Success By Design

How To Win The White House - Candidates Take Note...

2012-01-27T10:17:00.001-05:00

If Republicans want to win the White House - AND CONGRESS - this year, they need to stop letting the media distract them from the real issues people care about and focus on those issues. Republican candidates need to stop wasting their time bickering over meaningless drivel like Bain, Freddie Mac, whose father was born in Mexico, tax returns, and who prefers raspberry jello.

Most of the media are liberal, and they intend to keep Republicans focused on foolishness. Have you ever seen a dog fight? Two dogs fight tooth and nail, beating each other up. The winner limps away, tired, weak and scarred. He is NOT stronger for it. Then that "winner" is put into a pit with a fresh, well-rested dog . Who do you think will win?

Well, that is what the liberal media and debate moderators are doing. They get Republicans at each other's throats in the hope they will be too weak to take on Obama.

The candidates need to stop letting the media get away with that. Newt was right - stop fighting amongst yourselves and take on the ISSUES that will beat Obama, regardless of who the eventual nominee is.

Any Republican who focuses on the following 5 issues without allowing the media to distract him will win the nomination and then the White House:

1. Jobs - in spite of minimal gains, there has been a net loss. Most jobs created under Obama are government jobs, which are a net loss because those salaries are paid from taxes, not from producing anything. When you take from Peter to pay Paul, there is no gain - only a transfer. State SPECIFICS on how you will address this - reduce regulations, reduce corporate tax rate, get the Hell outta the way

2. Energy - Keystone, offshore drilling, natural gas. Address the price of gasoline doubling since Obama took office. Energy costs suffocate job growth because all products/services need energy.

3. States' Rights - the government needs to stop suing states as if states were subserviant to the government. Under the 10th Amendment state's rights are even stronger than federal rights. The progression of power was decided by the forefathers to rest first with the people, then the states, and then the government, not vice versa.

4. Debt & deficit - they must be cut with REAL cuts, not just make-believe cuts in projected increases. Exactly how would you accomplish that?

5. ObamaCare - must be repealed and a new, better plan offered. Plan should include increased competition (buy across state lines), tort reform and incentives to live healthier. For example, a tax on unhealthy foods with that money used to reduce the cost of healthier choices. Currently the healthiest foods are the most expensive.

Focus on the real issues, not on the phony issues created by the media and your campaign hacks. It does no good to win the nomination only to lose the general election.

/

Who is a bigger threat than Iran or China? Find out here...

2012-01-24T22:06:00.002-05:00

Lookout, folks - a large corporation is determined to collect and compile every piece of data about you that they can - and it may not be kept private.

Google announced changes to its privacy policies that will allow the web giant to merge user data collected across multiple services. And you CANNOT OPT OUT! This includes Google+, Gmail, YouTube, Google search and Google Maps. Every time you use any of their services, they will collect the data, compile it with data collected from your use of other services and use it to profile - and TARGET - you. The more they know about you, the better they can set you up to be targeted by marketers and anyone else who wants to use that info.

The Washington Post's Cecilia Kang notes, "Privacy advocates say Google's changes betray users who are not accustomed to having their information shared across different Web sites. A user of Gmail, for instance, may send messages about a private meeting with a colleague and may not want the location of that meeting to be thrown into Google's massive cauldron of data or used for Google's maps application."

I've said it before on this blog, folks - Google is becoming the biggest threat to the American way of life.

/

I thought Obama was joking when he compared himself to Truman

2012-01-24T20:17:00.000-05:00

Over the last year Obama has compared himself to Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and even Truman. And I laughed uncontrollably at that last one (although all those comparisons were farcical). Here's why...

Truman is famous for putting a plaque on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here".

Obama threw that out. In the last 6 months he has blamed everyone but himself for the mess we are in, including...

President Bush
All & any Republicans
Wall Street
Tea Party
Tsunami
Arab Spring
The Wealthy
Japan's nuclear emergency
Greece
The Euro crisis
Riots in London
Occupy Wall Street
Gulf oil spill
Hurricanes
Fires in Texas
The folks who hold to their guns and Bibles

As you can see, the only ones not to blame are Obama and his liberal cronies.

Not exactly in the mold of Harry Truman.

/

Why Obama's "Fair Share" Argument Is Bogus

2012-01-24T17:17:00.001-05:00

OK, I don't know about you, but I'm really tired of hearing this "fair share" crap, particularly since the entire concept is based on a fallacy.

I'm not saying Buffet doesn't pay a smaller percentage of taxes than his secretary. But that is the bogus argument being used by the left. Here's why...

Liberals like Obama are trying to convince the public that the rich should pay more because the PERCENTAGE that investors pay in taxes is less than that of working stiffs. And while that is true, it is also a bogus argument.

It's not about percentages, as the liberals claim. It's about DOLLARS. The government does not run on percentage - it runs on dollars. So the real story is that a Buffet who pays 15% vs his secretary paying 28% is, in fact, that a Buffet pays millions while his secretary pays thousands, or maybe even hundreds.

Percentage does not matter - percentages are a liberal lie. What matters is dollars.

Here is an example - 47% of Americans paid zero taxes, while Mitt Romney paid $6.4 million. Now, assuming a middle class secretary earns $100K and pays $28,000, what we have is one person who pays $28,000 and one who pays $6,400,000.

Both use the same roads, airports, schools etc. But while Romney only pays 15% and the secretary pays 28%, the truth of the matter is that Romney is paying 300 times more taxes than the secretary. 300 TIMES MORE!

Romney is paying as much tax as 300 secretaries earning $100,000 each.

But the left says Romney is not paying his "fair share".

Meanwhile, we still have 47% of Americans who pay no tax at all. They use the same roads, schools, hospitals etc. And most of them also get freebies from the government such as food stamps, fuel assistance, WIC etc. (which Romney cannot get).

So tell me - if one person gets as many, if not more benefits than another person, why are they not BOTH paying taxes? Why should half of all Americans carry another person through life (Romney is carrying 300)? Why should one person pay nothing while another person pays his own freight PLUS that of someone else?

I would wager a years' salary that if the tax on the rich were to be doubled, it would not be long before the liberals would again start wailing that the rich are not paying their fair share. I remember when the highest rate was 95% and liberals STILL were not happy.

I've said it before - if anyone in the 99% wants any part of what I have worked so hard to achieve, then let them do what I did. I was born poor. But I worked my butt off to get where I am, and now some lazy SOB who never worked harder than clicking a remote thinks I should also support HIS butt.

And I'm damned tired of it! And I'm damned tired of listening to the likes of Obama injecting class warfare to get people fired up to steal what I have.

/

If Gingrich Is An "Insider", Why Is He So Popular? Here's Why...

2012-01-23T11:54:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (and most talking head pundits) are at a loss as to why Newt Gingrich is doing so well when he is considered to be the quintessential "Washington Insider", having served in Congress for many years, and having been Speaker of the House. Actually, for those who stop and think about it, the reason is quite clear...

While Gingrich is an insider, he is also ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT. And THAT is what the people are clamoring for.

Almost every establishment politician is against Gingrich because he stands for everything they hate. The establishment politicians, both Democrat and Republican, do not want things to change in Washington. They want to hold onto their own power, even if they must do so at the detriment of the nation.

Gingrich is enough of an insider to pose a real threat to the establishment - he knows his way around. He knows where the bodies are buried. If anyone can upset the establishment apple cart, it's Gingrich. And the folks "get it", even if the pundits do not.

Look at it this way - what chance would someone have of retooling Washington if they don't even know what they are up against?

While Gingrich may not be an ideal candidate under normal circumstances, we are not living under normal circumstances. We need someone who is smart, powerful, passionate, knowledgeable, and hated by those already in power.

And the only candidate that fits that description is Gingrich.

It's not unlike a wild Old West town without law and order. The townsfolk hold their noses while they elect a gunslinger to bring law and order. Then, once the job is done, you get rid of the gunny and hire a more "civilized" lawman.

Well, Gingrich is a gunslinger. And that is what is needed to clean house. Once clean, THEN perhaps a "softer", more "civilized" person to take the reigns. You know - a Romney or Santorum.

/

Obama Openly Attacks Religion And The Constitution In This Move...

2012-01-23T08:12:00.002-05:00

The White House, supported by the Department of Health & Human Services will now REQUIRE religious institutions to provide free contraceptives, sterilization and abortions to its employees, in direct violation of religious liberty. For Obama, "separation of church and state" is a one-way street - he insists on keeping religion out of government, but then injects government into religion.

Obama claims to be a "constitutional professor", but he certainly does not appear to have any respect for the Constitution. Or maybe he simply forgot that the First Amendment states - and this is a quote - "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Everyone knows and understands that one of the most recognized tenets of the Catholic and other churches is that contraception, abortion and sterilization are sins.

Mr. President, forcing religious institutions to actively violate their religious beliefs does, without question, interfere with the free exercise of religion.

You have shown your true colors, Barak Obama, and frankly, they stink! Though you claim to be a Christian, I suspect that is not unlike the guy who claims to be from planet Zor - sayin' it don't make it so.

Obama has shown disdain for religious freedom
Obama has shown disdain for the Constitution
Obama has shown disdain for free enterprise and capitalism
Obama has shown disdain for both the other "equal branches" of government
Obama has shown disdain for states' rights
Obama has shown disdain for individuals' rights

You claim to love this country yet you violate its principles at every opportunity.

Mr. President, you are a pretender. And you need to go.

/

Divine Intervention Part II - A Pic Of The Miracle Bunny

2012-01-21T13:13:00.002-05:00

For the many who have requested a picture of "Soren", the miracle bunny, here is one I took today.

My daughter named him Soren because it means "miracle" in Romanian. (No, we are not Romanian - my daughter just likes to delve into languages).

/

Something to think about this election cycle...

2012-01-20T13:48:00.000-05:00

Two of the biggest concerns for American voters is jobs and the deficit and debt. So before you go to the polls, just know this...

In the entire history of this country the budget was never balanced for two consecutive years until Gingrich took control of the house and the budget. During his tenure, he balanced America's budget for FOUR consecutive years. A first in the history of the nation, and the only reason President Clinton could lay claim to a surplus.

Know, too, that since Gingrich left office the budget has not been balanced even once.

And then add this factoid - as of today, the deficit has surpassed 100% of GDP - a first in the history of this nation. In other words, we spend more than we even produce as an entirety.

So, if our financial future - which includes jobs - is important to you, think about that. Of course, if you are a liberal you would probably prefer to think about his personal issues. As for me, I want the country to be made well again, and if I have to vote for a cad to get that done, then so be it.

/

Another Example Of Liberal Political Correctness Run Amok...

2012-01-20T12:49:00.000-05:00

Science has taught us that liberal thought tends to be illogical and irrational. And this latest example proves that beyond any doubt.

In the American west (and even in the early days of the east), there has been a large predatory cat. It carries the name of COUGAR. Also known as a mountain lion, or even a puma.

It has been a cougar for centuries.

But a liberal school board in Utah has rejected the name of "cougars" for its school mascot, calling it "offensive to women."

It seems that women in mid-life crisis are recently known as "cougars". Big deal. The point is, calling a woman a "cougar" is what is offensive, not calling a big cat a cougar.

If liberals think "cougar" belittles women, then perhaps they should stop calling women cougars. But even if they insist on doing so, liberal PC-ers should take note - for women, it is only a degrading nickname of recent descent. Long before that, and even to this day, it is the REAL name of a proud predatory big cat.

If anyone is guilty of offending women, it is not the school kids who want the cougar (big cat) as a mascot. No, the ones who are insulting women are those who call women "cougars" in an attempt to show them as "hungry predators", and those who think the first thing we should think of when we hear "cougar" is a hot-to-trot middle aged women seeking her lost youth by preying on young men.

/.

Divine Intervention? Bunny Dies, Then Resuscitated

2012-01-19T14:19:00.001-05:00

As most of you know, I believe in being as prepared as possible for just about any bad news that might come down the pike. To that end, I raise rabbits.

12 days ago one of the does gave birth to 8 glorious little ones.

When I checked on the buns first thing in the morning as I always do, I noticed a small fluff of white in the corner of the cage. I reached in and removed a frozen baby bunny. Last night, the coldest of the year (below zero), he had managed to leave the warm, heated nest box and he froze to death.

As I held him in my palm, I could feel how cold he was - cold and stiff. I was ready to dispose of him when a voice inside said, "No."

I brought him into the house, held him near the woodstove for heat and poking his chest to try and get his little heart beating. After nearly an hour of this, I was ready to give up. He was dead. But as I headed for the door to dispose of him, one tiny paw moved almost imperceptibly. I could not believe it.

I kept him warm, and kept poking his chest. He was still ice cold, but gradually began to move. After almost another hour, he seemed almost normal, and was even squeaking as baby rabbits often do. I think he was saying, "Hey, buddy, stop poking me." I then put a spot on his head with a red Sharpie so I could monitor him.

I placed him back with his siblings, and checked on him throughout the day, and I am pleased to tell you he is doing well. Truly a miracle bunny.

And to think the only thing between life and death was a little voice that said, "No." Divine intervention?

/

The "Liberal Filter" - Why Liberals Spin So Much...

2012-01-19T08:45:00.001-05:00

Most non-liberals are painfully aware that liberals spin - a LOT! But is it intentional, or is it just the way they view the world?

Science has already proven there is a vast difference in the thought processes of people who primarily use the right side of the brain and those who use the left side. Conservatives are left-brain thinkers, while liberals use the right side primarily. Left side is analytical, while right side is more creative. So, artsy folks are more apt to be liberal (think Greenwich Village or Hollywood) while people like farmers who need to be more analytical are most apt to be conservative.

But science has also proven that those who use the right brain are also less rational and are less logical. A couple of great reasons not to let them work on budgets or foreign affairs too much.

The right brain seems to give liberals a sort of "filter" through which they view the world, and it is this filter that causes them to spin (although sometimes it is just dishonesty for idealogical reasons, as it is with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz). As an example, when someone says, "Jesus walked on water", a liberal might very well hear, "Jesus could not swim." What they hear and see must fit into their preconceived perceptions. If it does not, they need to try and understand it by spinning it into something that does fit their perception.

When Gingrich says "poor familes", liberals hear "black people", or "minorities", because that is what they perceive - when a liberal thinks of poverty, they think of minority ghettos. It's their preconception. So, when Gingrich said "poor families", liberals like Juan Williams thought it to be a slam against minorities. They see racism, because that is what their filter makes them see.

When Gingrich says, "Let poor kids work to earn money to be less poor,", liberals hear, "Gingrich wants to repeal child labor laws and enslave our children."

And when Gingrich mentioned Obama as "the food stamp president", he simply meant (and said) that Obama presided over the largest consumption of food stamps in history. But the liberal filter makes liberals believe he was "belittling" those on food stamps, and belittling minorities. They simply cannot see that 40% of food stamp users are white, or that it is not a slam to the poor - it is a slam to the policies that MADE people poor.

So, the next time your liberal friend says something irrational that is not exactly factual, just smile and chalk it up to the liberal filter. Because no matter what you do or say, they will never see the reality - the filter will not let them.

/

Is Juan Williams A Closet Racist?

2012-01-18T16:09:00.000-05:00

Over the years I have given Juan Williams, Fox New analyst, a fair amount of respect. But over the last several months I have been noticing that Mr. Williams keeps sneaking race into issues that are not about race at all.

I have said this many times, and it holds true - the first person to bring race into an issue is the racist (no, I am not injecting race - this blog is being written because Williams did).

As an example, Newt Gingrich proposed that children from poor families be allowed to work and earn money, and to develop a work ethic. Mr. Williams immediately brings race into it, saying Gingrich has introduced race. He did not. He never mentioned race. He mentioned POOR PEOPLE. And there are poor whites as well as poor blacks - a point that seems to escape Williams. Williams also accused Gingrich of saying such people were lazy, but Mr. Gingrich said no such thing. He simply said these children need to DEVELOP a work ethic. But that is true of ALL children, as no one is born with a work ethic. Most children live in families where they can learn a work ethic. But that is less true in poor families, where work is less than consistent (which is why they are poor). And again, it is about POVERTY. But williams makes it about race.

Mr. Gingrich goes on to say Obama is the food stamp president. And Mr Williams immediately infers Gingrich is again slamming minorities, and introducing race. But what again escapes Mr Williams is that 40% of families who use food stamps are white. So again, it is about POVERTY, not race.

But Mr Williams and his liberal friends insist on claiming it is about race. That is because THEY are the true racists - injecting race where it does not belong.

Either they know it is not about race, and are trying to paint the candidates as racists, or they do not know it and therefore have no business commenting on it in the first place.

/

Guess What The Liberal Univ. of San Francisco Study On Pot Says...

2012-01-11T11:38:00.000-05:00

The headline on HuffPost/AOL today says, "GOOD NEWS FOR MARIJUANA USERS - Marijuana And Lungs: Study Finds Drug Doesn't Do Same Kind Of Damage As Tobacco"

Gee, go figure! But actually, that headline is dishonest, and is not what the study shows.The city that has been rooting for the legalization of pot for years is where this great study comes from. Who would have guessed? And the far-left, drug-crazy HuffPost/AOL misleads with their headline - again.

The story starts out, "Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study that bolsters evidence that marijuana doesn't do the kind of damage tobacco does." Again, no surprize that these "researchers" make their point based on someone who only smokes one joint a week as opposed to the normal smoker who smokes 300 cigarettes a week. But hey, what's an extra 200-400 doses per week?

But the article later says, almost as if apologetically, "The results, from one of the largest and longest studies on the health effects of marijuana, are hazier for heavy users – those who smoke two or more joints daily for several years. The data suggest that using marijuana that often might cause a decline in lung function".

