wrath of his God. What would YOU do if this was your belief?
Wake up, liberals. The muslim terror organizations have been attacking us for generations. They have never liked us; never accepted us. We are decadent infidels that should be destroyed. And they will destroy us, unless we destroy them first, because those are the only choices in a war where zealots are the aggressor.
I wish the liberal idea that these people can be reasoned with were true. But it is not. You cannot reason with madmen or religious zealots. If they were capable of being reasoned with, they would not be actively and intentionally killing women, children, and even their own people in countries world-wide.
Look around, liberals. We were really nice to muslim nations in the 50's, 60's and '70's. And still they attacked us and others around the globe, as they always have. Look around - they do not just attack us - they have attacked nearly every country in the world, including Switzerland and even muslim countries. So exactly how do you equate that with Bush's policies? Do you really think they bombed Bali because of America? And if it was just Bush's policies that they are rebelling against, please explain their attacks on us during Clinton's term, Reagan's term, Carter's term, Nixon's term, Kennedy's term.......
Liberals do not learn from history because they are too busy rewriting it to suit their fantasy. On the very day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, America and Japan were in peace negotiations in Washington. And from 1938-1941, liberals wasted precious time, treasure and the blood of other nations trying to appease Hitler. And even as recently as a couple of months ago, while Israel was honoring their "truce" with Hamas, Hamas was firing rockets into Israel in an attempt to kill innocent civilians.
YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH, NOR APPEASE TERRORISTS.
Period!
Wake up, before it's too late - if it isn't already. In Obama's interview of appeasement, he did untold harm to this nation, and he gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
No matter which political side you are on, you should seriously review and consider all of the following:
In Obama's book, "Audacity of Hope", he states, "In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans … have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging,” he laments. “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
He says if push comes to shove, he will stand with the muslims. Apparently stand against non-muslim Americans. His own words. Now add the following, his first acts as president:
1) Orders closing of GITMO where terrorists are held
2) Orders that no harsh interrogations of terrorists shall be permitted
3) His first interview is with muslims, and is appeasement and capitulation
4) Orders that racial profiling - even for terrorists - is no longer allowed
5) Sends $460 million dollars of Americans money, at a time when we are hurting, to other countries - primarily muslim - to help in their abortion clinics
My first question might be something like, "Mr. President, when are you going to make an order that protects ME? Do I have to ba a muslim terrorist to get your nod?"
But the denial and ignorance of liberals is impossible to overcome because their minds are closed. Here is one of dozens of similar posts found on AOL just today:
SHEBAMSB 01:09 PMJan 27 2009 BonnieU2 He said in one of his books: "If push comes to shove, I will fall on the side of the Muslims"==========LIAR LIAR LIAR He never said that in his book.Lmort .......Yes he did......."Audacity of hope...................Read it idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..if you voted for him you should have read his book..............Your Messiah========I DID YOU APPARENTLY DID NOT.__________________Liar! :If the winds should shift, I will side with the Muslims.....Exact words out of the book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You Nobama fans really believe your own lies, don't you! You can not change what he wrote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NO, GO READ THE BOOK FOR REAL...what are you scared you made a mistake!
Here is a person who is an Obama supporter, but knows nothing about him. When confronted with the facts - quotes from Obama's own book - the person refuses to believe it. Won't even go check for herself. She does not WANT to believe it. So, it just does not exist - "Close my eyes and it disappears."
The sad thing is that the only news programs that make these things known are the programs on Fox News. Had she watched that kind of news that shows BOTH sides, she would have known of this, and made up her mind based on actual facts and not just liberal hype. CNN, MSNBC, NBS, ABC, CBS - none of them told people about this quote.
I have but ONE wish - that anyone who chooses to vote should first get FULLY informed, and not simply settle for what one side tells them. There are two sides to everything - if you do not want to bother to learn both sides, then you will get crappy government, because your vote would be based on ignorance rather than reality.
According to recent polls, most liberals do not know Obama said that. And most liberals did not know he said he would destroy the coal industry and drive energy prices skyward. They do not know that he voted against the sanctity of marriage act. They do not know that he is only 12.5% black. They do not know that he never actually produced a certified birth certificate, as required. They do not know that he was taped at an interview saying, "My Muslim faith...". They do not know a LOT of things they should have at least checked before voting. Then if they still vote for him, fine. But if a person is not informed, they should not get anywhere near a voting booth.
