Thursday, February 23, 2012

The Biblical cycle of government and God's people

In the Old Testament, God warned His people, the Israelites, that being subject to a human king would bring misery, high taxes, and slavery. Israel looked around to the nations surrounding her and envied their system of government. They decided to distrust God's words and pushed, begged, and pleaded until God gave them what they wanted. God always knows what is best for us, but we fail to acknowledge and trust Him. Within a couple hundred years, Israel turned completely away from God and fell into captivity. Their nation was gone. They set themselves up for the disaster. They wanted a human king to "care for them."

America was founded on principles found in the Bible, by men and women who believed that God's way is the best way. Limited government would keep men free. If men and women would control themselves, less governmental control would be necessary. But gradually, voters have chosen presidents and representatives who promise them the world, while making government bigger. In the process, we are losing our personal responsibility, sacrificing freedom for government telling us what light bulbs to use, what garbage bags to use, what toilet paper to use. Government eats up so much of our hard earned money that we are in debt for generations to come, with little chance that the bill will ever be paid.

We have done exactly what Israel did. We envied the socialism of other nations. We wanted our own king. We will reap what we have sown. If there was ever a time to return to God, it is now. Many nations would love to see our demise, and would plunder the spoils. Why do voters continue to vote for those who promise government help at the expense for freedom? It was wrong for Israel, and someday very soon, our freedoms will forever be lost.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Wal-Mart vs. The Morons

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick’s Day (March
17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco +
K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world’s largest private
employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep
in mind they did this in only fifteen years.

8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super
Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.

11. This year 7..2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at
Wal-Mart stores. (Earth’s population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground
work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to
fix the economy.

This should be read and understood by all Americans, Democrats,
Republicans, EVERYONE!!

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature

It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:

a.. The US. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years
to get it right and it is broke.
b.. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get
it right and it is broke.
c.. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right
and it is broke..
d.. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right;
$1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the
poor” and they only want more..
e.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years
to get it right and they are broke.
f.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it
right and it is broke.
g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence
on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24
billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it
right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every “government service” you have shoved down our
throats while overspending our tax dollars.



Folks, keep this circulating.. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end
up in the e-mails of some of our “duly elected’ (they never read anything)
and their staff will clue them in on how Americans feel.


I know what’s wrong. We have lost our minds to “Political Correctness”

Someone please tell me what the HELL’s wrong with all the people that run
this country!!!!!!

We’re “broke” & can’t help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey ..
And now Pakistan …….previous home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of

Our retired seniors living on a ‘fixed income’ receive no aid nor do they
get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour

Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$’s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries! We
have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for
the adoption of foreign orphans.

AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going
to bed hungry, elderly going without ‘needed’ meds, and mentally ill
without treatment – etc,etc.


They have a ‘Benefit’ for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and
planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and
medical supplies.

Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave ‘US’ the same support they give to other
countries. Sad isn’t it?

99% of people won’t have the guts to forward this.

I’m one of the 1% — I Just Did…..

What makes a right?

To begin with let me preface this by saying that I have nothing against homosexuals. They are no worse sinners than the people who fill the pews every Sunday. But I do have a problem with allowing homosexuals access to the term "marriage".

Marriage is not a right. Please let me say that again because that is the basic principle that cannot be overlooked. Marriage is NOT a right! Nobody has a right to get married, marriage is a covenant conferred upon one man and one women by the church and a civil contract established by society.

In order for society to perform its function of civilizing the savage that is man, certain laws need to be set up, and certain rights need to be acknowledged. And a distinction needs to be made between the two. Rights are conferred upon ALL humans by a being greater than man, otherwise they cease to be rights and only become laws. Laws are conferred upon humans by humans as a means of establishing civility. That is why in the Declaration of Independence the phrase "unalienable rights" is so important. Rights cannot be conferred upon beings of equal stature, meaning that man cannot confer rights upon human kind. In order for it to be a right it must be given my a higher power. My cats cannot give me rights, nor can an ant give rights to a mosquito. A bit of absurdity I know, but you get the point. I do not confer rights to someone that is of equal stature to myself, just as one insect does not give rights to another insect. If they were to be given by mere men they could be simply taken away at a whim, and then they cease to be rights.

