That is what I saw as I watched the presidential debate. Both candidates addressed the financial crisis, but neither one showed an ounce of passion. No anger. Neither one related to we, the People.
As I listened to these two losers, all I heard was, "Gee whiz, I know you are hurting. And I will fix it." Not exactly what I would call commanding.
Tell ya what - regardless of party affiliation, I will vote for the first one to stand up, get angry, and say, "When I am president, I will find out the people responsible for this. I will identify those who robbed us of our pensions. And I will punish them to the maximum extent that the law allows. Jail time, not bail time! I don't care who they are, or what party they belong to. I'm going to nail them. And then I will make sure that this will never, ever happen again."
But I am betting that neither will do that, and do it with conviction. Because I do not see any passion or guts in either of them. Yes, McCain is a war hero. But in matters such as this, where the people expect him to take on the crooks, he and Obama are both gutless.
If you feel as I do, feel free to do as I did - write to the clowns that manage these losers and tell them how you feel. I wrote to both the chairman and the campaign manager, at chairman@gop.com and political@gop.com, because personally, I do not believe Obama would ever turn on those that supported him. But if you are an Obama fan, then contact his handlers. But for crying out loud, ONE of these idiots needs to show some passion, conviction and guts.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Why Don't They Get It?
Still hearing from "green" people about increasing sources of ethanol - corn, switchgrass, stinkweed - the list goes on. And these people actually believe this is a sound, "green" alternative. Why have they not thought it through? Why do they ignore the facts?
Let's start with the most obvious point - lack of arable land to use for ethanol production. If we were to use EVERY acre of tillable land in America for growing ethanol sources, it still would not produce enough ethanol to keep our cars going. And even if it could, we would be able to drive to the supermarket, but the shelves would be empty because there is no land being farmed for FOOD. It is just plain stupid to burn your food supply. Because of ethanol production, the cost of food worldwide has risen sharply - and the poor, already hungry, are now starving.
But it gets even worse. For every gallon of ethanol produced, it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuels to produce it. So, it is not even green. It actually INCREASES the CO2 levels.
It takes fuel to till the soil. Fuel to fertilize. Fuel to irrigate. Fuel to harvest. Fuel to transport to the processing plant. Fuel to process into ethanol. Isn't it strange that somehow the "greenies" overlook such things. Instead, all they can see is the end product - "WOW! Fuel from weeds!"
And what about those "electric" cars? Again, it's "WOW! Run cars without burning fossil fuels!" The problem lies in the simple fact that it takes fuel to create the electricity! Simple physics teaches us that there is ALWAYS some loss when you change from one energy to another. So, it takes more fuel to create the electricity than it would have taken to simply fuel the car in the first place.
Sure, perhaps the electricity comes from nuclear, or water. But currently, most of our electricity comes from oil, gas and coal. And we already suffer "brownouts" - a lack of sufficient electricity. Imagine if all vehicles used electricity - we would be living in the dark.
The folks who want "green" solutions are correct in believing our future depends on green solutions. But they are absolutely looking in the wrong direction. They are not thinking things through. They are going forth while wearing blinders. And ignorance is even worse than burning oil.
Let's start with the most obvious point - lack of arable land to use for ethanol production. If we were to use EVERY acre of tillable land in America for growing ethanol sources, it still would not produce enough ethanol to keep our cars going. And even if it could, we would be able to drive to the supermarket, but the shelves would be empty because there is no land being farmed for FOOD. It is just plain stupid to burn your food supply. Because of ethanol production, the cost of food worldwide has risen sharply - and the poor, already hungry, are now starving.
But it gets even worse. For every gallon of ethanol produced, it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuels to produce it. So, it is not even green. It actually INCREASES the CO2 levels.
It takes fuel to till the soil. Fuel to fertilize. Fuel to irrigate. Fuel to harvest. Fuel to transport to the processing plant. Fuel to process into ethanol. Isn't it strange that somehow the "greenies" overlook such things. Instead, all they can see is the end product - "WOW! Fuel from weeds!"
And what about those "electric" cars? Again, it's "WOW! Run cars without burning fossil fuels!" The problem lies in the simple fact that it takes fuel to create the electricity! Simple physics teaches us that there is ALWAYS some loss when you change from one energy to another. So, it takes more fuel to create the electricity than it would have taken to simply fuel the car in the first place.
Sure, perhaps the electricity comes from nuclear, or water. But currently, most of our electricity comes from oil, gas and coal. And we already suffer "brownouts" - a lack of sufficient electricity. Imagine if all vehicles used electricity - we would be living in the dark.
The folks who want "green" solutions are correct in believing our future depends on green solutions. But they are absolutely looking in the wrong direction. They are not thinking things through. They are going forth while wearing blinders. And ignorance is even worse than burning oil.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Majority Rule?