I am afraid to ask what is next...
/
Our president, and the liberals that support this action have lost their minds!
Let's start with the fantasy world Obama THINKS existed 20-30 years ago. Twenty years ago it was the bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Niger on 19 September, the execution of U.S. Marine Corps Colonel William R. Higgins on July 31. And just one year earlier, in 1988, 193 attacks were directed against the United States (see http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_89/review.html).
Thirty years ago, when Carter, another pansy president of appeasement sat in the Oval office for a year while terrorists held and mistreated 52 American in Iran until a new president, Reagan, effected their release. Reagan had said as President he would take the hostages back even if he had to destrot Tehran. On the day he was inaugurated, the terrorists suddenly freed the hostages. Get it?
And even ten years before that, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine blew up a Swiss airliner just after it has taken off from Zurich, Switzerland, killing all forty seven people on board, and on September 6, "Skyjack Sunday" takes places at Dawson Field, in Jordan. TWA, Swissair, BOAC aircraft, along with more than four hundred hostages, were hijacked and ordered to the Jordanian airport by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Another terrorist team tried to hijack an El Al Boeing over London but security staff foiled the attempt and captured one of the hijackers, Leila Khalid, alive. The German, Swiss and British Governments all agreed to the PFLP's demands and released a number of terrorists, including Khalid, held in their jails. Just two of roughly 20 terrorist acts that year.
So, just what "relationship of mutual respect and friendship" was Obama referring to?
And every SANE person understands that a sitting president should never, ever denigrate the actions of the previous president and say he was wrong. Even if you do not agree with the previous president, you avoid knocking him in public, as it shows a sign of weakness on the American people. It sends the message, "We don't know what we're doing; we can't make up our minds. Maybe next time we'll elect a person who wants to enslave you. Who knows? With us, you roll the dice and take your chances."
No, you do NOT admit that a previous president was wrong. You simply say, "Here is the direction we will be taking going forward."
The liberals just do not get it. They do not have a clue what is really going on, even though the terrorists actually TOLD them what is going on. But it seems they refuse to believe it.
The terrorists sent us a memo, many times. The memo says, "We have only one goal, one purpose: to force the world to accept Allah as their God. Anyone who will not worship Allah must die. There are no other choices. There is nothing else we want. There is nothing to negotiate. All infidels such as Jews and Christians must convert or die. Period."
Liberals do not recognize that this is not an ordinary war - to the terrorists, it is a religious war. In a religious war, you can neither negotiate nor reason with the enemy, because you have nothing they want except your allegiance to their God.
You can be mean. You can be nice. You can pay them. You can help them when a tsunami hits. But no matter what you do, it will not change their desire to destroy you. It will not change their minds because to them, this is what their God requires. We are the Devil, and the Devil must be destroyed. Period. End of discussion.
When the enemy fights for his own agenda, he can be negotiated with. But when the enemy fights for his God's agenda, he cannot be negotiated with - he must do as his God wishes or suffer the wrath of his God. What would YOU do if this was your belief?
Wake up, liberals. The muslim terror organizations have been attacking us for generations. They have never liked us; never accepted us. We are decadent infidels that should be destroyed. And they will destroy us, unless we destroy them first, because those are the only choices in a war where zealots are the aggressor.
I wish the liberal idea that these people can be reasoned with were true. But it is not. You cannot reason with madmen or religious zealots. If they were capable of being reasoned with, they would not be actively and intentionally killing women, children, and even their own people in countries world-wide.
Look around, liberals. We were really nice to muslim nations in the 50's, 60's and '70's. And still they attacked us and others around the globe, as they always have. Look around - they do not just attack us - they have attacked nearly every country in the world, including Switzerland and even muslim countries. So exactly how do you equate that with Bush's policies? Do you really think they bombed Bali because of America? And if it was just Bush's policies that they are rebelling against, please explain their attacks on us during Clinton's term, Reagan's term, Carter's term, Nixon's term, Kennedy's term.......