But even here there is a bug in their study - there own words state that there may be no difference between 40 cigarettes a day and pot smokers who only smoke "two or more" joints daily. Perhaps their study, if it were honest, would compare 40 joints a day to 40 cigarettes a day and report on the effects. Let's compare apples to apples, shall we?

Now, any educated person can infer from this study that one joint a week is less dangerous than 300 cigarettes a week. Go figure! And that two joints per day might be as dangerous as 40 cigarettes a day.

Those are the words of the researchers, not mine. The only difference is that I am not adding the liberal spin. Their own study indicates that, on a one-to-one basis, pot is either just as harmful, or more so, than tobacco.

/

The Big Lie - "Obama Ended The War In Iraq..."

2012-01-10T11:59:00.000-05:00

The liberal media, following their marching orders from the White House keeps touting how Obama ended the war in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was the SURGE, authorized by Bush, that ended the war in Iraq. You might recall that Obama OPPOSED the Surge, along with other liberals. Despite objections from the left, Bush instituted the Surge. It worked. It brought the war pretty much to an end.

The only thing Obama did was call the troops home. That did not end the war. The Surge did that. In fact, the early withdrawal of troops may very well result in a resurgence of violence in Iraq.

So once again Obama takes credit for something he had no hand in. And he refuses to ttake credit for those things that do have his fingerprints - Solyndra, Fiskar, the Chevy Volt fiasco, illegal recess appointments while the Senate was not in recess, the high unemployment rate... the list is nearly endless.

/

Debbie Wasserman-Smith: More Dishonest By The Day...

2012-01-09T21:01:00.000-05:00

In an interview with Chris Wallace, Debbie Wasserman-Smith (chairperson of the DNC) said there was no comparison between Mitt Romney as CEO of Bain Capital and Barack Obama's hand in the bankruptcy of Solyndra. Let's break it down...

Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain Capital - Barack Obama is CEO of America

Mitt Romney invested in companies that went bankrupt - Obama invested taxpayer money in Solyndra, which went bankrupt

Seems about the same to me - both acted as venture capitalists, and both invested in companies that went belly up and people got laid off. Yet Wasserman-Smith, as dishonest as ever, claims that Romney is responsible for putting people out of work, but Obama is not.

She is either ignorant or dishonest. In either case, she certainly should not be in any position of power.

/

The Myth That Republicans "Need" The Independent Vote...

2012-01-09T20:20:00.001-05:00

All the talking heads keep saying that Republicans need to be "more moderate" in order to attract the "independent" vote and win elections.

Bull!

Sure, 40% of voters claim to be independents, while 31% claim to be Democrats and 27% claim to be Republicans. Based on those dumb stats, it would appear Republicans need independents.

But here is what those stats do not show - 40% of all voters claim to be CONSERVATIVE (as opposed to "republican"). Meanwhile, only 18% claim to be liberals. So, conservatives outnumber liberals by a wide margin.

So here is the untold truth - Republicans do not need independents. They need CONSERVATIVES. If the Republican party decides to actually stand for conservative values, they will have the support of the Republicans AND the conservative portion of the independents. And that would give them a majority, since most "independents" lean to the right (remember - conservatives outnumber liberals by more than 2 to 1).

In 2008 Republicans ran a moderate RiNO Republican in the hope of attracting independents, and Republicans lost - McCain was not conservative enough, and conservative independents just stayed home on election day.

No, Republicans do not need to compromise their values in order to court independents. On the contrary - they need to be conservative enough to get the conservative majority fired up!

/

Are People Killed or Tortured Because Of religion? The Answer May Surprise You...

2012-01-08T10:10:00.000-05:00

The biggest reason Atheists have for degrading religion is their false assumption that religion is responsible for the "torture and death of millions." They then cite the Inquisition and the Crusades as examples. But that is where they show their utter ignorance.

People do not kill for religion - that is only the excuse they use for doing what they would have done, anyway. People need excuses for the killing they do - some such excuses are "self defense", "Glory of God" or even "The Devil Made Me Do It." People kill and torture for reasons of their own, and in EVERY case it is because of one or more of the "7 Cardinal Sins", which are...

Pride - excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity. (Bill Maher?)

Envy - the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation. (Occupy Wall Streeters?)

Gluttony - an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires. (Imelda Marcos?)

Lust - an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body. (John Edwards, Bill Clinton?)

Anger - manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath. (Terrorists, idealogues)

Greed - the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness. (Madoff?)

Sloth - the avoidance of physical or spiritual work. (perpetual welfare people)

Certainly, people may be killed or wars started in the NAME of religion (excuse), but never for the SAKE of religion (reason). Religion is not to blame for things that mere mortals choose to do.

So, Bill Maher et all, if you decide to stop flaunting your absolute ignorance, try facing the truth for a change. You do not hate religion because of any deaths. You hate religion because it holds people accountable for their actions, and imposes moral values you would rather ignore. Like most atheists, you are like the ostrich that hides its head in the sand - you think if you cannot see the danger then it cannot harm you.

Wrong.

/

Remember The Ant & The Grasshopper? Have You Heard The New Version?

2012-01-06T22:35:00.001-05:00

The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE OLD STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the SEIU group singing, “We Shall Overcome".

Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake, while he damns ants.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the “Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act” retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses, bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2012.

Make sure that you share this with other ants. Don't bother sending it on to any grasshoppers because they wouldn't understand it anyway !

/

Recess Appointments - Why The Constitution Should Be Amended...

2012-01-06T00:35:00.000-05:00

Lately, Presidents of both parties have abused the "recess appointments" clause in Article 2 of the Constitution, which states, "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate..." President Obama does more that abuse it - he perverts it.

Here is why this particular clause needs to be amended. First, it clearly states "vacancies that may happen during the recess...". In almost every case, the recess appointments being made are not for vacancies that occur DURING the recess, but have occured long before the recess. But aside from that overlooked technicality, there is a more important aspect to consider.

At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, it took most Senators days, even weeks to get to Congress. They traveled by horseback or carriage. No planes. No highways. So the clause was necessary for national security, as an "emergency session" of congress could take a long time to arrange, leaving America without the necessary leadership.

Today, that just cannot happen. In an emergency, Congress can be called into session within hours if necessary. And if it is not an emergency, then there is no legitimate need for recess appointments.

So, I would suggest that clause be reworded to state something like, "In the event of a national emergency or for purposes of national security, the President may fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, provided the Senate cannot be convened within three days."

This would stop the abuse - and the perversion - of recess appointments.

/

Now The Liberal Media Is Making Fun Of Romney's Real Name...

2012-01-05T09:42:00.000-05:00

It's Willard.

Big deal.

I am not a Romney fan by any means. But it galls me that the very same liberal media (like the Huffington Post and AOL, to name just two) who castigated people for calling Obama by HIS real name - Barack Hussein Obama - are now trying to make a big deal out of Romney's real name. Such hypocrisy is expected from the left, but it only proves how desperate - and dumb - they are, and to what lengths they will go to change the subject from the abysmal economy and the over-regulation and high unemployment for which Barack Hussein Obama is responsible - he is, after all, the Captain of the ship.

A note to the libs who think it somehow lifts them to a higher level in the conversation to make fun of anyone's name - it doesn't. It only makes you look even more foolish than we already know you are. You do not need to keep proving it over and over again.

/

Who Will Be The Non-Romney?...

2012-01-03T21:42:00.000-05:00

At the moment, it looks like the top 4 in Iowa are Paul, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. But I believe there will be a surprise.

Paul will go nowhere after Iowa because the Republican Party will not nominate someone who would abandon Israel and ignore Iran. So the real top 4 are Romney, Santorun, Gingrich and Perry.

Romney will take New Hampshire - that's a given. Santorum does not have a strong organization, nor the financing to go much further. So, going into the all-important South Carolina, we'll have Romney, Gingrich and Perry.

Perry has the money. But Gingrich has the popularity in SC, so it's a toss-up right now. But I am predicting that the nomination will be between Romney and either Gingrich or Perry, depending upon which one has the strongest showing in South Carolina.

My bet is on Gingrich, because between now and SC, there will be debates. And Gingrich will clean Perry's clock in those. And he'll probably beat up Romney, too.

I think it will shake out as Romney vs Gingrich, unless a powerhouse Dark Horse like Palin enters. Then all bets are off.

/

Things That Need To Happen In 2012 Hollywood ...

2012-01-01T23:09:00.000-05:00

This was a statement made by Huffington Post. Of course, THEIR idea of needed changes have to do with the making of more left-leaning movies. I have a different take (who would have guessed?)

Some changes I would like to see in Hollywood this year:

1) Talent

2) Script writers who really are script writers. You know, with a little imagination, and some old-fashioned class

3) Movies and shows that entertain, instead of brainwash with a liberal agenda

4) Movies that teach solid values - and maybe even have a PLOT.

Most of all I would like to see fewer brain-dead celebrities spouting off on topics they know nothing about.

And for cryin' out loud, Hollywood needs to stop patting themselves on the back. I'm rather tired of hearing about the "upcoming blockbuster" )"Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" - how ridiculous is that?) or the "Award Nominee" for movies that have not even hit the theaters yet ("War Horse"). Hey, HuffPost, for the record - a blockbuster is a movie that has already performed exceedingly well, and has brought in many millions. So, there is no such thing as an "upcoming blockbuster."

/

Here's How To Tell Good People From The Bad...

2011-12-31T10:03:00.000-05:00

In today's world it is not always easy to know who the good people are, and who to shun. But there is one simple rule of thumb that never fails...

A good person wakes up and wonders how many people they can assist today, and by how much. A bad person awakens and their first thought is "How many people can I make miserable today?"

Look around. Watch people. You will easily spot those who make it their life's work to bring misery to people. And it is just as easy to spot those who are kind and helpful.

When OWS protesters shout down legitimate speech by others. When someone spams you, or telemarkets you at dinner time. When the people at the Motor Vehicle Department give you the run-around. When a lawyer screws over an innocent person by using a technicality to subvert justice. Or the judge who ignores his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and decides instead he would rather push his personal agenda.

Unfotunately, it appears there are more people who work at making others miserable than there are those who make life more pleasant for others. In our society, evil is winning.

/

Before You Give To A Charity...

2011-12-26T18:43:00.000-05:00

As you open your pockets for the next natural disaster, please keep these facts in mind:

� The American Red Cross President and CEO Marsha J. Evans salary for the year was $651,957 plus expenses

� The United Way President Brian Gallagher receives a $375,000 base salary along with numerous expense benefits.

� UNICEF CEO Caryl M. Stern receives $1,200,000 per year (100k per month) plus all expenses including a ROLLS ROYCE . Less than 5 cents of your donated dollar goes to the cause.

WHY NOT PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE IT WILL DO SOME GOOD:

� The Salvation Army's Commissioner Todd Bassett receives a small salary of only $13,000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization. 96 percent of donated dollars go to the cause.

� The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

� The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

� The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

� The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

� The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!

/

I Am Looking For A Very Special American (details here...)

2011-12-26T08:34:00.000-05:00

I am currently searching for a very special American citizen. If you are this person, or know of such a person, please leave a comment, below.

The person I am searching for, first and foremost, must be a legal American citizen. In addition, they must NOT do any of the following, ever, at any time. If you do even one of these things, you are disqualified:

1) Cash a check at a bank
2) Use a check at a store
2) Buy alcoholics beverages
3) Buy cigarettes
4) Drive a motor vehicle
5) Fly on an airline
6) Collect any form of public assistance, i.e. food stamps, fuel assistance, WIC, Section 8 etc.
7) Get a passport
8) Purchase a firearm
9) Get a marriage license

Now, if you never have done any of the above and never will, please let me know, because you are the elusive "disenfranchised voter" Eric Holder and his moronic liberal friends keep saying are being discriminated against by VOTER ID laws. Personally, I have never known such a person. Even when I was living among the homeless people of Manchester, NH, I noticed even they had photo ID - it was necessary for collecting the food stamps they would sell in order to buy alcohol - which they ALSO needed photo ID for.

If you know of any legal citizen who would LIKE to vote but cannot because they are unable to procure a photo ID, let me know and I will pay for them getting such an ID.

/

A Note To Husbands Everywhere

2011-12-23T11:15:00.000-05:00

Statistics show that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. What the stats do not show is how many others are not as happy as they should or could be. So, to put in my two-cents worth, based on over 40 years experience, I offer the following tips for husbands.

If you haven't noticed, women see, hear and understand things differently from men. Until you understand that simple concept, you will never be the kind of husband your wife deserves.

If you think that all you have to do is say, "I love you" once in awhile, and give her a kiss, thinking she will then know that you love her, you are sadly mistaken. A woman needs confirmation. It is not enough to say it - you must also show it. Every day.

When it snows, do you clean off her car? On cold mornings, do you go out and warm the car for her? And if she works and helps provide for the family, do you do your honest share of the housework?

When was the last time you brought home flowers for no reason other than to show your appreciation? And have you EVER sent her a love letter through the mail since the day you said "I Do"? Or even a romantic card once in awhile?

And when was the last time you hugged her and said, "I'm taking you out to dinner because I appreciate all that you do that makes my life worth living"? It's not enough, guys, to just take her out to dinner. You need to TELL her that it is for HER, and that you appreciate her. It's all about confirmation.

Marriages get in trouble when the parties stop showing the love, appreciation and romance that was an integral part of falling in love in the first place. More marriages end because someone feels they are being taken for granted than for any infidelity. It is difficult to be unfaithful to someone you love, respect and appreciate. And showing those to her will also strengthen them in yourself.

Now, stop reading this, pull away from the computer, go find your other (and probably better) half and give them a meaningful kiss, and tell them you love them, and then find some one to show it's not just talk.

Merry Christmas, All

/

Sensenbrenner Takes Heat For Michele Obama Comment

2011-12-22T08:57:00.000-05:00

Congressman Sensenbrenner is taking heat from the far-left whackos for telling the truth. In a PRIVATE phone call that some busy-body was eavesdropping on, Sensenbrenner said, "She lectures us on eating right while she has a large posterior herself."

As everyone knows, the statement is 100% true - she does lecture the rest of us while she, herself, does seem to have an oversized rear.

But the left finds the truth to be offensive. Go figure! At least Sensenbrenner did not make the comment publicly in an attempt to smear the First Lady. But the lefty who was eavesdropping DID make it public. So, which one is the louse?

As an after-thought I am reminded of Chef Paula Deen's comments about the First Lady's eating habits during breaks in the show - according to Deen, Mrs Obama pigged out, and even mentioned that the favorite food at the White House was Hot Wings.

Not exactly what she prescribes for us peons.

/

What Tebow Knows That His Critics Do Not...

2011-12-20T21:38:00.000-05:00

When I was a child, and just before my mother passed away, she was adamant that I learn the Beatitudes from the Bible. She made me memorize them, and tested me often. And now, when I see Tebow on bended knee and hear his ignorant critics I am reminded of the last of the Beatitudes:

‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. ‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:10-12

'Nuff said.

/

How To Elect People Who nWill Turn This Country Around

2011-12-19T08:48:00.000-05:00

There are so many choices, and so little information to go on in this election. We all know that politiciand will promise anything. So, how do we know who to vote for if we want to turn America's ship around, and heading in the right direction?

First and foremost, listen to the pundits on TV and in Washington - listen closely to see who they oppose. Find out who they hate. That will show you who they fear.

Second - VOTE for those people, because if the establishment politicians and pundits are routing FOR someone, rest assured that someone will be just like them, and nothing will change.

Want change? Vote for the people other politicians and media pundits can't stand. People like Newt Gingrich, or Tea Party candidates.

After all, if the Devil says he hates someone, isn't that a strong indication that the person is good?

/

A Novel Approach To Cutting Medical Costs...

2011-12-16T08:55:00.000-05:00

Most people fully realize that "ObamaCare" will not reduce medical costs - in fact, will actually increase them. But there are ways to cut the costs, whether or not ObamaCare remains.

Of course, there are the well known points, such as tort reform, which reduces costs to doctors and hospitals, so the consumer saves. And being able to shop for insurance from other states increases competition, thereby reducing costs. But there is still something else we should look at.

Considering that medicine is a necessity and not a luxury, and eventually needed by all, to some extent, it should be a "public service", not unlike a minister or Rabbi. So I make the following proposal...

We, the People, via our government should offer medical college for free to all who aspire to become physicians, provided they a) can show the ability i.e. good grades etc., and b) formally agree to use their medical education for the good of the people for a minimum of 20 years. In addition, upon becoming a physician, We, the People would provide them with free housing, food, transportation and a cash stipend, which provides for their full needs. They would also be guaranteed a nice pension. Everything they require, paid for by the taxpayer.

In exchange, doctors would treat everyone for free, just as a minister does.

This is not unlike how we fund our military - they get free training, housing, food, medical care and a stipend.

Certainly, being a doctor would no longer insure a fat income, but it would provide a very good living without any of the associated hassles or costs of paying a half million in student loans, or thousands in medical malpractice insurance.

In fact, we would be more likely to get better doctors, and more of them. Under the current system, the cost of the education prevents most people from even attempting to become a doctor. Think of it - with the education provided for free, anyone with the capacity to be a doctor could become a doctor. No more shortage of M.D.'s.

Think about it - with something as necessary as medicine, doesn't it make sense for the community (We, the People) to make the provision to provide adequate help for ourselves?

/

The Real Threat Behind China's New Carrier...

2011-12-15T20:15:00.000-05:00

Satellite photos have shown a huge aircraft carrier launched by China. It's their first. And a carrier has only one purpose - war!

That said, you should understand that we Americans paid for it, and are paying for all of China's growing military machine. We pay for the very military might that may someday be used against us, because we cannot resist saving a buck by buying Chinese goods instead of Made In The USA stuff.

Every time you buy something made in China (or anythying sold by WalMart), you help China build their military might.