So the fact that we consider them rights, means that they must have been endowed to us by a higher being. "That among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". The list is short for a reason: our rights are to be held to so tightly that a narrow definition of rights needs to be adhered to or they cease to become rights, (there is a reason why the Bill of Rights is so short).

We cannot get carried away and start claiming privileges as rights. For that reason we do not have the right to marriage, abortion, collective bargaining, healthcare, home ownership, a college education, pensions, entitlements, yachts, limousines, diamonds, fame, fortune, and luxury vacations. Another absurdity I know, but when one begins including everything under the heading of rights, it tends to get out of hand very quickly. Why shouldn't my wanting Chinese food become my right?

So that leaves us with a very large body of laws, which have been conferred on us by the state (the government), included among these are marriage, abortion, collective bargaining, healthcare, home ownership, a college education, pensions, entitlements, yachts, limousines, diamonds, fame, fortune, and luxury vacations (okay maybe not the last few, at least not for all, but for some). My point is that all these above are privileges not rights. And because they are not rights they do not apply equally to all humans. If my credit is not so good, I do not have a right to own a home. If I work for a company that doesn't have collective bargaining it is not a right that I have lost, I never had it in the first place. Remember rights are conferred upon ALL people, not just a select few. Wanting something doesn't confer upon it the status of "right", nor can government elevate a privilege to the status of right.

So to follow this would mean that society gets to decide what is considered marriage. And a decided majority has determined that the term marriage only applies to a covenant between one man and one woman. There are other ways for homosexuals to be allowed the same privilege without allowing them full access to the "term" marriage. Owing to the fact that marriage is a privilege its definition can be changed as determined by the society. And when 74% of a population determines that it is to be defined as between one man and one woman, then society has deemed it thus. (Prop 8 was passed by 74% of Californians, an overwhelming majority, but one judge overturned it by claiming marriage to be a right). But simply waving a magic wand over a privilege does not elevate it to status of a right, otherwise I could make Chinese food a right.

The homosexual community can go about abdicating for a change in definition all they like, but society gets to decide how the term is defined. Because remember, marriage is NOT a right, so access to the contract can be limited by what society determines is for the best of society making it law. This is the simple truth. I cannot (nor do I wish to) restrict homosexuals from forming civil union contracts that they negotiate through their governmental bodies, employers, insurance companies, healthcare agencies, etc. But I can restrict their access to the "term" marriage by defining what marriage is, and what it is not. And that does not make a homophobe.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Obama: Traitor-in-Chief

A list of the illegal (nee treasonous) activities of our current occupant of the White House (nee Barry Soetoro). Looks like a draft for a new Declaration of Independence for freedom loving people. There is no doubt that we are under oppression the likes not seen since King George III.

Of late, much has been made about the current administration’s attack on First Amendment Rights. Attacks have been made on religious liberties (see healthcare mandate on contraception in religious affiliated institutions)

and freedom of the press (see White House and Media Matters coordinate attacks on FOX News)

While it may be correct to fight unconstitutional actions by this administration through continued pursuit of these specific issues, it might be wiser to focus on the bigger picture.