Before the Supreme Court had a conservative majority and the liberals were in charge, they made yet another, of many, poor rulings, in violation of the Constitution. They ruled that "eminent domain" could be used to take private lands for public BENEFIT, rather than the public USE required under the Constitution.
Their wrong-headed thinking violates not only the Constitution, but also the very tenets of our Republic. This is because liberals want America to be a Democracy, but it is not. Under the law, and by decree in the Constitution, America is a REPUBLIC, which is quite different from a Democracy.
In a Democracy, majority rules. Democrats like that, because it empowers them to levy more taxes and rob us of more rights. All they need is to convince a majority that something is best, and that's it! The government gains power, and the people lose it.
But in a Republic, the majority does not rule. Each of us has the sole power. As Henry David Thoreau so aptly put it, "When the rights of the majority take away the rights of the one, we all suffer." In other words, we should never forget that EACH of us is the ONE. Sometimes we are in the majority; sometimes not. Do we give up our God-given rights just because we are not in the majority?
The Founding fathers thought about a Democracy as a form of governance, and flatly rejected it, and chose a Republic, instead. The primary reason lies in the fact that, by nature, Man will always favor having others take responsibility for them. And that invariably results in bigger government, until government finally is the sole power. No longer would it be "of the people, by the people, for the people." We are very close to that now, thanks to liberals.
If we, as Americans, are ever to set things right, and prevent losing our rights, we have but one choice. We must once again declare our independence as a Republic, and toss out the notion that we are a Democracy.
It was FDR that changed the landscape, and began brainwashing Americans into thinking we are a Democracy. Until then, everyone knew we were a Republic. Now, we must set the record straight. We must teach our children the difference, and teach them the importance of being a Republic.
And teach them that if we allow the majority to rule, we all lose, because we are all just ONE.
Their wrong-headed thinking violates not only the Constitution, but also the very tenets of our Republic. This is because liberals want America to be a Democracy, but it is not. Under the law, and by decree in the Constitution, America is a REPUBLIC, which is quite different from a Democracy.
In a Democracy, majority rules. Democrats like that, because it empowers them to levy more taxes and rob us of more rights. All they need is to convince a majority that something is best, and that's it! The government gains power, and the people lose it.
But in a Republic, the majority does not rule. Each of us has the sole power. As Henry David Thoreau so aptly put it, "When the rights of the majority take away the rights of the one, we all suffer." In other words, we should never forget that EACH of us is the ONE. Sometimes we are in the majority; sometimes not. Do we give up our God-given rights just because we are not in the majority?
The Founding fathers thought about a Democracy as a form of governance, and flatly rejected it, and chose a Republic, instead. The primary reason lies in the fact that, by nature, Man will always favor having others take responsibility for them. And that invariably results in bigger government, until government finally is the sole power. No longer would it be "of the people, by the people, for the people." We are very close to that now, thanks to liberals.
If we, as Americans, are ever to set things right, and prevent losing our rights, we have but one choice. We must once again declare our independence as a Republic, and toss out the notion that we are a Democracy.
It was FDR that changed the landscape, and began brainwashing Americans into thinking we are a Democracy. Until then, everyone knew we were a Republic. Now, we must set the record straight. We must teach our children the difference, and teach them the importance of being a Republic.
And teach them that if we allow the majority to rule, we all lose, because we are all just ONE.
Friday, July 4, 2008
What It Takes To Be A Democrat
To Be A Good Democrat...
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
6. You have to believe that "gender roles are artificial" but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters who support & protect nature don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
18. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, but manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
19. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States .
20. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
21. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."
22. You have to believe that only liberals have freedom of speech, while all others should be shouted down.
23. You have to believe that it is necessary to subject Americans to embarrassing searches at airports in the name of national security, but it's not a problem for illegal immigrants to sneak across the borders by the millions without any controls whatsoever.
24. You have to believe that people who retire and collect Social Security are unpatriotic because they "suck up tax money", but it's just fine to use that same tax money to support illegal immigrants.
25. You have to believe it is a crime for a republican to commit perjury for a crime that never even occurred (Libby), but it is perfectly acceptable for a democrat to be involved in bribery (Jefferson), illicit sex (Clinton), or leaving a girl to drown in your car (Kennedy).
26) And you must believe it is in America's best interest to elect as President a person proven to be a serial liar, put national security at risk in order to keep her own files secret, and that she will trounce Wall Street which supports her campaign with millions.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Open Borders?
A lot of liberals believe America should open its borders to any immigrant that wants to come here. So, let us take a brief look at what would happen.
First, since we are a rich nation, every thief and criminal in the world would rush to America - the pickings are so much better than in, say, Peru or Norway, and our legal system provides them far better protections.