Liberals do not learn from history because they are too busy rewriting it to suit their fantasy. On the very day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, America and Japan were in peace negotiations in Washington. And from 1938-1941, liberals wasted precious time, treasure and the blood of other nations trying to appease Hitler. And even as recently as a couple of months ago, while Israel was honoring their "truce" with Hamas, Hamas was firing rockets into Israel in an attempt to kill innocent civilians.
YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH, NOR APPEASE TERRORISTS.
Period!
Wake up, before it's too late - if it isn't already. In Obama's interview of appeasement, he did untold harm to this nation, and he gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
No matter which political side you are on, you should seriously review and consider all of the following:
In Obama's book, "Audacity of Hope", he states, "In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans … have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging,” he laments. “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
He says if push comes to shove, he will stand with the muslims. Apparently stand against non-muslim Americans. His own words. Now add the following, his first acts as president:
1) Orders closing of GITMO where terrorists are held
2) Orders that no harsh interrogations of terrorists shall be permitted
3) His first interview is with muslims, and is appeasement and capitulation
4) Orders that racial profiling - even for terrorists - is no longer allowed
5) Sends $460 million dollars of Americans money, at a time when we are hurting, to other countries - primarily muslim - to help in their abortion clinics
My first question might be something like, "Mr. President, when are you going to make an order that protects ME? Do I have to ba a muslim terrorist to get your nod?"
But the denial and ignorance of liberals is impossible to overcome because their minds are closed. Here is one of dozens of similar posts found on AOL just today:
SHEBAMSB 01:09 PMJan 27 2009 BonnieU2 He said in one of his books: "If push comes to shove, I will fall on the side of the Muslims"==========LIAR LIAR LIAR He never said that in his book.Lmort .......Yes he did......."Audacity of hope...................Read it idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..if you voted for him you should have read his book..............Your Messiah========I DID YOU APPARENTLY DID NOT.__________________Liar! :If the winds should shift, I will side with the Muslims.....Exact words out of the book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You Nobama fans really believe your own lies, don't you! You can not change what he wrote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NO, GO READ THE BOOK FOR REAL...what are you scared you made a mistake!
Here is a person who is an Obama supporter, but knows nothing about him. When confronted with the facts - quotes from Obama's own book - the person refuses to believe it. Won't even go check for herself. She does not WANT to believe it. So, it just does not exist - "Close my eyes and it disappears."
The sad thing is that the only news programs that make these things known are the programs on Fox News. Had she watched that kind of news that shows BOTH sides, she would have known of this, and made up her mind based on actual facts and not just liberal hype. CNN, MSNBC, NBS, ABC, CBS - none of them told people about this quote.
I have but ONE wish - that anyone who chooses to vote should first get FULLY informed, and not simply settle for what one side tells them. There are two sides to everything - if you do not want to bother to learn both sides, then you will get crappy government, because your vote would be based on ignorance rather than reality.
According to recent polls, most liberals do not know Obama said that. And most liberals did not know he said he would destroy the coal industry and drive energy prices skyward. They do not know that he voted against the sanctity of marriage act. They do not know that he is only 12.5% black. They do not know that he never actually produced a certified birth certificate, as required. They do not know that he was taped at an interview saying, "My Muslim faith...". They do not know a LOT of things they should have at least checked before voting. Then if they still vote for him, fine. But if a person is not informed, they should not get anywhere near a voting booth.
I am afraid to ask what is next...
/
Monday, January 26, 2009
More Hijinx
Barney Frank, in charge of the finance committee, grabbed off $12,000,000 to give to a shaky bank in his district - a bank that is likely to fail. Not to mention that the head of the bank owns million dollar properties on California beaches.
Meanwhile businesses and banks that deserve the funds are not getting any. It looks like the finance committe has turned the bailout bill into the Friends of Barney Frank Project.
Don't be fooled - Barney Frank fought hard against Republican efforts in 2004 to regulate the financial industry. And he received a sweetheart mortgage from the banks, and Fannie Mae contributed very heavily to his campaigns. And he is the chair of the finance committee. Give me a break!
I swear, the Democrats have apparently never heard of the term "conflict of interest". And they pay no mind to corruption.
Chief of the finance committee gives millions to his favorite little bank.
Treasury Secretary cheats on his taxes.