And China is NOT our ally.

'Nuff said.

/

Gingrich Has Sometimes Worked With Liberals - Why? Find Out Here...

2011-12-15T08:40:00.001-05:00

Everyone says how smart Newt Gingrich is, yet they condemn him and call him dumb, or "zany" (Romney's term) because he has been known to break bread and negotiate with liberals, and give in to some liberal causes. These people (mostly pundits and politicians, because we, the People know better) seem to think this means Newt is liberal.

No - it simply means he is smart enough to get a job done.

Newt understands the first principle of negotiating - always be willing to ngive up nickles for dimes.

As a real estate investor, I teach people to always put "nickles" in their purchase offer - things they are willing to give up in order to get something better. For example, if I want a seller to pay half my closing costs (usually worth about $4000) I will offer about $10,000 less than I am willing to pay. If the seller balks at paying half the closing costs, I then offer to "increase" my purchase offer by $5000 if he pays the $4000 in costs. If he still balks, I offer up to the $10,000.
Note that I was planning to pay that amount, anyway, so when the seller agress, I come out way ahead.

I use the same technique to get free stuff, from shoe polish to lawn tractors.
That is the art of negotiating, and Newt is VERY good at it. And that is why he would make an excellent president - he can get in and negotiate with a divided Congress and get what we, the People need, because he can negotiate better than any of those clowns.

Sure, he will "give in" to minor agenda items of the libs. But do not doubt that for every nickle Newt gives up, he will get us at least a dime.

If you want a president that can get the job done, then elect someone who knows how to negotiate. Obama knows nothing about negotiating - he simply tries to use force and threats. And while that may work in the Chicago mob, that will not work in Washington for very long.

/

Holder and Democrats Oppose Voter ID (natch)...

2011-12-14T20:24:00.001-05:00

Eric Holder is preparing to sue more states (he is already suing more than any other 15 past AG's). They claim that poor minority people would be disenfranchised because they can't get a photo ID, so he is getting ready to hit the states that have passed Voter ID laws.

Here's a question for that corrupt moron and his minions - WHY can't they get a photo ID? They are easy to get.

More to the point, they all HAVE photo ID's - almost every one of those "poor minority people" collect public assistance, and/or smoke, and/or drink, and/or drive. And a photo ID is required for any of those things.

The odds of finding ANY minority person who does not collect any welfare, OR smoke, OR drink, OR drive is probably just south of zero.

Let's not kid ourselves - everyone with an I.Q. that is at least 2 digits knows exactly why Democrats do not want Voter ID laws - can you spell ACORN? Accounts of voter fraud have increased exponentially over the last three elections, and every case involved Democrats. If no photo ID is required, ANYONE could vote - even that guy who just snuck across the border last night. And that is what the Democrats want, because those are exactly the kind of people who would vote for the party of entitlements.

/

A Fan Of Ann Coulter's Books - But This Time She Is WAY Off...

2011-12-13T21:44:00.000-05:00

Anne Coulter, often referred to as a far-right bomb-thrower, writes some of the funniest, yet pointed political books on the market. I gotta read every one. But lately she has been deluded.

Earlier this year, she raved about Chris Christie and sorely wanted him as the Republican candidate for President. She loves his candor and tough style - so do I. But she seemed to overlook that Christie is not all that conservative - and Coulter is very much so. She was blinded by his nerve and verve.

When Christie declined, Coulter is now strongly supporting Mitt Romney - yet another phony conservative. She says he's perfect because he is easily electable, as he was elected governor in the bluest state. But what she fails to understand is just how and why he was able to win in a blue state - he simply is not very conservative. He's democrat lite. HINT: A conservative cannot win as dogcatcher in Massachusetts.

Coulter is a strong conservative, but it appears she is easily fooled by charisma. Either that, or like establishment GOP in Washington (and the pundits) she has fallen victim to the belief that in order to win, republicans need to be "moderate".

And that is bull. McCain was moderate, and he lost badly. Reagan was not moderate and he won in a 49 state landslide. No, we do not need to run another Democrat-Lite, moderate RiNO. We need to run a true conservative - and no one who was ever governor of a very blue state (like Christie and Romney) can ever lay claim to being conservative.

Ann, I love ya, but you have been duped.

/

AOL/HuffPost Gets Funnier - And More Dishonest - By The Day...

2011-12-13T20:50:00.001-05:00

OK, so the Republican house passed the payroll tax bill tonight. (SIDE NOTE: The Republican House has passed 23 bills that the Democrat Senate won't even bring to a vote, even though the Democrat Senate has passed almost NO bills at all they haven't even passed a budget in the three years the Dems have held the Senate).

So here's the headline at AOL/HuffPost:

"House Passes Payroll Tax Bill Packed With Poison Pills "

So, what do they consider "poison pills?" You ge the judge...

1) The plan would pay for the one-year, 2 percent payroll tax cut by means-testing Medicare so that recipients making $85,000 and above have to pay higher premiums. Considering the Democrats keep whining that people doing well should pay more, they somehow think this is a poison pill.

2) Another $62 billion would come from freezing federal pay for a year and making federal retirees pay more for health care. Even though the iconic president of the AFL-CIO and FDR - two liberal icons - said public employees should not be allowed to "collectively bargain" because their compensation comes from taxpayers, the Democrats think it is a poison pill for public employees who already get more pay and benefits than everyone else should be required to pony up a bit more. Fed employees typically earn 30% more than their private counterparts. So why shouldn't their wages be frozen? And why shouldn't they contribute almost as much to their health care as you and I?

3) It circumvents an environmental review of the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline. Actually, the pipeline has been heavily reviewed by several agencies for three years, and there is nothing more to "review". The only reason Democrats want more "review" is so they can postpone a decision until AFTER the election. Strictly political. As a side note - the pipeline is estimated to immediately create 20,000 jobs. Last I heard, that was SUPPOSED to be a priority - and it is what the vast majority of Americans want. Still, Democrats call it a poison pill. Especially - and this is important - since the bill does NOT ask Obama to OK the pipeline. It only says that he must make a choice, yes or no. What's wrong with asking the president to make a decidsion? Isn't that waht leadership is all about? Apparently AOL/HuffPost and other liberals don't believe in leadership - just vote "present", as Obama did 90% of the time in as a Senator, so he could not be held responsible for anything.

4) Reduce emergency unemployment benefits from 73 weeks to 33 weeks. Frankly, most Americans (except the lazy) do not believe in LONG extensions for unemployment, because things can change. It is best to increase benefits about 6 months at a time, so Congress can review the need.

5) Allow states to force the jobless to prove they're not on drugs in order to get unemployment benefits. How is this a poison pill, exactly? Do Democrats really believe that taxpayers want their taxes to be used by drug addicts to get high? This is a perfectly legitimate requirement for taking taxpayer money. After all, a corporation can require drug testing before an employee can take THEIR money - and so do most government agencies.

So, AOL/HuffPost and far left lunatics think the above (5) parts of the bill are "poison pills" because the far-left lunatics do not care about the financial health of America or its citizens. The do not care that 20,000 will not get good middle-class jobs with Keystone, as long as Obama can postpone a decision until 2013, so as not to anger any of his base voters. You see, his base consists of LABOR, which is FOR the pipeline, and ENVIRONMENTALISTS who are OPPOSED to the pipeline. For him to make any decision before the election will alienate some of his base. Purely political. Meanwhile, no jobs for Americans, and no increase in the availability of domestic oil.

This only goes to prove why we have to toss the far-left liberals out of Washington. Sure, let's keep the honest Democrats, like Mansion of WV. But the liberals like Reid who have hijacked JFK's Democrat party should be kicked to the curb. Until we do that, Congress will be deadlocked and America will continue to careen out of control without a driver.

/

Yes, The Founding Fathers Warned Of The Threat From Shariah Law...

2011-12-13T15:22:00.001-05:00

Most people believe that any threat from Shariah Law is either a recent thing, or the threat is minor. What they are not aware of is that Shariah Law caused serious concern to our Founding Fathers.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England met with the Islamic potentates of Tripoli regarding demands being made by "Barbary pirates". Afterward, they presented a report to Congress which read in part:

"We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury. The Islamic ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their (Muslim) authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise."

Yep - that sure enough sounds like a religion of peace, as liberals like to tell it. If you are not Muslim, you must either be converted, enslaved or killed. No exceptions. That's their Law. Shariah Law. No, not just the "extremists" - that is what Shariah says, and all muslims are supposed to ascribe to.

In a 136 page of essays by our 6th president, John Quincy Adams, he writes, "[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as part of his religion, against all the rest of Mankind...The precept of the Quran is perpetual war against all who deny that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God (Allah). No state paper from a Christian hand could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse."

In other words, no Christian could ever proclaim a hatred of any group of people, but Islamists make it the very foundation of their beliefs. In fact, here it is, direct from the Qur'an (Q 9:5):

"Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war. But if they repent [convert], and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them; for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (but only to those who convert).

And Q 9:29 states, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle {Muhammed], nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the people of the Book (the Bible, meaning Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya (tax on non-Muslims) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

So, to the liberal, uneducated elitists who say Shariah and the Constitution are somehow compatible, Sharia is actually in perfect, diametrical opposition to our Constitution.

/

Liberal AOL/HuffPost Smearing Christianity - Again...

2011-12-13T10:50:00.000-05:00

Today's top headline on AOL: "Home Invasion Leads Police To Christian Paramilitary 'Savior Unit' "

However, nowhere in the story does it say the people involved are Christians. It only says that they are "trained in religion."

The "Savior Unit" does train in religion, but not Christianity. Christianity follows the teachings of Christ - the New Testament. The Savior Unit concentrates on the Old Testament, which is pre-Christ, and therefore not especially Christian.

But the greater point is that a person or group can CALL themselves whatever they wish - that does not make it so. I can call myself the Imperial Potus Of The Patriarchal Planet Of Xenos - but that does not make it so.

Christianity is not a "label" that can be applied to a person simply by going to church or reading Scriptures. Christianity is a lifestyle - the actual following (or sincere attempt at following) the word of Christ. Anyone who does not follow Christ and His teachings is not a Christian. Period!

If Charles Manson had been a Catholic churchgoer, he still would not be a Christian because he did not act or live like a Christian. And if a church preaches hate and bigotry as the Reverend Wright church has always done, that does not make Wright - or his followers - Christians.

So, even if the "Savior Unit" were to call themselves Christian, that does not make them Christian. Ergo, AOL?HuffPost is again being deceitful and dishonest in their reporting in an attempt to minimalize Christianity in America so the far-left loons can push their crazy agenda on the rest of us.

/

Liberal Playwright Calls Palin A "Witless Bully", But It Seems HE is...

2011-12-12T18:38:00.000-05:00

Aaron Sorkin's recent attack on Sarah Palin, calling her a "witless bully" once again shows that he, not Palin is the witless one. And a bully.

After successfully shooting a caribou, Palin said, "I feel a lot better now." Sorkin wrote, "Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them."

In other words, it's OK to eat meat and use leather, but it's not OK for anyone to kill the animals from whence they come. That is as hypocritical - and as weak - as it gets.

I certainly hope I am not the only one to see that Sorkin and his ilk are completely witless in that they want to eat meat, but they don't want that meat to come from a dead animal. Frankly, I know of no other source. As for his assinine claim that the animal was tortured, it was not. It was a quick, clean kill, unlike the animals that are raised, mistreated and then slaughtered without any chance of escape - you know, the animals that Sorkin and his friends buy at the supermarket and is OK with. So, if anyone is responsible for the torture of meat animals, it is Sorkin, not Palin.

So it would appear that Sorkin's issue is not really that Palin killed a caribou. His issue is simply that he does not like the fact that Palin is more of a man than he is; that he is eager to eat meat only if his squimish little tummy does not have to turn over knowing that it did not really come from a package at the grocery store, but that it actually came from a dead animal.

Sorkin's problem is not that Palin killed a caribou. His problem is that he cannot. In the real world where it is still survival of the fittest, Palin would survive and Sorkin would perish. THAT is Sorkin's problem. In a world of predators and prey, Sorkin is the prey, and that offends him.

As it should.

/

Yahoo! Starting To Sound Like AOL...

2011-12-12T11:17:00.003-05:00

Like AOL/Huffington Post, Yahoo! has always has a liberal bias. But normally they at least try to keep it from being too obvious. That may be coming to an end as Yahoo! is beginning to remove the veil and show its bias.

From a Yahoo! "news blog" this morning they make the claim that Newt Gingrich wants to change the mission of the Federal Reserve by removing their mandate to increase employment. They also claim in the same story that Gingrich wants to give wealthy financial industry tycoons like Warren Buffett a big tax cut.

On the surface, and in their reporting, these claims appear valid.

Except...

Until 1975, the only lawful mission of the FED was to control inflation. In '75 a Democrat congress expanded that mandate to include increasing employment. While that sounds good, it is not. The two are not compatible. No one can serve two masters and do a good job of both.

Gingrich wants the Fed to focus on inflation, as was their task since 1913. He understands that "money maneuvering" is not the way to increase employment, at least not in any permanent or meaningful way. This has been proved by the Fed's succession of "quantitative easing" programs aimed at spurring growth and jobs. Those measures haven't produced a strong and sustained recovery, yet it has cost our nation dearly. And in printing all that money, they set the stage for inflation - violating their first and most important mandate. As Gingrich states on his website, "The same policies that the Fed uses to try to force job and economic growth are also the mechanisms that most dangerously weaken the value of the dollar by promoting inflation..."

Yes, we want higher employment. But the task of achieving that should never be in the hands of the Fed.

As for giving big tax cuts to Buffett and his ilk, only fools fall for that line. Buffet does not pay taxes. No matter how high you tax the wealthiest folks, they will not pay those taxes. They do not have to. There are loopholes, and shelters. For example, Buffett only pays himself $1 a year. So go ahead, liberals, increase his tax from 35 cents to 50 cents. Do you really think he will mind?

Furthermore - and I have proved this many times over the years - only the poorest Americans pay taxes. That's because they are in no position to "pass them down the line" because there is no one below them.

When you increase the taxes for Bill Gates, he simply raises the cost of Windows products, and thereby has the consumer pay his taxes for him.

By increasing the tax on the wealthy, the only ones who pay the price are consumers - and usually the poorest ones. And when consumer prices increase because of higher taxes on the wealthy, consumers have less to spend, resulting in reduced demand. Reduced demand results in manufacturing cut-backs, which ultimately results in lay-offs and higher unemployment.

Hence, increasing taxes on the rich only results in higher prices, lower demand and higher unemployment. That has been proved over and over in the last several decades since Woodrow Wilson and the Democrat Congress illegally created the FED in 1913, and later when the government changed the Constitution to allow "progressive" taxation.

So, Gingrich is correct - the Fed needs to get out of the business of creating employment because they cannot do it. And taxing the rich will hurt the economy, not help it.

Obama and the Democrats keep saying Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize winning "trickle down theory" does not work. But it was used by Reagan and the American economy boomed for 20 years. The Dems say, "Yeah, but it finally burst." Yes, it did burst - but only because Dems again took the helm, passed overly-burdensome regulation, failed to reign in Fannie Mae (which Dems created), and the huge "dot-com" bubble burst and THAT is what caused the economic failure.

Free markets for the first 170 years of our nation, with limited regulations from the government is what built America into the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth, in record time. To say free markets do not work because government regulations strangled those markets is an absurd idea.

You live, you prosper, you grow. But if someone puts a noose around your neck and tightens it, or ties your hands and feet to restrict your free movement, you will wither and die.

And so will business, our economy and our nation.

/

Dems Say Obama Should Win Because He Is A Good Family Man...

2011-12-11T20:16:00.001-05:00

As I listen to the pundits who say Obama (or even Romney) should easily beat Gingrich because Obama is a good family man, all I can say is, "So what?"

I agree he is a apparently a good husband and father. So was Ozzie Nelson. Or even Ozzie Osbourne. But I wouldn't want them leading our country!

What we need is a strong leader, even if he is not a perfect family man. And I trust the American people will realize that when they enter the polling booth.

/

I Have Solved The Global Warming Problem...

2011-12-11T15:07:00.002-05:00

The United Nations would like for us to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by at least 30 billion pounds per year.

Liberals are actively seeking to have us accomplish this.

The average person exhales about 1000 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.

So, if we eliminate 30 million people, we can achieve that goal.

According to polls, there are roughly 30 million liberals in America.

Since liberals are the ones who want to reduce the CO2, if they drop dead - Voila! We're there.

/

Has Anyone Seen My Country? (more...)

2011-12-11T14:55:00.000-05:00

Has Anyone Seen My Country?

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

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

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

In the first 150 years, Americans were actually FREE. And it was that freedom and the strength it nurtures that made this the greatest, strongest, wealthiest nation the Earth has ever known.

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

That which made America strong and great is now outlawed, and the very traits that are destroying the European nations are being adopted here.

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

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

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

Where once we were like the crew of the Starship Enterprise, we are, unfortunately, being forced to become more like the Borg collective.

Has anyone seen my country lately?

/

Does This Happen To Anyone Else?...Please Read

2011-12-11T10:46:00.000-05:00

When I was 4 years old my mother gave me a 78 record of "Blow The Man Down", followed by "The Ballad of Davey Crockett". That was my introduction to music. It's also as far back as my memory takes me. And ever since that day, I cannot recall a time when there was not music in my head. Let me explain (if I can)...

Every time I awaken, there is already a song going through my mind, as though it had been playing all night as I slept. And every day it's a different song. This morning it was "Heart of My Heart" from the '40's I think. Yesterday it was "Joy To The World" by Three Dog Night - in the '70's. Every morning, without fail, a song is already playing like a radio that is permanently on, with no commercial interruptions.