  • He has violated the individual liberties of all our people by imposing forced participation in a government healthcare regulatory system without our consent.
  • He has collaborated with his Attorney General to ignore equal protection under the law in favor of selective protections based upon arbitrary factors.
  • He has violated American bankruptcy laws by willfully denying secured bond holders first payment, in favor of unsecured political supporters.
  • He has violated the Constitution by accepting the position of Chairmanship of the UN Security Council.
  • He has ignored the Constitutional separation of power by appointing “czars” to oversee matters that are intended to be handled by the legislative branch of the government.
  • He has violated the First Amendment right to freedom of the press, by attacking television and radio networks, stations and broadcasters while attempting censorship.
  • He has violated the individual’s right to free speech through creation of an email address to report Citizens in a blatant attempts to silence dissent through intimidation.
  • He has violated the Law by ignoring the War Powers Act and engaging the United States military in overseas hostilities without the consent of Congress.
  • He has violated the First Amendment by attempting to impose restrictions on free speech through implementation of Net Neutrality by the FCC.
  • He has endeavored to interfere in the free market through the imposition of The Clean Energy and Security Act, which mandates carbon emissions be reduced to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent by 2030, and 84 percent by 2050. By 2020, this tax will extract an estimated $160 billion from the economy, or an average $1,870 per family.
  • He has violated the Constitution by having the government offer $4,500 rebates to people for turning in older motor vehicles for newer vehicles
  • He has interfered in America’s free market by having the National Labor Relations Board sue a privately owned company for planning to open for business in a State that protects an employee’s ability to work free of forced union membership.
  • He has interfered in the free market by imposing restrictions and regulations on petroleum, natural gas and coal production in the United States.
  • He has abandoned enforcing the security of American borders and protected illegal immigrants from prosecution for violation of immigration laws:
  • He has abandoned and insulted our most enduring and faithful allies through speech and action, the most glaring among these being placing the State of Israel on the list of nations that foster terrorism.
  • He has sought to impose additional taxes on us without our Consent.
  • For depriving us in some cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  • For transferring billions of dollars to enemies of the United States through Foreign Aid.
  • For ignoring the Constitutional separation of powers by publicly attacking the Supreme Court of the United States.
  • For attacking America’s bedrock family values by ordering the Department of Justice to not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
  • For repeated attacks upon America’s Christian foundation.
  • For repeatedly slandering American Citizens with false accusations of racism, violent tendencies and hatred.
  • For grossly accelerating and increasing the amount of America’s debt through passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, which had negligible effect on unemployment, sent billions of dollars overseas and wasted billions domestically bailing out States practicing irresponsible budgetary policies.
  • For putting America and America’s allies at greater risk through cancellation of missile defense systems.
  • For expanding the need for enormous increases in government borrowing,
  • For collaborating with his Attorney General to try enemy combatants in civilian Courts.
  • For collaborating with his Attorney General and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the implementation of operation Fast and Furious, which has been implicated in the murder of American Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
  • For devaluing our currency by engaging in the practice of Quantitative Easing, allowing the Federal Reserve to purchase trillions of dollars of our national debt.

The list could continue, but you get the idea.

A President whose character is thus marked by acts which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to govern a free people.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Food Nazis

Seinfeld did a non-episode titled the "soup nazi" in which a temperamental chef decides who gets to eat his soup or not. Well reality is stranger than fiction. This week a 4-year-old was attacked by the FDA's food nazi at her pre-school.

It seems that her turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, bag of chips and apple juice, was not appropriate and instead was given an FDA approved lunch that contained chicken nuggets (the rest of the lunch was untouched by the 4-year-old). This leaves a few questions to be answered.

1. Since when are chicken nuggets nutritious?
2. Why is the FDA policing sent-from-home lunches?
3. Are the FDA guidelines appropriate? And were they even followed in this case?
4. Why is the government trying to tell 4-year-olds that their parents are stupid?
5. When are we the people going to tell the government enough is enough?

The mom in this case was rightfully upset, and went to her congressional representative. The FDA has issued a statement and an updated report has been filed. The government has stepped way over the line here. And if Big Brother thinks that all one needs do is apologize and all is forgiven (while they continue to take away your rights), they are very mistaken.

In a related piece, a school administrator when asked about parental involvement in the schools, has claimed that parents are not the best at making the "right" decisions for their children. The reporter even asked "are you saying that parents do not know what is best for their own kids?" To which she replied that parents are not always the best at making decisions that are best for their kids, that the experts are far more qualified to make decisions.

I remember when my kids were in the public schools in the 80's and 90's and the attitude was the same: only back then the "experts" hid the fact that they had complete disdain for parents. It would seem that they no longer care to hide their hate.