Attorney General nominee who defended terrorists and FREED terrorists that were convicted.
His best pick, Hillary for SOS, is married to a man who takes millions from foreign powers, especially foreign muslim powers and China. Talk about a conflict of interest!
And get this - Obama has signed an order to provide $460 million dollars to foreign countries for abortion clinics. OKAY, don't jump on me about abortion - that is not what I am complaining about. Stop. Think. AMERICA IS BROKE! WHY are we picking up a half billion dollar tab for services other countries should be picking up the tab for? Is it legitimate for you and I to pay for abortions in other countries when we can't even pay our own bills?
What's next - will we be asked to pay for sending kids in Zimbabwe to college? Or maybe we should pick up the tab to remodel the capitol of the Ukraine. The point is this - we cannot afford this. And even if we could, it is not right to take money from Americans and redistribute it even here in America, let alone in other countries - some of which want to destroy us!
If Obama's "plan" to fix the economy includes sending all our money overseas to pay the expenses of other countries, I strongly suspect our economy is not going to get better any time soon.
I think we are in for a rough ride, folks!
/
Meanwhile businesses and banks that deserve the funds are not getting any. It looks like the finance committe has turned the bailout bill into the Friends of Barney Frank Project.
Don't be fooled - Barney Frank fought hard against Republican efforts in 2004 to regulate the financial industry. And he received a sweetheart mortgage from the banks, and Fannie Mae contributed very heavily to his campaigns. And he is the chair of the finance committee. Give me a break!
I swear, the Democrats have apparently never heard of the term "conflict of interest". And they pay no mind to corruption.
Chief of the finance committee gives millions to his favorite little bank.
Treasury Secretary cheats on his taxes.
Attorney General nominee who defended terrorists and FREED terrorists that were convicted.
His best pick, Hillary for SOS, is married to a man who takes millions from foreign powers, especially foreign muslim powers and China. Talk about a conflict of interest!
And get this - Obama has signed an order to provide $460 million dollars to foreign countries for abortion clinics. OKAY, don't jump on me about abortion - that is not what I am complaining about. Stop. Think. AMERICA IS BROKE! WHY are we picking up a half billion dollar tab for services other countries should be picking up the tab for? Is it legitimate for you and I to pay for abortions in other countries when we can't even pay our own bills?
What's next - will we be asked to pay for sending kids in Zimbabwe to college? Or maybe we should pick up the tab to remodel the capitol of the Ukraine. The point is this - we cannot afford this. And even if we could, it is not right to take money from Americans and redistribute it even here in America, let alone in other countries - some of which want to destroy us!
If Obama's "plan" to fix the economy includes sending all our money overseas to pay the expenses of other countries, I strongly suspect our economy is not going to get better any time soon.
I think we are in for a rough ride, folks!
/
"Work Spouses"
This really takes the cake. And it is not a joke - this is real.
It seems that certain elitist liberals have come up with a new term for adultery that makes it acceptable in their eyes. Called "work spouses", the concept is simple: a person who spends a lot of time working and away from his or her spouse each day is entitled to build a relationship with another "spouse" at work, so he or she need not be without a love object close by. This makes him or her a more fulfilled and happier person. DUH!
The liberals seem to think that the mere fact that they have renamed adultery makes it all better - it is not really adultery because it is not called adultery. Furthermore, it is perfectly acceptable because each is a "legitimate" spouse, albeit serving separate functions - to assuage the ego and remove guilt.
Let's be clear here. It is an established fact that liberals seek to remove any stigma, any guilt, from any action. They do not want to be forced to take responsibility for anything unpleasant. It is liberals who created "political correctness", and the new language that does not permit us to call a spade a spade. A fat person is "weight challenged". Bull! Does anyone really think that a fat person does not know you are calling them fat when you say they are weight challenged? Of course they do! So the only purpose of political correctness is to allow liberals to get a guilt-free ride. They don't have to feel bad about calling anyone fat, because they did not use that particular word.
What crap.
Illegal immigrants are "undocumented workers", even though many are not workers at all, but gang members. Cripples became disabled, and when that word got so overused as to mean "cripple", the liberals changed it to "physically challenged." Once that term gets to mean cripple, I wonder what pretty phrase they will choose next.