And the music continues throughout the day, changing songs every now and again. The only time the music stops is when my mind is working on something. But when idle - music. Constant music. Thousands of different songs, spanning centuries (I sometimes "channel" Pachebel or Strauss).

I cannot stop it. As a child in school my teacher complained to my parents that I was constantly humming. I was not aware I was doing so.

I do not know where the music comes from, or why it afflicts me so. And I am curious to find out if anyone else "suffers" from this. Not that it is suffereing - I love music. But after 60 years of it, it can get frustrating when you cannot shut it off.

Naturally, I grew up wanting to be a singer - the next Elvis or Dion. And while I can carry a note pretty well, and even sang in a band for a few years, I was no Elvis.

I could understand being constantly plagued by music in my mind if I were destined to be a great singer or musician. But that was not my calling. So I just do not understand it.

But I would like to hear from others (if there are any) who suffer from similar symptoms, even if it is not music. Perhaps your mind plays with math all the time.

So, if you can relate, please post a comment below.

/

Why Our Eyes Face Forward...

2011-12-10T23:41:00.000-05:00

No, this is not a joke. In the animal kingdom (yes, Man is an animal), some critters have eyes on the sides of their head (horse, cow, rabbit etc.) and others have eyes on the front (man, owls, canines, cats etc.) But do you know why a creature has one and not the other?

If you look at the ones whose eyes are on the sides of the face you might notice that they are all herbivores, otherwise known as "prey". Having eyes on the side allows them to view much more of the environment, looking out for predators. It gives them a better chance at survival.

Carnivores and omnivores have eyes in the front because it provides depth perception necessary for hunting, and attacking. It's difficult to jump on prey if you can't judge its distance from you.

Just one more piece of proof that in nature, Man was intended to hunt and eat meat to at least some extent. It helps prove that vegetarianism is probably not the best way to go. We need to be what we were created to be - hunters.

Take that, PETA.

/

Why "Political Correctness" Is Morally Wrong...

2011-12-10T22:40:00.000-05:00

Political correctness was started by liberals for the express purpose of changing the conversation by changing the language. This accomplishes two liberal goals - it prevents the truth from being told, and it gives liberals a way to relieve themselves of any guilt.

Let's look at fat people. Liberals decided it was "kinder" and "more sensitive" to call fat people "weight challenged." Truth is, it is less kind and less sensitive. Think about it - if you call fatso "weight challenged" do you really think he does not know you are calling him fat, but hiding it in nice words so you don't have the guilt associated with calling him fat? He knows! And it insults him even more than if you had been up front and called him fat.

Political correctness is like shooting at people while you hide in the bushes.

Liberals are always looking for ways to escape responsibility, and do whatever they want without guilt. That is why liberals strongly support abortion - the politically correct word is "choice". They conveniently overlook the fact that it has nothing to do with choice, since the choices were already made - the choice to sleep with someone. The choice of not employing protection. So, abortion is nothing more than escaping the responsibility for choices already made. And again, political correct verbiage colors the issue - it is simply "choice" and no one can argue that people deserve a choice! It changes the language to change the conversation.

It is politically correct to not allow Christians to employ any public displays, in spite of the 2nd Amendment which clearly states we all have the right to practice our religions without government intervention or restriction. Liberals are using PC to weaken the power that Christianity holds, because it is Christianity that provides a moral fabric - one that many committed liberals want nothing to do with. As long as Christianity has a hold on America, drugs will never be legalized. Man-Boy Love will never be legalized. All the sins will become OK once Christianity is gone, which relieves them of guilt.

Christianity requires personal responsibility, and lays guilt upon those who do wrong. Most liberals want nothing to do with personal responsibility or guilt. That is why they use PC to weaken Christianity's hold on America.

Political correctness keeps people from telling the truth. Mitt Romney wants to use PC to make sure he does not offend the Palestinians. Newt Gingrich says "to Hell with PC - let's tell the world that Palestinians are terrorists and an invented people (which they are, in fact). But all the establishment GOP, the liberals and the media think Gingrich said a bad thing - they have all been conned by liberals into believing PC is good, truth bad.

Reagan believed PC was wrong, truth good. Against all advice from all sides, he called Russia an "evil empire" and told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". Had he chosen the PC manners of Romney or any of the others, the wall would still be standing.

Political correctness is a sign of weakness and always morally wrong. Always. Because it is diametrically opposed to MORAL correctness.

/

A Valid Question For Anyone Who Supports The "Occupy" Protesters...

2011-12-09T09:49:00.000-05:00

Here is the real question that I would ask of any "Occupy Wall Street" supporter, who believe some people have too much wealth.

Let's say a person builds a certain item. It costs him $95 to manufacture, market and ship the item. Do you believe it is too much for him to ask and deserve a $5 profit for all his work and trouble?

Sane people would say a 5% profit is more than reasonable.

Now let's say his product is so useful and popular that he sells 10 million of those things (think Apple iPad). In the process, and directly because of his efforts and investment, he has to hire 1000 people to produce those items. Since his cost is $95 per unit, that means he is directly responsible for pumping $950 million into the economy for salaries, inventory, marketing, shipping etc. And he still gets $5 per unit. But that $5 per unit now comes to $50 million.

NOW you suddenly have a problem with him. But why? He has invested everything he has. He has worked hard. He has provided jobs for 1000 families. He pumps $950 million into the economy. And he is still only earning the same 5% he did in the beginning. Meanwhile, let us not forget that he has sold 10 million items - which means 10 million people now have a useful item they did not have before. All because of him. Thank GOD for him, and those like him!

And you begrudge him his profit!

And now for one last question - if we take away his right to earn that much, what are the odds he would have designed, built and marketed the first one? What are the odds he would have hired 1000 people, or pumped $950 million into the economy. If Steve Jobs could not hope to become wealthy, what are the odds we would have the iPad or iPhone today? I'll tell you the odds - about zero. No one will go to that much trouble, and risk their capital and sanity just to make a modest income that is no different from the income they could earn working in some factory.

If the world were to operate the way "Occupy" people and socialists want, the world simply would grind to a halt. It happened in the USSR. It is happening in the socialist nations of Europe as you read this.

One thing the "occupy" folks fail to acknowledge - it is "wealth" that is the incentive for progress, for innovation, for research and development. It is the promise of wealth that causes some to risk everything. Without that incentive, no one would put in the resources or effort. And there would be no iPads, smartphones or computers. There would never have been automobiles, airplanes or electric lights. All those things required risk, effort and capital. And no one would invest those things just to achieve a mediocre income. The short take -- If Bill is going to end up with everything that Joe has, why would Bill try harder. Why risk your capital, home, work, family etc. when you know that you will not get anything more for it - you will still have the same as Joe, the guy who is camping out in a park on Wall Street.

If the "occupy" bunch want to have what the so-called "1%" have, all they have to do is do what the 1%-ers have done. Risk everything you have, work a hundred ours a week, work harder and think smarter than most people, and drive yourselves nuts trying to beat your way to the top.

Anyone not willing to do that does not DESERVE to have what the 1%-ers have. And you won't get it by camping out in tents in a public park for months, making a mess, doing drugs and just complaining.

/

The Way Romney Spins, You'd Think He Was A Liberal. Examples...

2011-12-07T22:33:00.000-05:00

I always suspected Mitt Romney was a liberal in disguise, having come from being governor of the bluest state. And now that he is resorting to spinning the truth out of shape just like liberals do, his colors are showing. Here are just two of the latest examples...

Newt Gingrich says he wants to find a way to legalize - without citizenship - those illegals who have been here a long, long time, have raised their families here and have been good neighbors. That represents maybe one million folks. But today Romney stated that Gingrich "wants to legalize all 11 million illegals." And that is obviously a blatant lie - er, spin.

Newt also stated clearly that he thought some teens from poorer families might benefit from being given jobs as school janitors, to develop a work ethic, and earn them some money. I, myself, was assistant school janitor when I was 14 and it helped pay my way into college.

But Romney stated that Gingrich "wants to violate child labor laws." Again, liberal spinmeister crap. It is perfectly legal for young teens to work, provided they have permission (work papers) to insure it will not interfere with family or school. Romney purposely - and deceitfully - wants people to think Gingrich wants to force child labor of little children.

Here is the summary, folks, as I see it --- if a candidate has to spin, or be deceitful in order to earn votes, that candidate should not be getting any votes at all - and certainly will not get mine. I'm tired of having a liar in the White House.

/

What The Pundits Just Don't Understand About Gingrich...

2011-12-06T23:17:00.000-05:00

It seems none of the pundits are capable of understanding the rapid rise of Gingrich, and it leaves them all scratching their (empty) heads. So, for those that may get wind of this blog, I'll try to explain it in terms that even pundits can comprehend.

Congress has the lowest approval rating in history - BOTH parties. The People do not like the politicians in Congress. That said, it is common knowledge that neither party in Congress has any love for Gingrich. That tells the People that maybe Gingrich is the man they are looking for. It's kinda like that old saw about "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The People dislike Congress. Congress dislikes Gingrich. Hence, Gingrich is the guy they need to beat Congress into line (because that is what it will take).

So, when either party of Washington insiders trashes Gingrich, it actually HELPS him

It shows that Gingrich, though he knows his way around D.C., is still an outsider, because he is an outsider politically.

And that is what the folks are looking for - an outsider who has been inside long enough to know how it works and can get in there and repair some of the damage.

The fact that he is also the only one who can out-debate Obama doesn't hurt, either.

/

Whose Awkward Moment Is This?..

2011-12-06T11:20:00.000-05:00

Michele Bachmann was left speechless after an encounter with a young 8 year old activist named Elija.

"My mommy's gay but she doesn't need fixing," Elijah said to Bachmann, after some coaxing from his mother.

Then HuffPost goes on to claim this was an "awkward moment" for Bachmann. If you ask me, it was Elijah's mom, exploiting her own child who was having an awkward moment. Joined by the awkward moment of HuffPost/AOL for slanting the story in such a biased way.

/

Unemployment Rate Drops To 8.6% - NOT! Here's the truth...

2011-12-02T09:12:00.001-05:00

Today the administration pointed out that the unemployment rate in November dropped to 8.6%. But did it?

Until the 1970's, the government counted all unemployed people in their calculation to determine unemployment rate. But under Carter, when the unemployment rate got out of control, it was decided to only count those who were collecting unemployment benefits. If a person was unemployed but was no longer collecting, that person would not be counted.

And that is how things are done to this day.

So, when the government says the unemployment rate has gone down, it is more likely that it actually went up, as people fall off the "collecting" list.

Also, this is the season where businesses hire a lot of temp help for the holidays. Even though those jobs will end in a month or two, the government still counts them, which also fraudulently reduces the unemployment figures.

I'm afraid the unemployment rate as stated by the government is just meaningless BS designed to help politicians paint a rosier picture. The true unemployment rate today is estimated at over 17%.

/

Do We REALLY Need A Businessman As President? Think about this...

2011-12-02T08:47:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney, and most pundits, claim that Romney is the best GOP candidate because he is a businessman, and therefore knows how to create the jobs we need. But I have just one question...

How does a President, who does not have the authoritarian position of a CEO, go about creating jobs?

Look, businesses already know how to create jobs, and if the government will get out of their way, they will create all the jobs we need. We do not need a businessman President for that. What we need in a President is someone who knows enough about the lawmaking body to be able to direct Congress in getting out of the way of business.

No, we do not need a businessman in the Oval Office. We need a true conservative (which Romney is not) who will work with Congress to remove the government as an obstacle to businessmen who can and would create jobs.

Having looked over all the candidates carefully, only two stand out as persons who would reduce government interference - and knows HOW to do that - Gingrich and Santorum. Of the two, I believe only one has the legislative power and strength to succeed - Gingrich.

No, I do not like Newt's "smarter-than-thou" attitude. But I can put up with attitude if he will do what needs to be done! Besides, it is that very attitude that would benefit America in foreign affairs.

/

Tim Geithner & Ben Bernanke - Looting America...

2011-11-29T08:01:00.001-05:00

Ben Bernanke (Fed chairman) and Tim Geithner (Treasury Secretary) gave banks a secret bailout of $7 TRILLION, without Congressional approval or oversight. And much of that money went to European banks, to help the European economy.

Those people should be arrested and imprisoned for life.

Think about this - if that money had been given to American citizens, each and every person - man, woman and child - would receive about $25,000. That's $100,000 for a family of four. Now think about that - they would spend that money. They would buy things - LOTS of things. And companies would have to hire millions of people in order to produce those "things". The GDP would go through the roof. And the debt would shrink.

But no! Those lying, theiving clowns with their liberal, socialist agenda preferred to redistribute America's wealth to the bankers, and to Europe. They want we, the taxpayers, to pay for the regrowth of Europe and other foreign nations, to "level the playing field". Which is liberal-speak for taking wealth away from America and giving it to some Third World country. Dragging America down while building others up.

The only way to level the playing field is if the rich nations become poorer. Is that really what we want for America? Do we really want to have less just so others can have more at our expense?

Socialist liberals say yes. I say "NO"!

/

Don't Listen To What They Say - Watch What They DO!...

2011-11-29T07:41:00.000-05:00

It never ceases to amaze me that so many Republicans allow Democrats to lead them astray. I'm talking about those Republicans who BELIEVE Democrats when they say they would be happy to have Gingrich as the nominee because THEY think Romney would beat Obama.

BULL! They do not believe any such thing. One of the first tenets of the Democrat play book is to use reverse psychology. They know full well that if enough of them say Gingrich would be easy to beat, a lot of Republicans will think they are being sincere, and would then vote for Romney because they don't want to vote for someone who is supposedly easy to beat.

In other words, folks - the Democrats are deathly afraid of Gingrich and would rather run against Romney. They know Obama cannot stand against Gingrich in a debate. They know Obama would have a field day with all of Romney's flip-flops, and RomneyCare. And they have seen Romney get flustered more than once in the Republican debates.

And they saw Gingrich was solid, and had the right answers. They saw Gingrich will not allow the media or the Democrats to control the conversation. They saw he actually has solutions and that he is rising rapidly in the polls as people catch on to those solutions.

Yes, the Democrats know Gingrich can pummel Obama in the debates and election. So they try to convince Republicans to vote for Romney in the primaries. And they know the best way to do that is to convince Republicans that Romney would be the bigger threat.

I know - you say Gingrich has too much "baggage". But does he, really? Or is that another ploy to convince Repubs to abandon Gingrich?

Yes, Gingrich cheated on his wife 15 years ago and divorced her to marry his mistress. But most fair-minded people realize that WAS 15 years ago. Since then, Gingrich has matured, connected with a strong faith in God and has spent years seeking forgiveness. His actions of the last 15 years show that. And most people can forgive if a person is truly repentent.

And the money he got from Freddie Mac? He was a civilian at the time. Freddie Mac offered to pay him for consulting services. Most people understand that, when someone offers to pay you well for your services, it's fair to accept. Imagine if lawyers refused to represent the guilty! Their job is to represent the accused, regardless of guilt. It's the same here - Gingrich did not have to agree with Freddie Mac in order to provide services to them. And in no case was their any lobbying. They offered to pay for his services, and he accepted the job.

And his stance on immigration? Contrary to what some are wrongly saying, he is not proposing blanket amnesty, nor a path to citizenship. He has made that clear, but pundits who want Romney to win the primaries (both Dems and Repubs) are muddying up the water and trying to convince us that Gingrich wants amnesty and citizenship for illegals, which is blatantly false. He stated he wants a fence, wants the National Guard on the border and wants employers to be prosecuted for knowingly hiring illegals. But he also wants America to be compassionate when it comes to those who have been here a long time, whose kids are citizens and have been educated here. If they have a long history of being good people, the kind we want as neighbors and friends, then we should cut them some slack and make their residency legal - no, not citizenship, but a "guest worker" program. After all, Americans are generally fair, and it would be fair to treat good people with compassion. The rest would face deportation.

No, I don't think Gingrich has baggage that will do him any harm among the fair-minded, informed folks.

But I trust the Democrats will do their best to tear Gingrich down - and bear in mind, they only do that to people they view as a real threat to the liberal agenda.

When Democrats put more effort into tearing down Gingrich than Romney, THAT tells the real story. Don't listen to what they say - watch what they DO!

/

Is Gingrich Advocating Amnesty? Not Really - And Here's Why...

2011-11-24T09:09:00.001-05:00

When most folks think "amnesty" they are thinking a "path to citizenship." But Newt Gingrinch specifically stated there would be no path to citizenship for those who came here illegally. However, if they have been here a long time, have kept their noses clean, raised a family etc., they would have the opportunity to be classed as legally here - a permanent visa, so to speak. But not citizenship.

In other words, it seems Newt took a page from my blog from last year. I had suggested that, since we cannot (and should not) deport all illegals as it could break up families, we should, instead, make the most of what we have - when life gives ya lemons, make lemonade.

So...

If a person has been here at least 5 years, has been employed and has not committed any crimes (other than illegally entering the country), we should offer that person a choice - if they eventually want citizenship, they must go home and return legally, as that is the ONLY path to citizenship. But if they can live without citizenship and want to stay to give a better future to their family without the benefits of citizenship, they can choose to stay on a permanent visa (which can be revoked for criminal acts). Anyone choosing the latter would never be permitted to apply for citizenship - they made their choices. Their children, however, if brought here as minors would be apply to apply for citizenship upon reaching maturity.

Anyone choosing the latter would receive a special I.D. that they can use to procure a driver's license, etc. However, EVERY piece of identification issued to a non-citizen would be visibly different from that of citizens - perhaps a special color. This would preclude them from being able to vote. Any non-citizen who is caught using any ID that is not so colored or easily defined would immediately lose their visa and be deported.

Non-citizens who desire a permanent visa must adhere to certain conditions - for example, they must remain employed, and not be involved in anything criminal.