So now the government is actually telling kids that their parents are stupid, idiotic, back-water morons who have no idea what it means to raise children properly. Remember this was a 4-year-old, the only thing she took out of this incident is that her mom doesn't understand what is good for her because she sent her to lunch with a crappy meal. The indoctrination begins early, even Hitler could have only hoped at reaching this age with his propaganda machine.

This kind of action by the government is a complete violation of "human rights" and constitutional rights. Every day they take away more and more of our freedoms in the name of "the good of society", only they are the ones determining what is the "good of society". Talk about forcing ones beliefs on others. Debbie Wasserman Schultz are you listening?

Big Brother is watching what you send as lunch for your kid to eat; Big Brother is monitoring your lives (ever heard of the patriot act). I am afraid we are losing all we held dear, when a Supreme Court Justice tells the world that our Constitution is a piece of crap, we are in trouble.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Righteous Anger, not Guilt

A New York Time article has come out with the assumption that critics of the safety net feel guilty about using government assistance but are helpless to live without it. "Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age." NY times, Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on it, 02/11/2012.

So the New York Times claims that people who accept government help are helpless to not accept government assistance, and when they find that it is not easy, they give up and feel guilty. Those guilty feelings lead to animosity to the government and anger over not being able to make it on their own without government assistance. That is their claim. May I submit a different conclusion.

The middle class has seen massive intrusions into their lives by government, and unsustainable drains placed on their incomes; their anger towards the government is not from feelings of guilt but actual anger that their means of survival have been abrogated by the same government. For, you see, the same government that promises to keep your way of life status-quo is the same government that is robbing you blind and making your ability to maintain the status-quo impossible on your own. I do not feel guilty that I cannot make it on my own, I feel anger that the government has intruded so far into my life that they have made it impossible to make it on my own.

I spent a very long and hard fought battle a couple of decades ago in getting off the welfare roles, it was the hardest thing I have ever had to do. But I do not accept a dime of government money now, I make do with what I have. Sure that means that I don't own my own home, I drive a car with almost 200,000 miles on it (without a lien), we don't eat at fancy restaurants, or take extravagant vacations.

BUT........ I am doing it all on my own. There is a sense of extreme pride in knowing that the American Dream can still be achieved. My oldest daughter has a college degree and is currently working on her masters. I also have the pride in knowing my daughter's life will be better than my own. With a good deal of will power and a little sacrifice, the American Dream is still possible, but it is getting harder and harder to attain, due to government intrusion, not from lack of determination or American Spirit (as the progressives would like to propose).

I don't need the New York Times to tell me that if I just accept the governments help, I could have the American Dream. They have no idea what the American Dream really is. It is not all the trappings that prosperity brings, it is self-determination and pride in doing for oneself. And we do not feel guilty because it is seemingly out-of-reach without governmental assistance. We are angry that the government takes it from us with empty promises of good things that they have no intention of ever delivering on. That is why we are angry.

"One of the oldest criticisms of democracy is that the people will inevitably drain the treasury by demanding more spending than taxes. The theory is that citizens who get more than they pay for will vote for politicians who promise to increase spending."

That is what Obama is banking on. He wants the middle class to feel obligated, not outraged. I am not falling for it, I have been there and I am not going back. I would rather starve than give the progressives the satisfaction of making me dependent again.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Protecting the People

When will the liberals understand that the second amendment is not so much about guns as it is about property rights. A weapon is a means of protecting what is mine from those who would take it by force, even if that is the very government that claims to want to protect me. Remember that where there are more gun owners with concealed carry permits, there is less crime, that is a fact. So, having guns in the hands of responsible citizens is a deterrent, not the other way around.

How does one determine who is a responsible citizen? The government allows people to have a right to defend themselves, if they mess up and use the weapon in an irresponsible way, you remove it from them. But our current administration would rather lead from a position of fear, they would rather punish all the citizenry because they can't tell who is responsible. That is how progressives view society; everyone must be treated like they are irresponsible, then there is no chance that anyone will mess up.

