The Little Engine that could NOT!

We have heard a lot lately about how the economy needs an overhaul (OWS is basing their whole movement on the fact that capitalism doesn't work), and the progressives (Obama and company) are just the ones to initiate us the change we need to make our economy run more efficiently.

Let's look at the economy as an engine that drives our nation, with sufficient fuel it is an efficient mechanism to get our nation moving. For the last 2 hundred years we have run our engine on capitalism (gasoline), and it has been doing a pretty good job of running the nation. We have had good times and bad times, and fuel shortages and booms, but through it all, the gasoline that we have been running our nation on has done its job. The American economy has purred along pretty self sufficiently for a couple of centuries.

But for about the last 100 years or so the progressives decided that gasoline (the fuel we use to operate our economy) is inefficient, that it is not the best fuel to run our engine on. They make all kind of crazy claims, like the supply of gasoline will run out soon, so we need to find alternative fuel. A progressive never met an alternative fuel source that he didn't like. Solar, wind, Geo-thermal, electric, bio-fuel, ethanol (Socialism, communism, fascism, sustainable development, whatever title they are using now), just to name a few with the progressive stamp of approval.

Unfortunately, none of these alternatives can produce the same result as the gasoline we currently use. But the progressives still claim that gasoline is inefficient so we cannot use our supply at all, instead we need to find something else to run our country on. Capitalism, they say is the bane of society, it rewards some and punishes others, so we cannot use it any longer to fuel the economy because it is "unfair".

And their way of encouraging use of "alternative fuels" is to raise the taxes on gasoline (tax the rich) so the price gets so high that no one can live their lives. This is the progressive way of enforcing its agenda on the population, make whatever they don't want so expensive that the citizens cannot afford to run their own lives on the substance. But what is the alternative fuel that the progressives have championed? What they are proposing is run our nation on water (figuratively of course).

They have not come up with a new engine design, they have not come up with a way of converting our current engine to other fuels, instead they INSIST that we simply stop using what has worked (inefficient as it is) for the last couple of centuries. Most OWS occupiers don't have any idea for a replacement economic system, they only insist that capitalism doesn't work and needs to be destroyed.

Slowly they have been introducing their new "fuel" into the engine, they took over the education system, and the engine ran fine. So they took over the environment, and the engine began to sputter, they took over the entertainment industry and the media, and the engine started huffing and sputtering. Now they are trying to take over the courts, the government, and change the "fuel" by proxy, and what is the result? Our engine has pretty much stopped working.

And their response is to blame the gasoline. After all, gasoline is inefficient, it doesn't produce equal results across all passengers, some engines got better gas mileage than others, so....... because it isn't equally distributed, we have to do away with gasoline. Gasoline is BAD! And we need to run our engine on water from now on, because water is more "fair."

But have they come up with a different, more efficient, engine? They only have theories of how an engine can run on water. Have they proven that our current engine can run on water? Every time it has been tried in real life, it has failed miserably. We know that gasoline will run the engine, but they think that by demonizing the gasoline, they will cause the engine to run more efficiently? HUH!

Motto of the story: NO you can't!!!!

Make them buy cigarettes!

I know this will come as no surprise to anyone, but children's health care is being funded by smokers.

"The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was created in 1997 to provide affordable health coverage to low-income children in working families who make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid but not enough to afford private coverage. The program currently covers more than 7 million children. In February 2009, after a protracted political fight, Congress enacted, and President Obama signed, legislation that renewed CHIP through the end of 2013 and expanded its scope." http://familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/chipra/funding.pdf

This legislation was originally a product of the Clinton administration. "At its creation in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance coverage for children in the U.S. since Medicaid began in the 1960s. The statutory authority for SCHIP is under title XXI of the Social Security Act. It was sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy in a partnership with Senator Orrin Hatch^[3] with support coming from First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Clinton administration.^[4][5][6]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program

The main point is........this is a Democrat product, it was written, sponsored, passed and signed into law by Democrats. Democrats love this program, they take great pride in this program, they have patted themselves on the back for this program. They would also love to expand this program, Hillary envisioned up to 25 million children being served by this program.