I think this is pretty much what Gingrich is advocating. If someone is an honest, productive resident (though not a citizen), and they have been here a long time, raised a family and been a "good neighbor", why on Earth would we WANT to deport them?

That is what Gingrich said. And, frankly, as conservative as I am, I agree. I would also add that any illegal immigrant who volunteers for active duty and serves this country faithfully and well should be placed on a "short list" for a path to citizenship.

I'm just sayin'...

/

Why "Redistribution Of Wealth" Would Never Work...

2011-11-19T08:45:00.001-05:00

The "Occupy Wall Street" protesters (and most liberals and Democrats) want "income equality" - a redistribution of wealth. What they apparently are not bright enough to comprehend is that it could never work.

For the sake of argument, let's say we redistribute all the wealth - everyone has the same amount of bucks. How long do you think it would be before the previously rich are rich once again, and the previously poor are poor once again?

The fact is, most of the poor and low income folks are in that predicament not because of a lack of money, but because of a lack of a) education, b) know-how, c) ambition, and d) desire.

The poor do not know how to make money or create wealth - they only know how to spend it. Give a broke, homeless guy $100 and odds are 99.9% that he will be broke within 2-3 days. He will spend the money, and that $100 will find its way into the hands of people who provide goods and services (the "rich").

What needs to be redistributed is not the wealth, but the ability to create it. If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime.

The Occupy bunch only want to be given a fish. They have no interest in earning it, nor in cultivating an ability to do so. They will simply eat the fish, throw the bones and leavings on the ground and extend their hand for yet another fish. Any seal can do that.

As Jesus illustrated in his parable of the talents, any person who does not use what he already has to increase his own wealth deserves no wealth.

/

Barney Frank Makes Outrageous Claim About Fannie Mae...

2011-11-18T20:47:00.001-05:00

Senator Barney Frank today said that Republicans are responsible for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle - you know, the stuff that brought down the economy.

I think Mr. Frank needs his head examined - or at the very least, he needs a basic history lesson.

1) Fannie Mae was created by FDR (D) in 1938

2) LBJ (D) privatized Fannie Mae in 1968

3) Jimmy Carter (D) signed the Community Reinvestment Act which literally forced banks to make risky loans to people of limited means and poor credit. Of course, these loans were transferred to Fannie & Freddie

4) Bill Clinton (D) signed the Bliley Bill in 1998 which reinforced the Community Reinvestment Act by mandating that banks had to make at least 50% of all loans to low income/bad credit folks

5) Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D) were in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Just months before they went broke, Frank stated on the record that Fannie & Freddie were sound and not in need of the regulation proposed by Republicans.

If you are observant, you might have noticed that everything about Fannie & Freddie, from its inception until this very day, has been pushed by Democrats.

And true to the form of liberals who can't open their mouths without spinning, Frank says Republicans are responsible.

Hey, Massachussetts - when are you going to dump that stupid bum and elect a Senator worthy of representing you?

/

"Patriotic Millionaires" - NOT!

2011-11-18T16:32:00.000-05:00

A group calling itself the Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength traveled to Capitol Hill during the week of Nov. 14 to ask Congress to raise their taxes.

Sounds patriotic, eh?

But when reporter Michelle Fields approached each with the IRS donation form, and asked them to make a donation to the I.R.S. so they could "lead by example", each and every one of those phony "patriotic millionaires" refused to pony up a dime. Not a one!

Here's the REAL story - each one of those phony hypocites knows that even if Congress raises taxes on the wealthy, THEY will still avoid taxes, as they usually do, because of all the loopholes. So, they don't want to pay Uncle Sam any more money, not by a long shot. What they DO want to do is push the socialist/progressive agenda that they all ascribe to.

Folks, it's not about taxes. It's about "fundamentally changing" America. And we can see what that is doing to us.

/

HuffPost/AOL Really Shows Its Far-Left Bias...

2011-11-17T22:15:00.001-05:00

Today on HuffPost/AOL they ran a story about a young girl suspended from school for wearing a sweatshirt with the Confederate flag. At the end of the story, they had a ridiculously biased poll, as follows - see if you can find what is wrong with it:

"Is this a case of ignorance or a mother defending her daughter's racism under the guise of the first amendment?

1) Just a case of ignorance. But she needs brush up on her history

2) It's totally racist and the mother should know better."

If you noticed that choosing EITHER response results in making the mother out to be wrong, congrats. Basically, HuffPost, in their own ignorance and arrogance have already assumed that everyone believes the mother was wrong in allowing her daughter to wear the sweats. They seem to think that the only question to be resolved is whether or not the mother was either ignorant or racist.

Here's a clue for ya, HuffPost - maybe she is neither. Perhaps YOUR insistence that she is wrong makes YOU ignorant and/or racist.

While some uneducated, or otherwise thin-skinned people may believe that the Confederate flag is somehow "evil", most educated and more tolerant folks understand it is nothing more than a symbol of a part of our history. And history, if we do not wish to repeat it, must be remembered.

Frankly, I think it is incredibly ignorant to think that ANY symbol should be banned as being "evil". For example, there are many who believe the swastika should never again be represented because it is associated with Hitler. But most of those people are not aware that Hitler "stole" the symbol - before he (mis)used it, the swastika was a symbol of good fortune in several cultures for over a thousand years - even the Hopi Indians used that symbol as good luck. I used to have a pre-war American token that had the swastika, and in each "cup" was yet another good luck symbol - a 4 leaf clover, a horseshoe, a wishbone and one other I do not recall. The theory behind it was that no matter which way it turned, the good fortune would never pour out.

So, if the swastika is evil because Hitler used it, by the same token it is good because the Hopi's and others used it.

The point is - it's ONLY A SYMBOL. The ONLY meaning any symbol has is the meaning each of us gives to it. And if you allow ANY symbol to have that kind of power over you, you may as well roll over and croak, because you have no control over your own life.

What if, in the future, some evil despot such as Hitler were to adopt the cross as his symbol. Should we then ban it from ever being represented again, simply because some idiot misused it? Lest we forget - there are already those who truly believe the Cross is a symbol of evil and ignorance, and should be banned. Bill Maher comes to mind. What do you suppose would happen if someday the majority of folks begin to think like Maher? You guessed it - the cross would be banned.
Ironic how many people who think it stupid to believe in an unseen God do not think it stupid to believe a symbol has power.

But I digress. The real tragedy here is that there are people like those at the Huffington Post who actually believe their own crap, and think that it is somehow "racist" to wear a flag - any flag.
Just for the record, HuffPost - slavery was not the only issue behind the attempted secession of the south. It was much more complicated than that and had been brewing for decades. But then, I don't expect you to know that - or even care. After all, you have an agenda to push.

/

The Super Committee Farce

2011-11-16T17:10:00.000-05:00

Here's a little tidbit that most Americans do not know - if Congress does NOTHING at all on the debt, it will automatically grow by another $9 trillion in the next 10 years. That is the level of growth.

Now, the Super Committee is trying (?) to find ways to "cut" $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, even if they succeed, the debt will still GROW by another $8 trillion.

Um -- hey Congress, that is not "cutting spending". That's cutting GROWTH of spending.

In order to cut spending by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, we actually have to cut $9 trillion - in other words, we have to freeze growth for 10 years so nothing more is added to the debt, PLUS cut $1.2 trillion.

Unless we do that, we are doing nothing.

To put this in lay terms, it's like going on a diet. If you are consistently increasing your caloric intake by a 100,000 calories a year, you will gain about 50 pounds. If you then promise to "cut" your intake by by 10,000 calories, you would STILL be increasing intake by 90,000, and would still pack on another 45 pounds.

If you want to actually LOSE weight, you have to give up the increases altogether, PLUS cut some calories.

Got it?

/

Please Remind Me Why We Need Unions?

2011-11-16T09:28:00.000-05:00

Back at the turn of the 20th century, businesses would often take undue advantage of workers, offering low wages, no benefits and even the use of child labor. To protect themselves from such abuses, workers began to form unions. A good thing.

At first.

Today, unions have trespassed far beyond the bounds of preventing abuse of the worker, and is now guilty of abusing the businesses - and dues payers and tax payers.

Today, we have laws that prevent too-low wages. We have laws to prevent child labor. We have laws that, for all intents and purposes do what the unions were created to do. So, now that we have those laws protecting laborers and preventing abuse, exactly WHY do we still need unions, and why do we allow them to control us all, and steal our wealth?

Here is just one example: In Michigan the SEIU (union) pressured the Democratic legislature to pass a law that requires special needs kids to pay union dues - to the tune of $6 million a year. The state checks issued to special needs families to help support special needs kids are being automatically deducted of union dues. Why? What benefit is the union providing to these kids? And why should anyone too young to even work be required to pay union dues?

$6,000,000 that was supposed to help special needs kids is ending up in union coffers each year. And that is only one, small example of union abuse in just one state!

If there is a legitimate need for unions today, I fail to see what it is. They have become highwaymen, robbing everyone - businesses, taxpayers and dues payers alike - to fulfill their own agenda of stuffing themselves with our money while turning America into a socialist state.

It is time to break up and ban ALL unions. If workers need protection, that is the job of Congress to provide those protections, as they have done.

/

Do Nothing Congress? Really? An Honest Look...

2011-11-16T09:04:00.001-05:00

President Obama and the Democrats are campaigning heavily on the "do nothing Congress" platform. The liberal media (which is 87% of all media) are playing the same tune, trying to convince the public that the President is doing all the right things, but "Congress" won't do their part - mainly because of those darned Republicans who block everything.

But let's take an honest look for a change.

The Republican controlled house has passed 22 bills - including budgets and bills to help businesses create jobs - this year. Those bills have been sent to the Democrat controlled Senate. Where they sit, while the crickets chirp. Not one of those bills was even put to the floor for a vote. In fact, in the three plus years the Democrats have controlled the Senate, they have not even passed a single budget. Not one.

Meanwhile, the Republican controlled house keeps trying to get things done. And all the while the Democrats in the Senate, led by Sir Harry Reid, sit on their thumbs, making believe that they are seriously trying to get things done.

So the fact is, we do not have a "do nothing Congress". What we have is a "do nothing Senate". We should not be blaming everyone for the refusal of the few to let things get done. And we certainly should not let the President, the Democrats or the media to lie to us about who is responsible for the gridlock.

The Republicans are passing bills. The Democrats are not. And that is a fact you will never hear in the "mainstream media". Go to the Congressional Record and see for yourself.

If we, the people want our government to get back to work and do the right thing by us, what we really need to do is replace those who are responsible for inaction - the Democrat Senate and the President. And if you REALLY want more honesty being reported so you actually have the facts, each of us should boycott EVERY branch of the mainstream media. Don't by the liberal newspapers, or watch the liberal news stations. Do that, and they will be forced to become more honest and objective, or go bankrupt. Then, and only then will Americans be able to make the best decisions, because then the decisions will be based on truth, and not political spin.

/

A Timely Message That Bears Repeating --- Often...

2011-11-15T11:16:00.000-05:00

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina).. Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'YE SHALL REAP WHAT YE SOWETH.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussionof God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks

If you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
/

A New Huffington Post/AOL Lie Exposed...

2011-11-14T19:00:00.000-05:00

Today the HuffPost ran a story with the headline, "New Witness In Cain Controversy." However, the "witness" is not even close to having witnessed anything at all. In fact, the story later states, "Later that year, Zuckerman said, Bialek told him that Cain inappropriately touched her when, at Zuckerman's suggestion, she met him in Washington to seek employment help."

So, HuffPost, along with the ambulance-chasing Gloria Allred both seem to think that someone who was not there, and could not have witnessed anything, is somehow a "witness".

Here is the real truth behind this liberal attempt to smear a conservative - Allred knows the accusation is phony, but does not care. She only wants to discredit someone that liberals view as a threat - just as she did with Meg Whitman. By bringing this non-witness out, she is merely attempting to drag this non-story out for as long as she can, knowing that, eventually, if she drips and drabs it, people will begin to believe it.

The longer she can keep it - and herself - in the news, the better she likes it.

/

Is Mitt Romney The John McCain of 2012?...

2011-11-11T21:25:00.000-05:00

Every day I hear Democrat pundits and strategists telling everyone that Romney would be the Republicans' best bet to beat Obama. In fact, they push it to the extreme, and belittle every other Republican candidate. It's as if the are actually rooting for Romney to win the Republican primary.

They are.

The Democrats fully understand that Obama would easily beat Romney in the general election, regardless of what the polls say, because Obama would tear Romney apart in debates. He would thank Romney for helping design ObamaCare. He would point out that Romney was pro-choice until he decided he could win votes by becoming pro-life. And it has not escaped Obama's attention that no matter what has transpired, Romney's poll numbers have never varied from the low to mid 20's. No matter what. And that makes Romney the John McCain of 2012 - a far-too-moderate who cannot galvanize the conservatives. A RiNO (Republican in Name Only).

Remember - Romney was governor of the bluest of all states. A Republican doesn't get elected in Kennedy country unless he is Democrat lite, and willing to flip-flop at the toss of a voting lever.

The horror of it is that too many Republican pundits BELIEVE what the Democrat pundits are saying, and rally around Romney as though he were the second coming of Reagan. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hey Republicans, get your heads outta your butts and stop believing what the Democrat pundits are pushing. If Romney wins the primary, Obama will be president for 4 more years.

So, who should Republicans consider? Far be it from me to pick one out of the crowd. I just know who I think would be most apt to a) beat Obama in any and all debates, b) have solutions for fixing what's wrong, and c) has demonstrated enough leadership ability to make it happen. OK, so he has baggage from 15 years ago, but if he can mend this country, I really don't give a damn if he used to be a womanizer. Hell, if he'll fix things, I'd vote for Attilla the Hun. Time enough to seek out a "perfect" person after we get things back on track.

And, thankfully, recent polls indicate that more and more voters are starting to catch on. A year ago I wrote that it would be unwise to write Gingrich off. And last month when everyone was saying he was toast, I wrote that he was apt to be the "last man standing."

And he may well be. OK, so he's not perfect. But he has 10 times the chance of beating Obama than Romney has. And you know where he stands.

/

Proof That "Social Justice" Is A Threat To Us All...

2011-11-10T20:54:00.000-05:00

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's "social justice" worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan"..

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A....
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they did not bother to study.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F, because no one studied.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward and incentive away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there is a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

Bank of America Has A New Way To Screw Unemployed...

2011-11-10T12:43:00.000-05:00

Bank of America has yet another sneaky, insidious way to put the screws to people - this time, the unemployed.

You see, BofA has a contract with the government in many states, whereby a person's unemployment benefits are deposited into the bank, and the person gets a prepaid debit card.

And this is where it gets rotten...

To draw their own money out, an unemployed person must actually visit a BofA branch, or they can use an ATM.

And therein lies the problem - most small communities do not have a BofA branch, so the unemployed must use ATM's - and BofA charges a fee for using any non-BofA ATM.

If you are unemployed, live in a rural community that does not have a BofA branch or a BofA ATM, then you pay heavy fees to get your unemployment benefits.

Yes, the person could drive to a city that has BofA, but the gas for that would eat even more heavily into their already-too-small benefits.

For many years BofA, CitiBank and other large banking institutions have been mercilessly raping the public financially. And in this case, they are aided by the government, which awards these contracts.

When America was founded, banks were not even allowed to operate here. The founders knew they were dangerous to a person's wealth.

Pretty smart guys, those Founding Fathers.

/

Do we now have Obama's "civilian security force"?

2011-11-09T12:05:00.000-05:00

On July 17, 2008, while campaigning, Mr. Obama stated that he intended to establish a "civilian national security force", a civilian army.

I look at the Occupy Wall Street mobs all over the country and the union mobs in Wisconsin, Ohio and Washington state and it appears he has done just that.

This is right out of Saul Alinski's book, and the writings of Karl Marx.

/

Where vegans are going wrong...

2011-11-07T09:18:00.000-05:00

While I readily admit to being a "meat & potatoes" man, I do understand the health benefits of fruits and veggies, and I try to consume my share. But I have a real problem with vegetarians who seem to think everyone should adhere to THEIR diet. Mainly because "their" diet is unnatural. Here's why...

If we travel space, we will never find a planet similar to Earth where there is only vegetation and no animals. Vegetation breathes carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen. Without animals to produce carbon dioxide, eventually the plants would use up all CO2 and become extinct. Plants need animals as much as animals need plants.

So, imagine for a moment that you are the "intelligent design" behind all of this, here on Earth. What would you do to create a balance?

First, you would create plant life, without which a planet would remain forever barren. But unless you do something to prevent excessive proliferation, plants would, as described earlier, use up all the CO2 and die off. So, as a thinking person, you introduce herbivores - plant-eating animals. This not only prevents over-proliferation of plants, but the animals also convert oxygen to CO2, so the plants will have an endless supply. But now you have a new problem - unless you figure a way to prevent over-proliferation of herbivores, they will become so plentiful that they would consume all vegetation. Vegetation becomes extinct, and so do the herbivores that need vegeation for food.

What to do?

You introduce carnivores - meat eaters. Now you have plant life, in balance and under control; herbivores in balance and under control, and things are balancing. But what keeps carnivores under control? Frankly, it is availability of food.

If too many carnivores are born, they consume too many herbivores. As herbivores become less readily available, the carnivores start to die off from starvation. This creates the "cycle" often seen in nature - every few years there is an abundance of rabbits. This leads to an abundance of predators, which leads to a shortage of rabbits, which leads to a shortage of predators. The new shortgage of predators allows more rabbits to mature and reproduce, causing a new glut of rabbits, and the cycle goes on.

So, as intelligent designer, you would create plants, plant-eaters and meat eaters, to keep everything in balance.