Of the 6 billion people on this planet, nearly 4 billion are poor. Most of them would prefer to live here if they could. So let's assume even 10% of them actually take advantage of open borders - that's 400 million people, which more than DOUBLES the current population. And since the census bureau claims the population will double in the next 40 years, that means America would have to support more than 1.6 BILLION souls.
So what, say the liberals. The more the merrier!
But here is where their HUGE blind spot starts to become apparent.
Our highways are already crowded, as are our cities. Imagine the road rage with 4 times as many drivers on the already crowded streets. And while you have your imagination working, imagine the unemployment rate - there are just so many jobs. And school systems, already strained to the breaking point, would have to find ways to educate 4 times as many children - most of whom cannot even speak English - in already overcrowded schools. Colleges and universities, already unable to take all the students that apply, will now have 4 times as many applicants - so the chances your child or grandchildren will get a college education is either reduced, or the cost is far too great as demand quickly outstrips supply.
Speaking of supply and demand, the demand for products and services would quadruple, increasing costs considerably. And where, pray tell, would an extra billion people find homes to live in? And what about overcrowded emergency rooms, and increased healthcare costs?
Social Security is bankrupt. Imagine having 4 times more people trying to cash in on it.
Look, it's simple math. Four times more people means we need 4 times more schools, homes, businesses, jobs, roads, parking areas, parks, offices, etc. etc. etc. If you think your neighbor is too close now, imagine how close they will be with open borders. If you think housing is already too expensive, it would be 4 times as much with open borders.
And we are already incapable of producing enough energy for our citizens - brown-outs are a regular occurrence in many areas. Imagine increasing the load by 400%.
We are a rich nation because our population has not out-paced our resources. With open borders, that would change, and your standard of living would be forced downward.
Ask yourself: does America really need to play host to a billion poor, and probably uneducated people who can contribute little, but use up much of our resources? Low income people do NOT pay taxes. But they use resources and services all the same.
So, why do liberal elites want open borders? Most of them simply have not thought things out. But some, like George Soros, have. Those people are a real threat to the American way of life. They know that by bringing in so many low-income, uneducated people, it would put such a strain on our system that we would be forced to embrace socialism. In order to support everyone to at least a minimal degree, incomes must be redistributed. The tax rate would be at least 70%, in order to socialize our system. And nothing pleases a liberal more than to have greater control over your money.
And another point: the largest population in the world, short of Chinese, are muslims. So a huge number of muslims would suddenly flood American shores. And as many countries have already discovered (i.e France or Denmark), a surge in the muslim population results in loss of control of your heritage. Even here, muslims are already abusing our system to change the American way of life. Muslim cabbies won't transport you if you are not "in tune" with THEIR beliefs. They are requiring special priviledges (foot washing facilities, for example), knowing it would look like discrimination or "racial profiling" if we object. Muslims emmigrate to free nations, then pull together to bring that nation to its knees, to praise Allah. Don't think so? Look around. Many nations have already fallen, including Somalia, Indonesia, and other non-Arab lands. And they are striving to outnumber citizens in Denmark, France, Germany and England.
'Nuff said.
First, since we are a rich nation, every thief and criminal in the world would rush to America - the pickings are so much better than in, say, Peru or Norway, and our legal system provides them far better protections.
Of the 6 billion people on this planet, nearly 4 billion are poor. Most of them would prefer to live here if they could. So let's assume even 10% of them actually take advantage of open borders - that's 400 million people, which more than DOUBLES the current population. And since the census bureau claims the population will double in the next 40 years, that means America would have to support more than 1.6 BILLION souls.
So what, say the liberals. The more the merrier!
But here is where their HUGE blind spot starts to become apparent.
Our highways are already crowded, as are our cities. Imagine the road rage with 4 times as many drivers on the already crowded streets. And while you have your imagination working, imagine the unemployment rate - there are just so many jobs. And school systems, already strained to the breaking point, would have to find ways to educate 4 times as many children - most of whom cannot even speak English - in already overcrowded schools. Colleges and universities, already unable to take all the students that apply, will now have 4 times as many applicants - so the chances your child or grandchildren will get a college education is either reduced, or the cost is far too great as demand quickly outstrips supply.
Speaking of supply and demand, the demand for products and services would quadruple, increasing costs considerably. And where, pray tell, would an extra billion people find homes to live in? And what about overcrowded emergency rooms, and increased healthcare costs?
Social Security is bankrupt. Imagine having 4 times more people trying to cash in on it.
Look, it's simple math. Four times more people means we need 4 times more schools, homes, businesses, jobs, roads, parking areas, parks, offices, etc. etc. etc. If you think your neighbor is too close now, imagine how close they will be with open borders. If you think housing is already too expensive, it would be 4 times as much with open borders.