Now, cheating on your spouse with your secretary, which is a bad thing, is now simply a case of having a "work spouse", which they deem acceptable. Why not just become a Mormon fundamentalist and be done with it?
You cannot call a homosexual a homosexual - they are now "gay", and that makes it more acceptable because it does not straight out say that it is man-on-man, as the word homosexual does.
Your garbage man is a "sanitation engineer". However, I do not know of anything that a garbage man does that involves engineering, other than engineering a way to keep his pants above his butt-crack.
The liberal agenda is public knowledge - abortion on demand, euthanasia, legalize drugs, legalize prostitution, legalize all gambling, gay marriage, remove religion from public view or discourse, tear up the Constitution in favor of a "one world" view, making us all subject to what the rest of the world decides.
In short, "if it feels good, do it, and feel no guilt over it. If it is a bad thing, we'll cover it up, or rename it."
But why this particular push for making "work spouses" acceptable? Two things: one is the obvious - they want to cheat, free of guilt. But there is a more ominous purpose. Liberals want an "open, anything goes" society. To that end, they are pushing gay marriage - not because they love gays so much, but because they want to destroy the confines of the term "marriage". If marriage is opened to gays, it is a short step to opening it for multiple spouses, or even under age spouses (which liberals also support actively - they support the Man-Boy Love Association, and liberal judges set child molesters free).
The ideal "anything goes" world that liberals seek cannot become reality if morality stands in the way. Marriage. Fidelity. Honesty. Integrity. Respect. Civility. Shunning temptation. The 10 Commandments. Such things must be destroyed, completely. In fact, anything that provides any sense of guilt whatever must be removed.
"Anything Goes!" I believe that was the motto of Sodom & Gomorrah.
/
It seems that certain elitist liberals have come up with a new term for adultery that makes it acceptable in their eyes. Called "work spouses", the concept is simple: a person who spends a lot of time working and away from his or her spouse each day is entitled to build a relationship with another "spouse" at work, so he or she need not be without a love object close by. This makes him or her a more fulfilled and happier person. DUH!
The liberals seem to think that the mere fact that they have renamed adultery makes it all better - it is not really adultery because it is not called adultery. Furthermore, it is perfectly acceptable because each is a "legitimate" spouse, albeit serving separate functions - to assuage the ego and remove guilt.
Let's be clear here. It is an established fact that liberals seek to remove any stigma, any guilt, from any action. They do not want to be forced to take responsibility for anything unpleasant. It is liberals who created "political correctness", and the new language that does not permit us to call a spade a spade. A fat person is "weight challenged". Bull! Does anyone really think that a fat person does not know you are calling them fat when you say they are weight challenged? Of course they do! So the only purpose of political correctness is to allow liberals to get a guilt-free ride. They don't have to feel bad about calling anyone fat, because they did not use that particular word.
What crap.
Illegal immigrants are "undocumented workers", even though many are not workers at all, but gang members. Cripples became disabled, and when that word got so overused as to mean "cripple", the liberals changed it to "physically challenged." Once that term gets to mean cripple, I wonder what pretty phrase they will choose next.
Now, cheating on your spouse with your secretary, which is a bad thing, is now simply a case of having a "work spouse", which they deem acceptable. Why not just become a Mormon fundamentalist and be done with it?
You cannot call a homosexual a homosexual - they are now "gay", and that makes it more acceptable because it does not straight out say that it is man-on-man, as the word homosexual does.
Your garbage man is a "sanitation engineer". However, I do not know of anything that a garbage man does that involves engineering, other than engineering a way to keep his pants above his butt-crack.
The liberal agenda is public knowledge - abortion on demand, euthanasia, legalize drugs, legalize prostitution, legalize all gambling, gay marriage, remove religion from public view or discourse, tear up the Constitution in favor of a "one world" view, making us all subject to what the rest of the world decides.
In short, "if it feels good, do it, and feel no guilt over it. If it is a bad thing, we'll cover it up, or rename it."