Man, by design, is an omnivore - we are designed to eat both plants and animals. This is easy to see just by looking in the mirror and smiling. Nature gives each animal the teeth it needs for the diet it is supposed to have. Man has both kinds of teeth - molars, as well as canines. Mother Nature (or God) says we are supposed to consume a diet of both meat and vegeatables.

Vegetarians say we should eliminate meat from our diets. Assuming Mankind could do so and still achieve optimal health, what about the unintended consequences? If we no longer consume meat several really bad things would happen, some of which would cause our own extinction.

First, millions of people would loose their jobs - anyone who raises, processes or sells any meat items. Next, vegetables, themselves would suffer, as roughly 90% of real fertilizer would disappear - livestock currently produces the fertilizer necessary to grow vegeatables. No livestock means no fertilizer, which means no veggies.

And we also face the dilemma of a serious reduction of CO2. Livestock produces much of the CO2 that plants require in order to breathe. If plants start to die off due to a lack of CO2, WE start to die off, because it is those plants that produce the oxygen we need, as well as the food we require.

So, here is the short take why Man should consume both meat and plants - SURVIVAL. We cannot survive if nature loses its balance, which is what would happen if we stop consuming meat.

As a final note, it is precisely nature's well-thought-out balance that helps proves the existence of "intelligent design". Could a dummy figure all that out? If not, then what are the odds that it all happened by "chance"?

/

Gotta Give Huffington Post Credit - For Idiocy...

2011-11-05T21:58:00.001-04:00

Earlier this week HuffPost/AOL ran a story that praised Nancy Pelosi for saying "Our unemployment rate is 9%, but if not for what Obama has done, it would be 15%."

And today they follow up with a story that says, "The jobs crisis has left so many people out of work for so long that most of America's unemployed are no longer receiving unemployment benefits." Of course, if they do not collect benefits, they are no longer counted in the government unemployment figures.

What this means is, our actual unemployment rate is closer to 20% than 9% - and well above the 15% Pelosi said it "would be" if not for Obama.

I don't blame liberal Democrats for spinning, because without spin they can't get elected. But I think we should draw the line at outright lying - a trait for which Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Barack Obama are becoming famous for.

/

The song most radio stations are banning...

2011-11-05T16:55:00.000-04:00

The following song, sung in Las Vegas at a Diamond Rio concert, is a wonderful piece. Unfortunately, you are unlikely to hear it on any radio station because it is "politically incorrect."

Give it a listen - and then either tell your friends about this (or retweet it), or copy it and email it to everyone you know.

This song NEEDS to be heard.

Bill

/

Here is an intriguing question for thinking people to dwell upon...

2011-11-05T09:31:00.000-04:00

While this question may seem superfluous, please understand that it is relevant to today, as you will see below.

So here's the situation, and the question:

You and your friends do not like, or approve of, a certain activity being performed by ACME Company, so you pressure your lawmakers to make it illegal. As it turns out, making it illegal results in unintended consequences that hurt you. Who do you blame?

If you blame ACME, note that ACME is only doing what was ordered by the lawmakers. If you blame the lawmakers, bear in mind they only did what you and your friends pressured them into. So, if you are a person who believes in personal responsibility, you would have to blame yourself and your friends - you instigated everything.

Fast forward to Occupy Wall Street and their uninformed cronies.

They are angry at BANKS and WALL STREET and blame them for their economic troubles. But let's look at it honestly...

STEP 1: In the 1970's, liberal activists and community organizers (most notably ACORN) forced lawmakers to enact the Community Reinvestment Act, signed by Jimmy Carter. This law literally forced banks to make loans to people who were poor credit risks. It was "social justice".

STEP 2: In 1998 Bill Clinton signed the Bliley Bill, which literally ordered banks to issue at least 50% of all mortgages and loans to people with poor credit and little income. Again, this was because liberals wanted the poor to have the same as the rich. "Social Justice." The problem, of course, is that the poor could not afford to pay for it.

STEP 3: Banks are in business to make money. That is their only purpose. No one goes into business saying, "Gee, let's lose money!". But being forced to make risky loans placed banks in a position to lose a lot of money, since many of those low income borrowers would default. Now, as any business knows, you can reduce your overall risk by "bundling". In other words, if you hold one risky mortgage and it defaults, you lose 100%. But if you hold 100 of them, and ten default, you only lose 10%. So, to protect themselves, they turned those mortgages over to Fannie Mae to be bundled, creating "derivatives" that investors on Wall Street could invest in.

STEP 4: Eventually, the house of cards collapses, and too many of those risky loans are going into default, and foreclosures rise dramatically. The economy collapses.

Instead of going back to the beginning to find what really caused it, liberal activists had to find a scapegoat to blame, since they did not want to blame their "social justice" Driven by the activists, both lawmakers and the folks only went back one or two steps, and blamed Wall Street and the banks.

But as we saw in the earlier scenario, Wall Street and banks were only doing what they are supposed to do, and required to do by law. So, if you go back a third step you would blame lawmakers - had they not passed the Bliley Bill and the Community Reinvestment Acts, this could not have happened, because those risky loans would never have been made.

But we really need to go back to the first step - where liberal community organizers pressured Congress into passing those laws. THEY are the real culprits here. Had the commu nity organizers not forced Congress into their warped sense of "social justice", none of this would have happened. None of it.

So, now we have these same idiot "social justice" liberals at Occupy Wall Street who are so misinformed and downright ignorant that they are holding Wall Street and Banks responsible for what THEY, THEMSELVES caused. It was they, and those like them that forced lawmakers to pass the laws that forced banks to make risky loans, which forced banks and Wall Street to bundle them, which in turn helped collapse the House Of Cards created by FDR (when he created Fannie Mae, who was, after all, the "bundler" of record).

Wall Street is responsible only to the extent that they have, like all businesses, one reason to exist - making profits. That is the very nature of business. No one would go into business to lose money.

Banks are responsible only to the extent that, by nature, they had to protect themselves from defaults.

Lawmakers are responsible only to the extent that they are driven by the next election, and not by what is good for America.

But ultimately, it is the people who caused it all - those liberal community organizers and rabble-rousers like ACORN and Occupy Wall Street that are responsible. Their quest for "social justice" is what caused every ounce of this.

So I find it more than ironinc that the liberal "social justice" set who caused this are now blaming the victims of what their "social justice set" has done.

If the morons at OWS had half a brain and would actually take a few moments to find out the real reason for todays' economic mess, they would not be blaming the banks or Wall Street. They would, instead, understand that they, and their quest for "social justice" are to blame.

We are all "created equal". But nature does not permit us all to remain that way. In life there must be winners, so that the species can survive (survival of the fittest). In order to have winners, you must also have losers. That is a fact of life. But "social justice" idiots don't think anyone should be a loser - everyone has to win.

And that just is not possible. If no one loses, what can possibly be won? Anyone who has ever played a hand of poker, or purchased a lottery tickets understands that.

/

Mother Nature Is Warning Us Again...

2011-11-04T16:59:00.001-04:00

After years of quiet, the sun is coming alive with solar storms in a big way. The sun shot off a huge flare Thursday afternoon from a region that scientists say is the most active part of the sun since 2005.

Thursday's flare wasn't aimed at Earth. However, this active region is now slowly turning toward Earth, and scientists say it will be directly facing Earth in about five days. And it will face us for two weeks.

Odds of a direct hit by a large flare is still relatively small, but high enough to cause concern if you are wise enough to understand the potential damage that can be caused.

Moreover, the sun will grow increasingly active over the next two years, increasing the chances of a direct hit.

For those of you coming late to the party, a direct hit by a large flare can destroy the satellites, knocking out virtually all communications. It can also knock out the entire power grid of an entire hemisphere.

Just so ya know...

The Truth Behind "Alleged Sexual Harassment...

2011-10-31T21:15:00.000-04:00

So, it now comes out from (dubious) sources that Herman Cain was "accused of sexual harassment" back in the '90's.

To liberals, that can only mean Cain is a Clinton-esque whoremonger. But what does it REALLY mean?

First, he was ACCUSED. He was not found guilty of anything. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. As they say, you can indict a ham sandwich.

Second, it was supposedly "sexual harassment." What, exactly, constitutes sexual harassment? It all depends on who is complaining. As a man, I have had to ask women out on dates - it rarely works the other way around. But if you ask a lady on a date and she happens to hate men, she can accuse you of sexual harassment.

And if a man makes any kind of a pass at a woman, which is how nature intends for folks to get together, it could be construed as sexual harassment. And whatever you do, don't flirt with a lesbian - you'd be begging for a charge of harassment.

Of course, none of those things constitute sexual harassment. But the charge or allegation is an easy way to extort money from a hapless victim like Cain. When a wealthy person is hit with such allegations, even if there is no basis for them, it is simply easier and cheaper to pay off with a settlement than to spend a bundle fighting the bogus charges in court.

So, being accused means nothing. Allegations that were never substantiated mean nothing. Being accused of sexual harassment by man-haters or women looking for easy money is nothing. And paying a settlement in order to put an end to bogus charges means nothing.

So, what have liberal pundits got with this "sexual harassment" story?

Nothing. But liberals will eat it up like ice cream, and assume every dirty thing their sewer minds can conceive.

Strange, though. Liberals are screaming about Cain being a "sexual predator" because of an allegation of mere harassment, and unfit for office, but those same liberals had no problem when Clinton was actually caught and found guilty of an affair with Lewinski.

The difference - Cain was only accused, and it was only "harassment", but unfortunately for him he also happens to be a black conservative - and liberals cannot tolerate black conservatives or female conservatives. They strike at the very heart of their base. And THAT is Cain's real "crime".

/

Should more Americans have "skin in the game", or should more get a free ride?

2011-10-30T20:03:00.000-04:00

Michael McAuliff, a very far left liberal who writes for Huffington Post put forth a laughable story today that concerns the growing call for more Americans to "pay a fair share". Many conservatives feel it is an obligation for any working American to pay at least a little something in income taxes, for several reasons. The biggest reason, of course, it to broaden the tax base to reduce the deficit. But it also gets the 47% who pay ZERO taxes to have skin in the game, and that is extremely important.

You see, liberals want more than 50% of Americans to NOT have skin in the game, because if they pay no taxes, they will always favor higher taxes on others and more government benefits for themselves. This empowers liberals, and gets them elected. Look at it this way - if someone is feeding you, housing you and providing you with free medical care, are you going to vote AGAINST them? Of course not. So Democrats are determined to get "dependent" Americans past the 50% point, to insure they will always retain power.

Conservatives, on the other hand, realize that making people dependent upon government only feeds the government at the expense of personal liberty. For example, if the government provides you with food, that gives them the right to determine what you can and cannot eat, if they so choose.

By making every American pay at least some income tax, every American becomes an interested stewart of tax revenues - we all have an interest in our taxes being used wisely, and not wasted. If you do not pay taxes, you just don't care if they are wasted.

So, here are some of McAuliff's "points" in his story, and my uptake on each...my comments are in bold italics:

"It's most often expressed in the growing complaint that about half the nation's households pay no federal income tax -- an accurate figure that varies from 46 percent to 51 percent, depending on which set of statistics are being used."

[REPLY] McAuliff admits that nearly half of all Americans pay no taxes, but goes on to claim that those who pay no taxes are "the poor" (see below). Seems to me that "the poor" do not constitute 50% of Americans.

"It also ignores the fact that the half who pay no federal income tax do pay sales taxes, federal payroll taxes, state and local taxes, and -- if they own a home -- property taxes."

[REPLY] I see. Although they are "the poor" according to liberals, they obviously earn enough to buy stuff, and many even own homes. That does not sound like "poor" to me. In fact, government statistics show that the majority of the lowest income families in America own TV's, computers, cellphones and even iPads. Pardon me for saying so, but America's "poor" are actually wealthy by the standards of most of the world, where "poor" actually means poor.

"Hatch and Cornyn were opposing a nonbinding Democratic resolution that would have done nothing more than declare that the wealthy should share the burden for digging the country out of its economic ditch and reducing the deficit. Yet they were hardly alone in the pushback against the poor."

[REPLY] Yes, Republicans oppose taxing the wealthy even more, for several reasons. 1) if you take EVERY DOLLAR on income from the wealthy, it would not have much impact on the deficit; 2) money taken from those who we depend upon for our products, services, product development and jobs is money that cannot be used for those things; 3) the top 1% of earners already pay 40% of all taxes, so I don't want to hear the BS mantra about "paying a fair share"; and 4) giving the government MORE money to waste only insures they WILL waste more, putting us in a deeper hole.

"Advocates for a progressive tax system hear in Sessions' words a return to anti-welfare arguments that, while they were ultimately proved to be false, nevertheless had impact."

[REPLY] The "progressive tax system" was actually a violation of the Constitution until the turn of the 20th century when a progressive President and Congress pushed through a Constitutional amendment to change it to a progressive system - the first socialist step to destroy "home rule" - government by the people. And that is when America's troubles began. But McAuliff's absurd assertion that "anti-welfare arguments" were "proved to be false" is, itself, a falsehood (a lie). The Gingrich tax reform plan of 1996, which was "anti-welfare", resulted in more people working than ever before, and greater tax revenues because of it. So, anti-welfare arguments actually were proven to work.

And that's the real point here. McAuliff and his Democrat/liberal/progressive/socialist buddies want everyone to be on welfare of one kind or another, because that empowers government. And that is what socialists need if they are to succeed. As long as the people run government, socialists cannot win. Socialism is built upon the premise that government needs to control the people, not vice versa. And that is as un-American as it gets, because we are founded as a government OF the People, BY the People and FOR the People.

/

Another Activist Judge Goes Rogue, Accepts Sharia Law Over Constitution...

2011-10-26T08:54:00.000-04:00

In Florida, a judge has decided it is OK to use Sharia Law rather than Constitutional law when dealing with Muslims in America.

Um - NO!

Every judge is required, upon accepting office, to swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this land. And every citizen is required to abide by those laws. As long as those muslims are living in America, they are subject to AMERICAN law, derived from the Constitution of the United States.

Moreover, there is a specific Amendment in the Constitution that states all people will be treated equally under the law. That means the use of Sharia Law in any American court is illegal and unconstitutional - you cannot use one law for John and other for Muhammad and yet another for Jose. Remember - Sharia Law makes it legal to murder someone - even your own child - for violating certain laws of Sharia. Even in America some muslims have committed murder under "honor killing". Should we use Sharia law for them, and set them free? Not!

I say it over and over - whenever any judge chooses to ignore, or thwart the Constitution they are violating their sworn oath of office, and should therefore immediately and without recourse be forced to resign their office. No exceptions.

/

If You Doubt Liberals Want To Control You, Cradle To Grave...

2011-10-25T12:09:00.000-04:00

Get a load of this, folks. Talk about liberal activist judges trying to rewrite the Constitution to rob us of our liberties:

A Wisconsin judge has ruled that Americans do not have a fundamental right to drink milk from their own cow, nor do they have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.

Circuit Court Judge Patrick Fiedler ruled that the plaintiffs do not have any Constitutional rights to own a dairy cow, consume milk from their own cow, board a cow at the farm of another farmer, or produce and consume the foods of their choice.

“This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one’s choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue,” the judge wrote.

In other words, according to this robed moron, if certain people (PETA) pose alternate arguments to the eating of meat, the government may prevent you from eating meat.

It is worthwhile to note: Mosanto (a chemical company) produces a chemical hormone treatment for milk. They obviously do not want anyone to have access to milk that does not have thier poison in it. As it turns out, this judge resigned from the bench shortly after making this decision, and took a high-paying job with - guess who? Yep - Monsanto.

Folks, it is time we said, "ENOUGH". We need to get rid of every activist judge who thinks he is God, and rules to overturn our human rights. Since when was it NOT a human right to raise our own food, or eat what we choose?

I still say we should let illegal immigrants stay in America provided we can deport all the liberals in their stead. The illegals are, by and large, more useful, and they are SEEKING freedom, and not seeking to DESTROY it

/

Washington Post Finds "Last Man Standing" Dumb Because Tim Allen Acts Like A MAN...

2011-10-24T20:51:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post did a hit piece on Tim Allen's new sitcom, "Last Man Standing." They paint him as homophobic, xenophobic and every other kind of phobic simply because he is portrayed as a man, and not the typical wussified moron that liberals like to see featured on TV and film.

That tells you more about the Washington Post and liberal ideals than it does about "Last Man Standing."

I also found it rather enlightening that they closed the COMMENTS section after only 11 comments were posted. I guess they did not appreciate that MOSTY of America still thinks a man should be a man. That we need more "John Wayne" types and far fewer "Yes, Dear" types that carry handbags and act more effeminate than Mae West.

I don't know if Tim's show is any good or not. But I do know that men should be men, and need not apologize for it to a bunch of wussie liberals.

/

Looks Like Obama & The Liberals Were Wrong About The "Arab Spring"

2011-10-24T17:35:00.000-04:00

All the while the "Arab Spring" riots tore apart Egypt, Tunisia and now even Libya, President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other liberals were proclaiming the beginning of a new, democratic Middle East. They rooted for them - even assisted them.

Meanwhile, most conservatives were more than just leery - we strongly suspected it would turn out badly, with less democracy and more Sharia Law, enforced by our enemies.

It now comes to light that Tunisia now claims an "Islamist victory". In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist organization) is taking control as Christian churches are sacked. And Sharia Law is being instituted. And in Libya, the new "controllers" are already showing signs of becoming another Islamic, Sharia state.

Well, Mr President, it's not like you were not warned. But in your naivete and ignorance, you just had to give aid and comfort to the enemy, believing that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Only fools and blind idealogues believe that crud, Mr President. Or maybe you "forgot" that during the Russian incursion into Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden was the "enemy of our enemy", and we provided HIM with arms and training that he eventually used against America.