"Tragically, in my state (Texas) -- not something I'm proud of -- 850,000 children are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP, but they are not enrolled,'(U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas) said Wednesday. 'I think it's important we focus our efforts on getting these children covered. And that's why Kids First provides $400 million for five years for outreach and enrollment." http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/jan/29/us-senate-debates-chip-funding/

Sounds great, but there is a gremlin in the works. Like all great programs that the government undertakes it must find funding. "The expansion, which would be funded by a tobacco tax increase, affects almost 500,000 Texan children, including 2,254 children in Jones and Taylor counties."

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/jan/29/us-senate-debates-chip-funding/

Now we all know how Democrats feel about smoking. Smokers are the worst of the worst, they are a menace to society; their smelly habit affects the health of everyone surrounding them, they are polluters, and are ignorant to their negative affects on the environment. So smokers need to be punished for their lack of respect for the environment around them, by taxing them.

"Not only are the payers of cigarette taxes poorer as a group than the payers of these other taxes, but there are fewer of them. The burden on the lowest-earning 20 percent of households from a cigarette tax is 37 times heavier than if the government raised the money with the federal income tax." http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/24208.html

So.... health care for poor children is being funded by smokers, who tend to be the poor. Sounds like a remedy for disaster, the smokers fund children's health care, but liberals hate smokers and demand they quit smoking, which would of course lower the amount of revenues to be used for ... children's health care. Quite a pickle they have gotten themselves into. So how do we solve this?

That is the easy part, since health care is a right (I am speaking like a liberal, I personally don't believe it is a right), then children's health care must be funded by the government. And since the government has linked the funding to cigarette taxes....the only solution is to mandate that the public buy cigarettes.

Before you jump down my throat, think about how the Affordable Health care Act will be funded. The individual mandate demands that every citizen buy health insurance or pay a fine. So if the public can be mandated to buy health insurance, then they can be mandated to buy any other product as long as the goal is health care, right? So taking the cue from Obamacare and the individual mandate, the only way to fund children's health care is to mandate that every citizen buy cigarettes.

Only by being forced to purchase cigarettes can our poor kids have the kind of health care they have a right to. This is your government in action. This would of course mean that not only would the poor be paying for children's health care, but if everyone were mandated to buy cigarettes, the rich would also be forced (probably kicking and screaming) to pay for it as well. Something they are loathe to do, I am sure.

So in conclusion, if Obama thinks that mandating the purchase of insurance to cover his health care plan is constitutional, he could just as easily mandate that we all buy cigarettes to cover health care for children. It is the same reasoning, just a different product.

So smokers, light up, enjoy your nicotine, you are doing it for the children, you are the real caring citizens.

Who Knows What, When?

This video is a little longer than I am used to posting here, but if you watch it until the end you will not be disappointed.....but you will be angry. I for one am furious. First we are told by all the political experts that Mitt Romney will be the inevitable candidate before even one vote was cast, and then they go about to ensure that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I was angry when they assaulted by candidate Herman Cain, and threatened his family, to he felt he needed to drop out of the race, but this is even worse. When they know the results before the votes are cast it means only one thing, FRAUD!!! on an unprecedented scale.

Progressives care about the poor. NOT!

Mayor Bloomberg’s food policy hurts homeless—Jeff Stier - NYPOST.com

Taking the whole "Food Nazi" to new levels. Bloomberg tells a synagogue that they cannot donate fresh food to homeless shelters. Supposedly for the health of the homeless. I love the whole idea, don't feed the homeless so they won't get fat. How ludicrous!

Somewhere along the way these progressive politicians have gotten it VERY wrong. And yet, they still claim they care more about the poor and disadvantaged. I am thinking not so much.

Privatize the TSA

http://www.onlinecriminaljusticedegree.com/tsa-waste/

Racism or Patriotism?

The Democrat party in Tavares Florida was asked by a group of veterans to remove a flag bearing the image of Barack Obama, in violation of Florida statute and the US Flag Code. She reluctantly took it down and has now issued her statement to the press.

"Hurlbert said Tuesday's incident was the first time anyone had complained about the flag, which she received as a gift two months ago. "It leads me to believe that it's not about the flag," she told Fox News.com. "Certain elements cannot accept Barack Obama as president."

So in response to her flagrant use of the race card I had to tell her how I felt (a good progressive always wants to know how we feel about things).

Dear Nancy Hurlburt,

I am appalled that you would violate the law of the great state of FL by displaying the desecration of the US Flag, and then pull out the race card. Where in the blue blazes do you get the idea that you have a right to desecrate the flag by placing an image of the president on it, in violation of Florida Statutes > Title XVIII > Chapter 256 > § 256.05.