But that is anathema to a "free" society, in a free society all the people deserve to be treated like responsible citizens until such a time as they prove irresponsible, then punishment and correction can be meted out fairly. This is what the Constitution assumes of our society. But today's progressives would have no one able to responsibly protect themselves from those who mean them harm, and don't let anyone tell you all people are basically good and wish no harm on anyone else. That is a complete lie, there are people who mean to do harm to others, and they will find ways to do it, no matter what the laws. So to un-arm a citizenry places them in greater harm than allowing everyone access to weapons and weeding out the irresponsible.

Another reason why progressives love gun control is because it makes life easier for them. You see they live on an emotional plane, everything is based on emotion, how does it make you FEEL, is their favorite meme. So when no one is allowed to have a gun except those charged with protecting the population, they know that those who have guns are evil unless they are one of the authorities charged with protecting the people. They don't need to wonder if the person carrying the weapon is responsible or not, they know that if you are not the police and you have a weapon you are BAD. It takes all the onus off them for having to think for themselves. They can then feel good that there are no weapons to worry about.

A big part of our way of life is treating all adults as if they are responsible citizens. That is why all these government regulations are so onerous to our way of life. I am a responsible adult, I don't need the elites to tell me what toilet paper to buy, what laundry detergent to use, what light bulb to use, what garbage bag I can use, what I can eat and where I can eat it, what kind of transportation I can utilize, and whether I can think for myself or not. Progressive liberals all want to think they are making decisions that will have some greater good on society, they like to FEEL good about their efforts. But requiring a photo ID to buy Sudafed is stepping over the line.

This is just a small taste of what they have planned for the future. And despite recent studies to the contrary, I am not mentally ill because I want the government to not tell me how to think. If I want to watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh I am perfectly free to do it, and the government has no right (unless it is abrogated by a apathetic public) to tell me I can't. What right does the FDA have in telling someone they cannot inhale tobacco smoke or vaporized liquid? The simple answer is NONE.

Unless the people are determined to stand up to the elites and tell them I don't want trains, or mercury laden light bulbs, or toilets that need to be flushed twice, or my lunch labeled unhealthy, or solar panels and windmills, they will ram all these thing down our throats, and we will cease to be a "free" country. Whether you think that solar panels and windmills and trains are good for the country is not the issue, the issue is does anyone have a right to tell you that you MUST purchase health insurance or pay a fine. Big Brother is trying to take over, are we going to let him?

Why is anyone working?

Okay, I am ready to rage against the machine.

I am sick to death of the takers, "Nearly half of the US population (49.5%) does not pay any federal income taxes," Heritage Foundation. So in essence 51% of the country is working their asses off and paying taxes so the other 49% can sit on their hands and just keep demanding more. The whole idea of taxing the rich so you can live in the lap of luxury is ludicrous. And to add insult to injury, "The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation's average disposable personal income ($32,446)." Heritage Foundation.
So why should I work hard and pay taxes? Those lazy good-for-nothings are collecting more from the taxpayers than most taxpayers make in wages, if that is not f***ed up than I have no idea what is.

And the saddest part is, if you do some math, there is no way that we the taxpayers can afford this. If the government is giving away more than we make, and half the population is contributing nothing, where is the money coming from? Borrowing. We are mortgaging our future on lazy do-nothings.

  • How the H*ll is this compassionate? Tell that to your kids when the bill comes due, "We had to make you sacrifice your future so we could lay around doing nothing and create more children to pay for our laziness." INSANITY!!
  • The government is now wondering if enough tax revenues can be dragged out of the taxpayers to pay for just the interest on our debt, much less paying it off. INSANITY!!
  • Our President is proposing even more spending we cannot afford. INSANITY!!
  • Congress has not passed a budget for over 3 years so they have no limits on what they can spend. INSANITY!!
  • The Congress has raised the debt ceiling twice since they promised they would only need a small increase to get them through to some future date. They have blown through the increases in mere months not years as promised. INSANITY!!
  • We have become embroiled in additional wars in the middle east, even though we don't have money to fund these wars. Where is the anti-war crowd calling for an end to unfunded conflicts? INSANITY!!
  • Now our king wants to make birth control available to all women free of charge and demands that the church pay for it when it flies in the face of their deeply held beliefs. This is a power grab of unparalleled proportions. INSANITY!!