But why this particular push for making "work spouses" acceptable? Two things: one is the obvious - they want to cheat, free of guilt. But there is a more ominous purpose. Liberals want an "open, anything goes" society. To that end, they are pushing gay marriage - not because they love gays so much, but because they want to destroy the confines of the term "marriage". If marriage is opened to gays, it is a short step to opening it for multiple spouses, or even under age spouses (which liberals also support actively - they support the Man-Boy Love Association, and liberal judges set child molesters free).
The ideal "anything goes" world that liberals seek cannot become reality if morality stands in the way. Marriage. Fidelity. Honesty. Integrity. Respect. Civility. Shunning temptation. The 10 Commandments. Such things must be destroyed, completely. In fact, anything that provides any sense of guilt whatever must be removed.
"Anything Goes!" I believe that was the motto of Sodom & Gomorrah.
/
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Polls
Too many people put stock in polls. Big mistake! Polls are worthless.
In college I hosted a poll on alcoholics. I stationed a pollster in front of a church one Sunday. His poll results showed 0% of Americans were alcoholics. I then positioned him in front of Carlene's Bar on a Saturday night. The results showed that 92% of all Americans are alcoholics.
That is one way to manipulate polls. But by far the most prevalent, used by most pollsters, is the phrasing of the questions - how an issue is presented. They take advantage of the fact that most Americans have neither the time nor inclination to delve deeply into issues.
Case in point: 1200 students were asked, "Would you like to see college education to be free?" Of course, 97% said "Yes." Why not? Considering the question.
Then they were asked, "If your parents had to pay much higher taxes in order to give every child a free college education, would you be in favor?"
This time, though it is the same issue, only 56% said "Yes."
Of that 56%, another question, "If a free college education for every child costs your parents higher taxes AND results in 5 times more graduates competing against you for the same good jobs, do you favor free college for all?"
The number of those in favor of free college dropped to just 12%
Many pollsters - particularly those from the more liberal media - intentionally word their poll questions in such manner as to get the results they are looking for.
The next time you hear a poll, look at the questions carefully. Ask yourself if they reflect the ENTIRE issue, or just a generalized part of it. Play the Devil's advocate - if you would answer "no" to a question, for example, how would you have reworded the question to get a different response? You will soon see exactly the point I am trying to make - polls are easily manipulated, even if you poll an honest cross section of folks.
And in manipulating the polls, you manipulate many of the people by forming opinions based on incorrect or incomplete data. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can get poll results to say 75% of the folks are for something, people tend to believe it, and the result is that about 75% of the folks will then decide to be for it, because most people are followers, not leaders.
Polls are fun. But they should never be considered seriously as a viable source of information.
/
In college I hosted a poll on alcoholics. I stationed a pollster in front of a church one Sunday. His poll results showed 0% of Americans were alcoholics. I then positioned him in front of Carlene's Bar on a Saturday night. The results showed that 92% of all Americans are alcoholics.
That is one way to manipulate polls. But by far the most prevalent, used by most pollsters, is the phrasing of the questions - how an issue is presented. They take advantage of the fact that most Americans have neither the time nor inclination to delve deeply into issues.
Case in point: 1200 students were asked, "Would you like to see college education to be free?" Of course, 97% said "Yes." Why not? Considering the question.
Then they were asked, "If your parents had to pay much higher taxes in order to give every child a free college education, would you be in favor?"
This time, though it is the same issue, only 56% said "Yes."
Of that 56%, another question, "If a free college education for every child costs your parents higher taxes AND results in 5 times more graduates competing against you for the same good jobs, do you favor free college for all?"
The number of those in favor of free college dropped to just 12%
Many pollsters - particularly those from the more liberal media - intentionally word their poll questions in such manner as to get the results they are looking for.
The next time you hear a poll, look at the questions carefully. Ask yourself if they reflect the ENTIRE issue, or just a generalized part of it. Play the Devil's advocate - if you would answer "no" to a question, for example, how would you have reworded the question to get a different response? You will soon see exactly the point I am trying to make - polls are easily manipulated, even if you poll an honest cross section of folks.
And in manipulating the polls, you manipulate many of the people by forming opinions based on incorrect or incomplete data. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can get poll results to say 75% of the folks are for something, people tend to believe it, and the result is that about 75% of the folks will then decide to be for it, because most people are followers, not leaders.
Polls are fun. But they should never be considered seriously as a viable source of information.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)