And now the president and the liberals are supporting our own "Arab Spring" with the Occupy Wall Street hooligans and socialists.

And again conservatives are warning it will not turn out well...

/

Newt Gingrich - Last Man Standing?

2011-10-24T13:54:00.000-04:00

All the political pundits are concentrating on the "flavors of the month" in the Republican race for president. To them, there is only Romney, Perry and Cain. That's because each has had a "honeymoon period" where they were the "new" thing in the race, and their poll numbers soared. Until the folks got to know them.

As you can easily see, Cain's numbers are falling because he seems to flounder on issues like abortion and foreign policy. Perry's popularity is taking a huge hit because of his stance on immigration and the HPV vaccine mandate. That leaves Romney.

The problem with Romney is that his numbers do not change, even as the others go down in flames. This is because most Republicans are not happy with Romney, never have been and never will be, thanks to his ultra-moderate positions and flip-flopping. RomneyCare is too much like ObamaCare

Meanwhile, all the pundits seems to be overlooking that Gingrich is slowly, steadily gaining in the polls. He picks up many of those who are abandoning Cain and Perry because they see Gingrich as extremely intelligent (he is), a man who is not so quick to attack other Republicans (he isn't), and a man who actually offers specific solutions to specific problems (he does).

I don't know if Gingrich will be "the last man standing" because I do not know if there is enough time left to stand out (some states are pushing their primaries and caucuses ever earlier on the calendar) or if he has enough money to succeed.

I do know he has the intellect, leadership ability, and solutions we need. But in today's fast-moving world, I'm not sure that is enough. Too bad.

/

"Chicks With Guns"...

2011-10-22T13:49:00.000-04:00

On HuffPost/AOL I found a story about a new book entitled "Chicks With Guns", a picture book of tons of women sporting their firearms. I thought it was really cool. But apparently, some elitists in their ivory towers do not agree. One stated that it flies in the face of "our vision of the maternal instinct".

WHOSE vision, dare I ask? Certainly not mine. Elitist, anti-gun nuts may think it is unseemly or unsettling to see Chicks With Guns, because their concept of the maternal instinct is warped (kind of like their shock and repulsion at discovering a woman who is a conservative, or pro-life). There is no stronger maternal instinct than to protect your children and family. And in the real world, that means being prepared to use deadly force. Just try using a make-up brush to inflict deadly force and let me know how that works for ya!

My mother owned guns, and was proficient in their use. So, too, my wife, who had been in the army, and was raised in rural Maine in a time when people who did not hunt did not eat. And both my daughters are comfortable with their own rifles and handguns. They are also proficient in archery, and one is very good at knife throwing. The other is a black belt in karate.

When the "maternal instinct" requires they stand between their family and any threat, they are well prepared. They will survive.

And I think that is just SO cool!

/

HuffPost Had To Stoop REAL Low For This One...

2011-10-21T18:51:00.000-04:00

Huffington Post/AOL ran a story today that obviously has only one point - to try and make people think less of all Republicans because of what one does.

It seems a Republican New Jersey man named Myers is accused (not proved) of paying for sex with a male escort. Now, it is not enough that it is only an accusation. But it appears Myers at one time ran for a Congressional seat. But he lost.

So, what we have is a Republican who was never a Congressman and who is accused of some sexual event that is not even illegal. In fact, it is a non-story. The only reason HuffPost runs it on page one (as if it had significance) is because the guy happens to be a Republican so they can run a headline that says "GOP CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE ACCUSED...".

Of course, they usually ignore REAL stories of Democrat politicians (who actually succeeded in getting into office) who commit far worse transgressions. They don't even run stories on "Fast & Furious" investigations, for example, or that Obama gave another half billion to an electric car company that immediately took the money and moved to Finland. Now Finland has a lot of new jobs, paid for with YOUR tax dollars. That, on top of the Solyndra scandal of another half-billion.

But I digress. I find it newsworthy that HuffPost/AOL is anything but a source of legitimate news.

/

More Stupidity (and dishonesty) From Anti-Gun Nuts...

2011-10-19T21:33:00.000-04:00

From the news ---"On Wednesday, Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker, a member of the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, released a video calling the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which would require states that allow concealed carrying of guns to recognize each other's permits, an "insane" policy that puts civilians and police officers "at risk."

"We cannot have a situation where Congress passes a law and the next thing you know is people are showing up in your community with hidden weapons that you, your state legislature, your mayors don't want to have happen," he said."

So, let me try to understand...

If both New Hampshire and Arizona have laws that allow their citizens to carry concealed weapons. Mayor Booker says that "cops and civilians would be at risk" if each state recognized the others' permit.

Mr. Booker, just HOW do you figure that? If I live in NH and I have a permit, and I go to Arizona, how am I more of a threat simply because I'm in another state?

Allowing states to recognize each others permits does not in any way create a greater hazard - if I am not a threat in NH, I'm not a threat in AZ.

As for "showing up in your community with hidden weapons that you, your state legislature don't want to have happen", well, that is not even part of the issue. If YOUR state does not have a concealed carry law, then your state is not even subject to reciprocity - you don't have to recognize ANY permit. The proposed bill only says states that HAVE concealed carry laws will accept each others' permits. So, once again liberals are clouding the issue with Bullcrap, using fear mongering to try and win their point. Typical liberal dishonesty.
These liberals are so nuts! They use completely bogus arguments to try and win their point.

As for stricter gun laws, EVERY city, every state and every nation that passed strict anti-gun laws have suffered MORE violent crime, not less. I suggest that is because criminals do not obey gun laws, and see "no gun" areas as "easy pickings". For example, Norway, with strict gun laws had approximately 500 murders last year while America had 10,500. But Norway's population is only 4.9 million, while ours is 320 million. Therefore, Norway's murder rate per capita is 3 times higher than in America.

Norway - one murder for every 9800 people. America - one muder for every 30,500 people.

Thank God for guns.

/

YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW

2011-10-19T10:03:00.000-04:00

YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW

This story may or may not be based on a true story. But it matters not. What matters is the truth of how you feel after reading it, and the truth that lies in the moral of the story. And one last truth - if you remember this story, and let it guide you, your own life will be much richer for it.
______

"Good morning", said a woman as she walked up to the man sitting on ground.

The man slowly looked up.

This was a woman clearly accustomed to the finer things of life. Her coat was new.. She looked like she had never missed a meal in her life.

His first thought was that she wanted to make fun of him, like so many others had done before.. "Leave me alone," he growled....

To his amazement, the woman continued standing.

She was smiling -- her even white teeth displayed in dazzling rows. "Are you hungry?" she asked.

"No," he answered sarcastically. "I've just come from dining with the president. Now go away."

The woman's smile became even broader. Suddenly the man felt a gentle hand under his arm.

"What are you doing, lady?" the man asked angrily. "I said to leave me alone.

Just then a policeman came up. "Is there any problem, ma'am?" he asked..

"No problem here, officer," the woman answered. "I'm just trying to get this man to his feet. Will you help me?"

The officer scratched his head. "That's old Jack. He's been a fixture around here for a couple of years. What do you want with him?"

"See that cafeteria over there?" she asked. "I'm going to get him something to eat and get him out of the cold for awhile."

"Are you crazy, lady?" the homeless man resisted. "I don't want to go in there!" Then he felt strong hands grab his other arm and lift him up. "Let me go, officer. I didn't do anything."

" This is a good deal for you, Jack" the officer answered. "Don't blow it.."

Finally, and with some difficulty, the woman and the police officer got Jack into the cafeteria and sat him at a table in a remote corner. It was the middle of the morning, so most of the breakfast crowd had already left and the lunch bunch had not yet arrived....

The manager strode across the cafeteria and stood by his table. "What's going on here, officer?" he asked.

"This lady brought this man in here to be fed," the policeman answered.

"Not in here!" the manager replied angrily. "Having a person like that here is bad for business.."

Old Jack smiled a toothless grin. "See, lady. I told you so. Now if you'll let me go. I didn't want to come here in the first place."

The woman turned to the cafeteria manager and smiled....... "Sir, are you familiar with Eddy and Associates, the banking firm down the street?"

"Of course I am," the manager answered impatiently. "They hold their weekly meetings in one of my banquet rooms."

"And do you make a godly amount of money providing food at these weekly meetings?"

"What business is that of yours?"

I, sir, am Penelope Eddy, president and CEO of the company."

"Oh."

The woman smiled again. "I thought that might make a difference.." She glanced at the cop who was busy stifling a giggle. "Would you like to join us in a cup of coffee and a meal, officer?"

"No thanks, ma'am," the officer replied. "I'm on duty."

"Then, perhaps, a cup of coffee to go?"

"Yes, maam. That would be very nice."

The cafeteria manager turned on his heel, "I'll get your coffee for you right away, officer."

The officer watched him walk away. "You certainly put him in his place," he said.

"That was not my intent. Believe it or not, I have a reason for all this."

She sat down at the table across from her amazed dinner guest. She stared at him intently.. "Jack, do you remember me?"

Old Jack searched her face with his old, rheumy eyes. "I think so -- I mean you do look familiar."

"I'm a little older perhaps," she said. "Maybe I've even filled out more than in my younger days when you worked here, and I came through that very door, cold and hungry."

"Ma'am?" the officer said questioningly. He couldn't believe that such a magnificently turned out woman could ever have been hungry.

"I was just out of college," the woman began. "I had come to the city looking for a job, but I couldn't find anything. Finally I was down to my last few cents and had been kicked out of my apartment. I walked the streets for days. It was February and I was cold and nearly starving. I saw this place and walked in on the off chance that I could get something to eat."

Jack lit up with a smile. "Now I remember," he said.. "I was behind the serving counter. You came up and asked me if you could work for something to eat. I said that it was against company policy."

"I know," the woman continued. "Then you made me the biggest roast beef sandwich that I had ever seen, gave me a cup of coffee, and told me to go over to a corner table and enjoy it. I was afraid that you would get into trouble... Then, when I looked over and saw you put the price of my food in the cash register, I knew then that everything would be all right."

"So you started your own business?" Old Jack said.

"I got a job that very afternoon. I worked my way up. Eventually I started my own business that, with the help of God, prospered." She opened her purse and pulled out a business card.. "When you are finished here, I want you to pay a visit to a Mr. Lyons...He's the personnel director of my company. I'll go talk to him now and I'm certain he'll find something for you to do around the office." She smiled. "I think he might even find the funds to give you a little advance so that you can buy some clothes and get a place to live until you get on your feet... If you ever need anything, my door is always opened to you."

There were tears in the old man's eyes. "How can I ever thank you?" he said.\

"Don't thank me," the woman answered. "To God goes the glory. Thank God...... He led me to you."

Outside the cafeteria, the officer and the woman paused at the entrance before going their separate ways....

"Thank you for all your help, officer," she said.

"On the contrary, Ms. Eddy," he answered. "Thank you. I saw a miracle today, something that I will never forget. And..And thank you for the coffee."

God closes doors no man can open & God opens doors no man can close..

If you need God to open some doors for you...copy this and send it on.

Have a blessed day and remember to be a blessing...

LIVE WELL, LOVE MUCH, LAUGH OFTEN

Principal Bans Holidays...

2011-10-16T20:01:00.000-04:00

A liberal elementary school principal in Massachusetts has taken it upon herself to ban the fall holidays - Halloween, Columbus Day and Thanksgiving - because she says those hoklidays could offend some people.

This represents two of the major problems with liberals:

1) They have a need to Lord it over others, and control them and
2) They believe anything that could offend some person should be banned (PC run amok)

Well, to this principal I say this --- YOU offend ME, so I believe YOU should be banned.

Look, folks, everything on this planet could offend someone. That does not give ANYONE a right to "ban" something. For example, liberals tend to offend me. The ACLU offends me. Bankers offend me. The Occupy Wall Street mobs offend me. Does that mean they should be banned? Of course not (though the thought does intrigue me).

It is time for the "nanny state, I know best" liberals to get off their high horses and stop trying to control everyone else, and stop trying to force them to comply with the liberal view of the world. They do NOT know best, and most folks do not want nor need to be controlled by a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant asses like that principal.

/

On Marriage - Is The Pool Of "Good Men" Shrinking? Here Are Some Facts...

2011-10-16T08:26:00.000-04:00

Early this morning I caught an interview with an author who says that fewer women are chosing marriage because the pool of "Good Men" is shrinking. And I got to thinking about why that is.

Here are some of my thoughts on "why".

Since the 1960's, our society has been in full assault mode on masculinity. And I'm not just talking about Gloria Steinem and her feminist movement. Although a factor, it goes much deeper.

Our society has actively sought to make men more effeminate. We took away their cowboy toys and gave them dolls, to be "gender neutral". We stopped them from "dangerous" physical games at school, such as "King of the Hill", in order to "protect" them. Many do not realize that such games teach boys to become men.

We told kids that it was OK for men to carry a handbag (erroneously called a "man bag"). We taught them to cry, to whine, and to "be in touch with their feelings and feminine side".

I do not have a feminine side. I do not carry a bag - not even a fanny pack. And I have not cried since I was 6. I still play with guns, and I still play "King of the Hill" in the working world.

We as a society have cultivated and embraced the whiny Chris Matthews' type, the wimpy effeminate types, the loser welfare types who forever have their hand out, and even gays. Yes, gays. Many of our children are actually being taught to be gay. I have seen it first-hand in the local school. If I were a woman, I would not want any of those morons, either.

John Wayne never had a problem attracting women. Nor Jimmy Stewart, nor John F Kennedy. Real men have no problem catching the eye of the gentler sex. But when men become the gentler sex, don't expect women to fall all over themselves trying to latch onto one.

We need to reboot. Let kids rough-house and play hard. Get them away from the gadgets and out into the world, to play in the dirt. Stop giving them dolls and man-bags. Teach them that it's good to be strong, tough, resilient. Teach boys to become men, and girls to become women. But this stupid "unisex" thing is wrong. We were NOT born "gender neutral", and nature abhors it.

/

2011-10-14T00:50:00.000-04:00

George Stephanopolis suggested the "Occupy Wall Street" mob is "the liberal version of the Tea Party".

I fully and whole-heartedly agree!

The Tea Party is neat and clean, friendly, do not break the laws of this nation and are focused on simple American principles of small government, low taxes and person liberty.

The Occupy Wall Streeter's are filthy, leave a mess wherever they go, break laws, infringe the rights of others and are not focused on anything except a desire to bring down capitalism because losers do not fare well under capitalism. Go figure.

Yeah, George, they ARE the "liberal version of the Tea Party". That's just who the liberals are.

Or did you not see the protester who dropped his pants and defacated on a police car? Or the 27 tons of trash and garbage strewn all over? Or did you forget about all the arrests?

Frankly, if I were a liberal (but for the grace of God) I would in no way want to EVER be associated with such a mob of useless anarchists and socialists. But go ahead, Georgie - tell the world that "filthy, law breaking anarchists" are who the liberals are, while conservative Tea Partiers are clean, organized and law-abiding.

/

Obama "saves" 15 jobs - at a cost of over $85 MILLION per job...

2011-10-13T08:45:00.000-04:00

The Obama administration awarded $1.28 BILLION to another solar company (different from the $538,000,00 given to the bankrupt Solyndra). The company in question has 15 employees affected, whose joibs were "saved". The company is now on the verge of bankruptcy.

My question is simple - are taxpayer so worthless in the eyes of the administration that our government wastes billions on so few jobs? Do the math - each one of those 15 jobs cost us over $85 million dollars - EACH.

Gee, I sure wish I had a job that paid $85,000,000.

Meanwhile, the Democrats cry and whine that too many people are too rich on the backs of us "little people". Now we know why.

/

Was There A More Insidious Reason Behind "Fast & Furious"?

2011-10-13T08:32:00.000-04:00

Everyone knows about "Fast & Furious" (except, aparrently, Eric Holder, whose job it was to know about it). And everyone has been told it was an attempt to "trace" how guns get to cartels, and bust everyone involved. And it did not work because SURVEILLANCE WAS CUT OFF.

And that last statement is crucial - WHY was it cut off?

Let's take a look at my whacky theory on all of this.

Many of the top officials in the DOJ were appointed by Obama and all have professed a desire for stricter gun controls in the U.S. I strongly suspect these officials had a deeper purpose behind " Fast & Furious". I suspect surveillance was cut off for the express purpose of letting all those guns "walk". It is a given that the guns would end up in Mexico, in crimal hands, and used in crimes. The guns would then be traced back to the U.S. and great pressure would be put on the U.S. to pass and enforce stricter guns laws. And We, The People< would thereby be duped into accepting it simply because our "lax" gun laws have created an international incident and are contributing to all the murders by cartels in Mexico. The Obama administration, supported by Mexican officials would blame America for all the violence on the border. And gun control would be the result.

But let's take it one step further...

Holder told us the other day that they busted a bunch who intended to hire a Mexican drug cartel dude to assassinate the Saudi ambassador. The DOJ had been aware of this plot "for months" while they "investigated". Apparently, this plot was hatched at the same time that the guns were allowed to walk. And as soon as Holder gets a subpoena over Fast & Furious, the DOJ suddenly arrests those would-be assassins.

Now I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but this just sounds too convenient. What if the anti-gun DOJ officials - headed by Holder - had helped create the Saudi assassination plot along with Fast & Furious? What if the intent was for the assassins to use weapons from Fast & Furious?

What I can tell you for certain is, if that had happened, we could kiss the Second Amendment good-bye once and for all. American citizens would no longer be able to own guns. American guns, bought from American dealers by Americans were provided to Mexican cartel criminals who used those guns to kill a Saudi ambassador on our soil. Talk about an international incident.