Having found myself recently among the unemployed in this nation, I am doing the responsible thing and trying to find another job, and not taking the government handout. How many people are willing to stand up for this country and do the patriotic thing that made this country great? Hard work and sacrificing for future generations has been the hallmark of the United States. I for one want to make the future for my children better than I had it. The problem is the progressives don't believe in the future, they want to spend everything on today. Why the H*ll would anyone want to work, why would anyone want to succeed, why should anyone do anything for anyone else? There is your progressive compassion: spend it ALL today. Why should this generation sacrifice when the next next generation will pay for me?

Friday, February 10, 2012

Producers vs Dependents » Study: Distrust Of Government A Mental Disorder

After watching the video a thought came to me. The majority of the population would qualify for this classification and would need to be quarantined. Because we all know that, with the presidents approval numbers being so low and his disapproval number being so high, a majority of Americans do not approve of this government, the majority do not trust this government, and the majority are pretty vocal in their dissent. So adding up the numbers we would arrive at the conclusion that a large percentage of the population would qualify for quarantine.

"Houston, I think we have a problem".

Taking into account the fact that approximately 53% of the population is paying for the other 47%, a very large and disastrous problem. Now I know that not all the productive members of society would call themselves conservative, but in order to "infirm" the anti-government types, would mean taking out a huge percentage of the productive population. Remember we are needed right now to feed and clothe and take care of the 47% who cannot take care of themselves and who rely on the forcible re-distribution of wealth from producers to dependents.

Okay so now Big Brother has figured out a way of removing the thorn from his side by "committing" his enemies (Obama's term) to re-education facilities. But they will also be removing the productive members of society. Is this just short-sighted of them? A few questions for you Mr president:

Who will feed, clothe, shelter and take care of the needs of the dependent class after you remove the productive class and quarantine them for re-education?
Do you really think the OWS crowd will willingly take the jobs that have been left behind? They will be the jobs that they have previously turned their progressive noses up at because they were beneath them. So the country will have an even bigger problem than they have right now. I wonder if they have really thought this through.
Are you going to force people to work at menial jobs?
Are you going to treat them as you have treated us conservatives?
How long will the labor unions last when there is nobody to pay for their exorbitant demands? How long will the country last when there is nobody producing?
Can the government who has fawned all over the dependent class, and promised them everything at no cost, actually make them produce?

This is a nightmare waiting to be awaken from. WAKE UP! (not working)

Just food for thought!

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

An Open Letter to Senator Risser and Assemblywoman Berceau

I have held off writing to you for a very long time because I do NOT agree with your stand on many issues, but I now feel that a bold move is needed to be made along non-partisan lines with the Government Accountability Board. After the recent decision by the GAB to disenfranchise a large population of your constituents from the recall process, I feel that every member of the legislative body needs to come together to ensure that ALL the people are protected from this flagrant disregard for citizen involvement in the electoral process.

By refusing to admit into evidence the concerns of the non-partisan effort to ensure the electoral process is not abrogated by one particular small interest group, the GAB has disenfranchised the voters of WI. This sets up a very dangerous precedent, that can be used against ALL the voters in the future, and take away the power of the citizen to safeguard the election process. By taking away the voice of the people in this instance, you set up the removal of the voice of ALL people in the future. This is not just a slap to your political opponent, this takes power away from all the voters.

Please set aside the political games and see this effort as what it truly can become, You and your Democrats claim that voter ID will disenfranchise minorities and the elderly, but this action by the GAB does far worse it disenfrachises all the voters.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Put Up or Shut Up!

Why do liberals drive a Prius or a Volt? It is not because it is a cool looking car, it is not because it has great handling or has great pick-up or speed. No, a liberal buys a Prius because it gets good gas mileage; it is economical, it is green, they are doing it to "save the planet". Well guess what, the planet doesn't need saving, it is perfectly healthy, the planet doesn't need your help to remain healthy, your efforts are meaningless. (If you believe in Global Climate Change do some research of your own and learn some real science). You do it just to feel good about yourself, you do it so you can say to the conservative "I care".