"Statute 256.05, which covers improper use of state or United States flag, or other symbol of authority, reads: "No person shall, in any manner, for exhibition or display:

"(1) Place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, color, ensign or shield of the United States or of this state, or authorized by any law of the United States or this state; or "

(2) Expose to public view any such flag, standard, color, ensign or shield upon which shall have been printed, painted or otherwise produced, or to which shall have been attached, appended, affixed or annexed any such word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement."

And I am further amazed at the audacity to call the veterans, who asked you to remove this abomination, racist. Your lack of civility and unwillingness to compromise is what is fueling the class warfare going on in this nation right now.
Do not think of yourself too highly, you and anyone like you that thinks they can violate any law they want and then denigrate the good name of concerned citizens is the exact thing that is causing the class warfare. The concerned citizens, and in this case veterans, were asking that you not OFFEND them. But not only have you offended them with your abominable display but also by your uncivil words and actions after the fact.
You Democrats have become the bane of this nation not its savior as you would like to believe.

Unions prove that Act 10 works

"Dear Brothers:

“We write to express our grave concern that MTEA has asked their legislators to introduce and work to pass legislation which would enable MTEA and the Milwaukee Public Schools to enter into an agreement in which MTEA would make economic concessions such as those enacted by Governor Walker’s WI Act 10.

‘The undersigned believe that such legislation would be detrimental to our members’ best interests: i.e. our Districts would likely push for similar legislation, given the precedent established by MTEA. Further, we believe such legislation will have an adverse impact on all Wisconsin public employees. Such legislation will enable Governor Walker to claim victory of his policy to reign [sic] in public employee wages and benefits. Because he did not adequately fund education, we are all currently suffering. Allowing Governor Walker to make such a claim just before the recall election will prove detrimental to recalling him and, therefore, will only enhance his ability to further harm all Wisconsin public employees.

“We ask that you immediately withdraw your request for this legislation.”

The letter was signed by the following union representatives from Madison, Kenosha, Green Bay and Racine:

Peggy Coyne, MTI President
John Matthews, MTI Executive Director
Mary B. Modder, KEA President
Joe Kiriski, KEA Executive Director
Toni Lardinois, GBEA President
Keith Patt, GBEA Executive Director
Pete Knotek, REA President
Jack, Bernfeld, REA Executive Director

This is a copy of the letter sent to the Milwaukee School District after they had requested that the WI State Legislature give them an open window in which to renegotiate fringe benefits without nullifying their existing contracts.

So, what are the unions really telling us? "Such legislation will enable Governor Walker to claim victory of his policy to reign [sic] in public employee wages and benefits." Asking the legislature to renegotiate the part of the contract affected by the collective bargaining clause of Act 10 will give Walker points to use against them in the recall. "Allowing Governor Walker to make such a claim just before the recall election will prove detrimental to recalling him and, therefore, will only enhance his ability to further harm all Wisconsin public employees."

So the Milwaukee School District rushed a contract through which left them with a deficit of $10 million dollars in their pension fund, and now they want to renegotiate to cover that deficit without nullifying the full contract. And the unions don't want them to be able to make up the deficit through contract concessions. BECAUSE....

Act 10 worked,

it brought about the ability of School Districts to bring their contracts into line with the actual cost of doing business without union collusion. This letter is another example of the thuggery the unions are willing to commit to keep the school districts in line. Because the union have been used to using school districts against each other in the negotiation process, they feel that they can use this same tactic against the Milwaukee School District now to smack them back down.

In their own words, Milwaukee wants to "make economic concessions such as those enacted by Governor Walker’s WI Act 10." They themselves are admitting that ACT 10 has worked, is working and will continue to work. That is why they have to redirect the argument back to the collective bargaining that they lost. If they can re-frame the argument back to collective bargaining they think they have the moral high ground.

But as long as the school districts are thriving financially, the unions will continue to lose the argument...financially. And having only 15% of the working class in the public unions, they will continue to lose the argument as long as the taxpayers see the benefits financially as well. And their antics during the protests and their death threats to opponents have also weakened their position.

The unions, by their own admission, admit that Act 10 has done what it was promised to do. Make school districts better able to control their budgets, and save money. You heard it from the Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, and Racine Teachers Unions.