Here's an idea - if you have not yet red "The Overton Window" by Glenn Beck, you may want to do so. While it is fiction (and incredibly good fiction, a real thriller), it is almost prophetic - this "Fast & Furious" deal, along with the assassination plot is nothing short of Deja Vu.

/

So, Just WHY Did Christi Endorse Romney? Details here...

2011-10-12T13:01:00.001-04:00

Yesterday, Chris Christi endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nod. But why, when there are more conservative candidates?

I think the reason is clear, particularly after Christi says he would consider being vice president. So here it is...

Christi wants to be president, but not yet. He said as much. Maybe next time. He also figures Romney will be the nominee. By endorsing Romney, maybe Romney will make him VP. That way, when Romney's time is up, Christi won't even have to fight hard or raise a lot of cash in order to become the next Republican nomineee - a VP is almost a shoo-in.

And there you have it. Christi endorsed Romney because Christi want to be president the next time around, and wants to avoid the usual hard-ball campaigning to become the nominee.

Simple.

Except for one little thing - Romney may not get the Republican nomination. In which case the VP might well be Rubio or Jeb Bush, who would then go on to beat out Christi next time around because THAT person would be the shoo-in.

/

Here's The REAL Issue With The "Occupy Wall Street" Mob...

2011-10-12T00:36:00.000-04:00

I've been listening to dozens of interviews of folks in the OWS crowd, and there seems to be a recurring theme. But rather than just state it, let's look at their "issue" in practice...

These "useful idiots", as Soros calls them, give their money to Apple and Microsoft for all the great new toys those companies create and sell. These people WANT those toys. They want them badly enough to pay the bucks to people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

Jobs and Gates get rich this way - because the people WILLINGLY traded their money for the toys. But now that their money is gone, and they are broke, they see Bill Gates wallowing in money and decide he should give their money back.

So, here it is - they want all the great things produced by capitalism, but once they have blown all their money they want the money back. In other words, they want EVERYTHING for free. Freeloaders.

Here's an idea for the OWS morons --- if you think the wealthy have too much money, DON'T GIVE THEM ANY MORE. STOP buying the iPads, Iphones, Blackberries and computers. Stop using Facebook and Twitter, making them rich. Stop buying the cars, making Ford wealthy.

The rich are not rich because they screwed you. They are rich because they produced something YOU WANTED, and YOU WILLINGLY TRADED YOUR DOLLARS FOR.

Sure, there are corrupt people. And there are those who get rich without providing anything of value. But 98% of the wealthy people got that way honestly. Bill Gates did not cheat you. Steve Jobs did not screw you over. And Ford did not pick your pocket, or mug you.

If you really believe that the rich have too much of the wealth, then YOU stop giving them yours. Stop eating in restaurants. Stop going to the movies. Don't buy any more "toys".

But as long as you have a cellphone glued to your ear, and an iPad in your pack, and you drink latte at Starbucks, I don't want to hear how you feel "cheated" by the wealthy.

The ONLY real difference between the OWS bunch and the wealthy is this --- the wealthy want money. The OWS crowd wants "things". And the OWS crowd trades their money for the things offered by the wealthy.

And this difference --- the wealthy are content with the money. The OWS mob are not content with just having the "stuff" - they want the money, too.

As far as I am concerned, OWS does not stand for Occupy Wall Street. It stands for Outrageous, Worthless Slobs.

/

When "Spin" Gets Stupid, It's Time To Stop...

2011-10-11T21:45:00.000-04:00

So here is the liberal HuffPost/AOL take on the Democrat controlled senate shooting down Obama's "jobs" bill:

"WASHINGTON — United against Barack Obama, Senate Republicans voted Tuesday night to kill the jobs package the president had spent weeks campaigning for across the country, a stinging loss at the hands of lawmakers opposed to stimulus-style spending and a tax increase on the very wealthy."

What makes that stupid (a trademark of Huffington Post) is that the ONLY way the bill could "die" is if Democrats vote against it, because they are the majority. Since the bill died in the senate, that means several Democrats voted against it - THEY killed it. Of the 100 senators, 57 are Democrats, yet a half dozen voted against it, and another - Harry Reid, himself - changed his vote to "nay".

Yes, Republicans were opposed to the bill - and correctly so. But they did not kill it. The Democrats did that all by themselves.

/

Senate Republicans likely to kill Obama jobs bill - MORE AP Spin...

2011-10-11T10:24:00.000-04:00

Today's AP headline reads "Senate Republicans likely to kill Obama jobs bill".

That is pure liberal BS and they know it. The Democrats control the majority in the senate, and thanks to Harry Reid's stupidity, it only requires a simple majority to pass a bill. That means if the bill does not pass, it is because several DEMOCRATS voted against it.

As long as the Democrats control the Senate, any bill that passes or dies in the senate is thanks to the Democrats.

Lord, I sure wish the liberal, socialist-loving media would come back into the fold of "objective media" where they belong.

/

HuffPost/AOL is at it again - this time, "domestic terrorists"...

2011-10-10T13:29:00.000-04:00

Today's headline at AOL: "House Bill Would Authorize Czar To Watch Islamist Extremists But Not Other Domestic Terrorists "

Let's see - the liberals are not opposed to watching Islamist extremists so long as we also watch other domestic terrorists. But that's where the problem lies...

Islamic extremists are generally easy to find - they go to mosques, they rant on the internet and they associate with other known Islamic extremists. And it is often a group thing, of sorts. Other domestic terrorists, however, are impossible to watch because, to date, they have been "lone wolves" belonging to no particular group. That's why it was so hard to find the Unabomber even AFTER all his bombings, and why no one knew about Timothy McVeigh until AFTER the fed building was blown up.

So, you see, HuffPost/AOL, while it is possible to watch Islamist extremists, it generally is not possible to watch "other" domestic terrorists. Unless, of course, you would like to tell us who they are.

And, NO, they are not the Tea Party, or the GOP. In fact, they aren't even the militia groups, as they, so far, have not committed any terrorist acts.

Be glad to watch those domestic terrorists for ya, but ya gotta tell us who they are, first...

/

OK, so OWS compares themselves to the Arab Spring...

2011-10-09T17:51:00.001-04:00

The Occupy Wal Street mob compares themselves with the protesters in Egypt during the "Arab Spring." In fact, one of the leaders of the Egyptian uprising was a speaker for the OWS gang. Fine. But they also say they are like the Tea Party.

Not so much...

Reported today, "Massive clashes that drew in Christians angry over a recent church attack, Muslims, and Egyptian security forces raged over a large section of downtown Cairo Sunday night, leaving at least 19 people dead and more than 150 injured". That, my friends, is the result of the Egyptian "Arab Spring". You would never see anything like that from the Tea Party.

But you say, "Hey, you don't see that with the OWS crowd, either."

Well, they are close. They have blocked a busy bridge and busy roadways. They have closed public parks. And they stormed the Air & Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institute intent on doing damage to the exhibits.

That sounds a LOT like the Egyptian riots, and NOTHING like the Tea Party events.

Pelosi says the OWS are not "mobs", but the definition fits them to a "T". (mob n. A large disorderly crowd or throng, especially one bent on riotous or destructive action [such as we saw at the Air & Space Museum or the GW Bridge]).

And if Pelosi and other liberals wants to go on record as being supportive of OWS, then they must accept the responsibility that comes with the many arrests, bad behavior, filth and the violence.

/

Comparing OWS with the Tea Party - There is NO comparison...

2011-10-09T09:15:00.004-04:00

Democrats compare the OCCUPY WALL STREET (OWS) protesters with the Tea Party (TP). Let's REALLY compare, based on known facts:

TP - focused on a single premise - less government, lower taxes, more liberty for people
OWS - every protester has a different gripe and reason for protesting

TP - most are employed, majority college educated
OWS - mostly unemployed, few college educated

TP - quiet, polite
OWS - Noisy, unruly

TP - peaceful, light-hearted protests
OWS - angry

TP - clean, orderly, never leave a mess. They leave the place cleaner than it was
OWS - always leave a huge mess, disorderly. Parks have been closed due to the mess they leave

TP - non-violent, no arrests
OWS - violent, numerous arrests. Have stormed bridges, the Air & Space Museum, blocked roads etc

TP - no "special interest" funding
OWS - some funding by George Soros and labor unions

I could go on, of course. But any sane person (I guess this excludes Pelosi and other supporters) can easily see that there is NO comparison between the two groups. One is a peaceful protest. The other is an unruly, disorganized mob.

There is one thing the two groups have in common - both are dissatisfied with the way our government runs things, and believe government is out of control. The big difference there is that the TP believes there is too much government that is too costly, and the OWS believes there is not enough government and cost ids no object.

Of course, the reason they feel cost is no object is because the OWS group aren't paying the tab. It's easy to choose the most expensive stuff on the menu when you aren't the one paying the bill. Most pay zero taxes, which is precisely why they want the "wealthy" to pay more taxes.

The OWS bunch can be compared to another protest group, however, with alarming similarities - they are nearly identical to the radical, unruly, violent mobs of the "Arab Spring". And near as I can tell, none of those have turned out well - they are simply "useful idiots" that allow a different group of tyrants to take charge. Exchanging the enemy you know for an enemy you do not know.

/

Anti-American Jerry Brown of California Strikes Again...

2011-10-08T21:58:00.000-04:00

On Saturday, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 131, the second bill of the two-part California Dream Act, allowing undocumented immigrant students to apply for state-funded financial aid for college.

First, they are not "undocumented immigrants" - they are illegal immigrants, by law. Federal law. But now, thanks to the socialist Jerry Brown, who has no use for the Constitution and no love for America is burdening taxpayers with funding college for people who aren't even legally allowed to be here. Taxpayer funds. YOUR kid can't get into UCLA because some illegal immigrant is getting paid to take that spot in the classroom.

So now we have a state that makes it a POINT to bring more illegals in over the border - INVITES them, and then PAYS them to be here. Of course, California is already bankrupt because they give way too much to far too many, but Hell, that does not stop Brown from squeezing the taxpayer even more. It matters not how much you hurt and punish honest citizens with a birthright to be here, as long as you coddle lawbreakers who have no right at all to be here.

Look, I am not "mean" because I want to "deprive" hapless Mexicans who have no resprect for our laws. I am sympathetic to the fact that Mexico cannot provide what we provide. I understand the humanity angle. But not at the expense of those of us who BELONG here.

A college can hold just so many students. Every illegal who takes up a space is depriving an American student from using those educational resources. And every dollar we give to illegals is another dollar we have to take away from some American working stiff trying to get by.

Liberals and socialists like Jerry Brown don't care about how Americans are affected, or what it costs us. They only care about some warped sense of "social justice" that is anti-American and anti-Christian at its core.

It is the government's role to protect our equal rights. It is not the role of government to provide equal things. Things must be earned, by following the rules (and laws), and earning them by the sweat of your brow.

If ANYONE should get a free ride, it certainly is not those who don't even belong here. Only when every American child has the best education should we then open up any "extra" space in the classrooms to others. But as long as even ONE American child cannot afford college, I don't want to see any illegal immigrant taking up space in the classrooms at taxpayer expense. Why should an illegal immigrant prosper at the expense of an American?

/

The New "Black Death"...

2011-10-07T20:51:00.002-04:00

From AOL: "It's been dubbed the "21st century equivalent of the Black Death." In the U.K., it's the most common reason employees take long-term sick leave. It costs American companies $300 billion a year. In Japan, it's a fatal epidemic."

The story goes on to accuse STRESS. But "they" are wrong.

The problem is not, and never has been stress. The problem is the DISTRESS that is caused by ignoring stress.

Stress is to the human body as a smoke alarm is to a fire-prone tenement in the Bronx. It is nothing more than a warning. When we fail to heed the warning and take the necessary steps to eliminate the problem, the stress becomes distress. And THAT is what harms us.

The cure? Listen to the warnings, and take the steps necessary to eliminate that which is causing the warning - just like you would seek out and eliminate whatever is causing your smoke alarm to go off.

Stress only occurs when we find ourselves face-to-face with a situation for which we are not adequately or properly prepared. You then have three choices:

1) ignore the problem and hope it goes away (it won't)

2) learn whatever you have to learn to cope with the situation, or

3) take a 3 martini lunch

When stress comes, simply ask yourself what is it about the situation that you are not capable of handling. Then go out and learn whatever you must in order to BECOME capable.

EXAMPLE: Both Bob and Joe are up for promotion to supervisor. Bob has studied the job, has taken night classes on supervision and is prepared for the job. When he is promoted, there is no stress and he succeeds. Joe, on the other hand did not study the job, or take classes. When he gets promoted, he faces situations he is not prepared to deal with, and he feels stress. If he continues to ignore the warnings and does not learn what he must, the stress will become distress. And Joe will soon be replaced (causing even more distress, I'm sure).

The first line of defense against stress is to try and prepare in advance for situations that may arise. The second line of defense is to actively seek learning when a stressful situation does arise.

Of course, you could go for the martinis - but that will just add other stresses...

/

Pelosi Continues To Amuse...

2011-10-07T14:23:00.000-04:00

In reference to the socialist protests called "Occupy Wall Street", Nancy Pelosi said that they were "spontaneous and focused..."

Excuse me for pointing this out, Ms Pelosi, but it's not spontaneous if they plan it months in advance - these lazy troublemakers started advertising this months ago. As for "focused", several investigative reporters interviewed over 200 of the protesters, and asking them what they were protesting. For the first three weeks, there were over 200 different responses to that question. It was not until the unions got involved this week that anything began to come into "focus."

But then, we're talking about Ms Pelosi here. And that means the spin never stops, and usually spins out of control. In any case, she is always good for a laugh.

Yes, I said "lazy troublemakers". When asked if they had jobs, they said "no" (one, in fact, had QUIT his job to attend), and when asked if they would ACCEPT a job, they said "no". So, they are lazy, and only want to take away from those who are not, and live on the public teat. As for being "troublemakers" --- the Tea Party has had hundreds of gatherings without a single arrest. But these socialists have had over 200 arrests already, with more to come, I'm sure. They have attempted to close off a major bridge and major roads in an attempt to hurt the city and the innocent people in it - closing off the G.W Bridge does not hurt the "Wall Street Capitalists" - it hurts everyone trying to get to and from work.

Yes, lazy troublemakers..

/

President's Approval Is Not The Only Thing That Is Down...

2011-10-06T19:52:00.000-04:00

It has been tentatively reported that crime rates are down across the board. Assuming this is true, there are two schools of thought - that of the Huffington Post and its liberal followers, and mine. Obviously, the two schools of thought differ.

According to the Huffington Post/AOL crowd, "Obama may be responsible. Essentially, the argument is that Obama's election has created such collective inspiration that it has changed the thinking and the behavior of would-be criminals." Sounds a little ethereal if you ask me.

Now for my school of thought, which, as it happens, is based on known facts. Since Obama got elected, sales of guns and ammo have gone through the roof. In fact, it is nearly impossible to buy ammo in some areas as they just cannot make it fast enough. Now, since so many people are arming themselves - and are angry enough to be prepared to use them - criminals are having second thoughts about committing crimes, knowing it is likely they will be shot by their proposed victim.

Of course, feel free to believe whichever school of thought appeals to you, or develop your own. It could simply be that, since Obama has kept the nation broke, no one has anything left to steal.

/

If you don't think your vote counts, or that elections matter, check this out...

2011-10-05T09:03:00.000-04:00

FREMONT, Neb. -- A 12 year old girl who wears a Rosary necklace was banned from wearing it by her school district after police told officials it's also being worn by gang members.

So, let me get this straight - if a criminal decides to wear a cross, the cross must be banned. If a criminal decides to have pierced ears, then pierced ears will be banned. And if someone else misuses the American flag, then that, too, would be banned. This is exactly the absurd, warped mentality of officials who ban the Rosary necklace from being worn by a religious person for no other reason than it is also worn by less desireable folks.

So, what does this have to do with voting and elections? Think about it - in NO case have conservative officials ever banned religious items. In NO case have conservatives ever taken away a Christmas tree or a Nativity display, or banned Silent Night from a school Christmas concert, or ban public Christmas decorations, as was done in certain liberal-run communities lately.

It is not conservatives who try to tell you how to live, what to eat and whether or not you can have salt on your food. It is not conservatives who try to dictate whether or not you can pass on having health insurance. And it is not conservatives who tell you that you cannot grow herbs because they look too much like weeds (as was the case in a liberal Colorado community). And it was not conservatives who fined a Georgia man for giving away his extra veggies from his garden to his neighbors, or closed down a child's lemonade stand. Or prevent Girl Scouts from selling cookies, or Boy Scouts from using a public area.

Yes, voting - and elections - matter. And we see proof of that every day, in every community. Not just national elections, but also state and even community elections.

Only you can decide whether or not you want others directing and controlling your every move (liberal nanny state), or whether you prefer to have the freedom to make the choices that are right for you. No matter which side of the street you are on, you need to get out and stand up for your beliefs by going to the voting booth and casting a ballot to protect YOUR interests. If you do not, you will end up at the mercy of SPECIAL interests that will make your life miserable.

Just one thing - regardless of actual issues, when you walk into that voting both, think about ONE thing - do you want to be free, or do you want to be a drone? If you answer that question honestly, and vote accordingly, you will automatically be voting for the issues that are right for you.

/Yes, voting to be free does have consequences. As a free person, you can win or you can lose. You can get rich, or go broke. You will starve if you refuse to work. Such are the possible outcomes of FREE CHOICE. By the same token, voting to be a nanny-state drone also has its consequences - the loss of freedom being the biggie. Maybe you won';t "lose" in the classic sense, but you will lose. You will lose the opportunity to win. You will lose the incentive to excel. You will lose self-esteem. You will lose individual rights in exchange for group rights.

You decide. But do so at the voting booth, because that is the only place it matters.

/