This whole thing with the media going crazy over the split of Susan G. Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood it more of the same. Those media people don't really give a damn about poor women's health care and breast cancer screenings, if they did they would give of their own money to charities that fund cancer research. If all you do is support taxpayer funding of research of this kind you are a hypocrite. I give the same taxes to the same research and if that is all you give, then I care the same as you, you do not care more than I do. Giving only through your taxes levels the playing field, and makes our "caring" levels about the issue the same. Get that I care the same as you care.

Yours is only feigned moral outrage. You couldn't care less about the breast cancer screenings, it is just your meme. You in the main stream media are frauds, big fat phonies. When you can provide proof that you give more than just tax money, out of your own pocket, then and only then can you go on the air and sound off like you have.

Historically you liberals have given small peanuts to any charities, the majority being given by the conservatives. So get off of your high horse and start walking in the trenches for a change. Your outrage is a fraud, and you are a fraud. Put your money where your mouth is before you open it and start pointing fingers.

Are Republicans or Democrats more racist?

"Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation to ban welfare card use from liquor stores and strip clubs. This has democrats fighting mad. Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a senior analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy, a progressive D.C. think tank says, 'There’s no evidence that this is a widespread problem. And even when funds are withdrawn in those locations, it doesn’t mean that people are gambling away their benefits.' Democratic Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-MI) says cracking down on food stamp fraud is racist, or something."

We have seen the same thing coming from the national stage as well:

"At issue was a statement Gingrich made weeks earlier, that if invited to speak at the NAACP he would urge the African-American community to 'demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.' Mr. Williams—who works for Fox News—asked Mr. Gingrich if his use of such language wasn't 'intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities.' The modern day southern crackers, in the audience, roundly and rudely booed Williams. And none of the Republican candidates said anything against Gingrich’s racist characterization of the welfare issue, or, with the treatment of Mr. Williams by those in their base. Their silence—to that shameful, hateful display— tells us that Republicans will appeal to, and, appease racists for political expedience."

Okay so what can be derived from these two articles, a couple of things. First that the race card is being used to undermine the conservative shift in this country. As much as the Democrats are loathe to admit it, that is exactly what is happening:

" Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004."

This poll was done in 2009, and the shift is continuing:

"The growth in the percentage of independents who lean Republican has been accompanied by an uptick in the proportion who describe their views as conservative. Currently, 36% of independents say they are conservative, up from 29% in 2006. Over the same period, the proportion of independent who are moderates declined from 46% to 43%, while the number describing themselves as liberal edged downward two points (from 18% to 16%)" from 2010.

My second hypothesis is much more sinister and telling. Race-bating is a Democratic tool. When a "hard-work" ethic is said to be racist than there is a racial undertone that the racial minorities are against hard work. Remember this is coming from the Democrats who have historically had "compassion" for the racial minorities.

Let me dig into this deeper. Juan Williams and Gwen Moore are both actually undermining the black population and showing their in-born racism through their question. What is happening here is the idea that all blacks are on food stamps. The only way Obama being called the "Food Stamp President" is a racist statement would be if the black population were the only recipients of food stamps. The fact is that blacks may make up a large percentage, but there is a sizable percentage of white poor also on food stamps.

"Now nearly 12 percent of Americans receive aid — 28 percent of blacks, 15 percent of Latinos and 8 percent of whites."

What I am getting to here is to say the jump from the simple number to using the race card is the step at which the actual racism is happening. When Juan Williams and Gwen Moore call the Republicans out for being racist, the actual racism has taken place by themselves. Think about it. If I were to say that having a loud stereo is a characteristic of the black population, I have taken the racist step right there. For me to characterize noise ordinances as racist would mean that I have taken the racist step, not those who have voted for noise ordinances.

This video says it so succinctly.

So to wrap this up, whenever you hear someone using the race card, ask yourself who is the actual racist...the defendant or the plaintiff?