And we are already incapable of producing enough energy for our citizens - brown-outs are a regular occurrence in many areas. Imagine increasing the load by 400%.
We are a rich nation because our population has not out-paced our resources. With open borders, that would change, and your standard of living would be forced downward.
Ask yourself: does America really need to play host to a billion poor, and probably uneducated people who can contribute little, but use up much of our resources? Low income people do NOT pay taxes. But they use resources and services all the same.
So, why do liberal elites want open borders? Most of them simply have not thought things out. But some, like George Soros, have. Those people are a real threat to the American way of life. They know that by bringing in so many low-income, uneducated people, it would put such a strain on our system that we would be forced to embrace socialism. In order to support everyone to at least a minimal degree, incomes must be redistributed. The tax rate would be at least 70%, in order to socialize our system. And nothing pleases a liberal more than to have greater control over your money.
And another point: the largest population in the world, short of Chinese, are muslims. So a huge number of muslims would suddenly flood American shores. And as many countries have already discovered (i.e France or Denmark), a surge in the muslim population results in loss of control of your heritage. Even here, muslims are already abusing our system to change the American way of life. Muslim cabbies won't transport you if you are not "in tune" with THEIR beliefs. They are requiring special priviledges (foot washing facilities, for example), knowing it would look like discrimination or "racial profiling" if we object. Muslims emmigrate to free nations, then pull together to bring that nation to its knees, to praise Allah. Don't think so? Look around. Many nations have already fallen, including Somalia, Indonesia, and other non-Arab lands. And they are striving to outnumber citizens in Denmark, France, Germany and England.
'Nuff said.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Black History - With Blinders On
Lately, thanks to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, there has been a lot of discussion where many black Americans claim they have good reason to be angry. They claim that the "white" Americans somehow "owe" them something. They claim that, because we have not "suffered the black experience" that we cannot understand.
Now, here is why all of that is pure BS.
First, while it is true that hundreds of years ago whites owned slaves, let us set the record straight about a few things, such as:
1) It was Black Africans who captured and sold other blacks to the slave traders
2) It was also white Americans who FREED the slaves
3) It was white Americans who gave their lives in the fight to free the slaves
4) Now this one is crucial - had we not brought the slaves to America, and then freed them, all Black Americans today would not be free - they would still be in Africa, suffering disease, famine and AIDS.
5) Not one single living Black American was ever a slave in America, and not one single living white American ever owned black slaves in America. For them to want retribution for slavery is absurd.
6) No person is responsible for the acts of others, particularly if those "others" died before the person was even born.
7) I am not guilty, and do not owe any black American an apology for any white people who, generations ago, may (or may not) have owned slaves. I will not carry the sins of others upon my back.
8) If black Americans believe it is fair to hold white Ameicans accountable for sins long since past, then they, too, should be held accountable for the sins of their own ancestors - sins like cannabalism. Frankly, both are absurd.
9) In many early black cultures, the tribes also captured and enslaved their fellow man. By their own standard, should they not be held just as accountable for having enslaved people? What makes them so special that THEY can have slaves with impunity, but when a white person owns slaves, it is unforgivable?
10) While black Americans claim to have suffered discrimination, they would do well to bone up on their history - at one time or another, every race, and every religion has suffered discrimination. Are Christians to hold modern Romans responsible for being fed to the lions? Should Jews hold todays Germans accountable for the acts of the Nazis? Are all Scots to be held accountable for the acts of terrorist Timothy McVeigh? And should fat people pass guilt on to all thin people for the abuse they suffered in schoolyards across America? Black Americans do not have exclusive rights to claims of discrimination.
It is high time for black Americans to stop the whining and crying over something that happened long ago, and to stop perpetuating the hatred, suspicion and anger that divides, rather than unifies.
One step they need to take is to stop making it a point to differentiate themselves by always labeling things as "black" or "white" - "black" American, "white" church, "black" history, "white" supremacy. As long as they use such divisive labels, there will never be harmony, or full acceptance. I do not think of myself, or call myself a "white" American. I am just an American. I do not go to a "white" church - I just go to church. Imagine if we all were to go around calling ourselves by our labels - "Hello, I am Bill, a white Scottish Christian with some Indian blood." Or, "Can you tell me where I can find the closest Greek Orthodox Church for Half-Breed Orientals and Caucasians?" If it sounds ridiculous, it is. And it is just as ridiculous when black American do it. They are just, plain Americans. No more, no less.
While many Black Americans make it a point to cry "racism" or "discrimination", the simple fact is that they are the ones who are racist. They are discriminating. Most "white" Americans are color blind when it comes to race. But then someone like Rev. Wright comes along, and using hatred, anger and anti-American racism, fans the old flames back to life by trying to make us feel guilty for something we had no part in. And then when those flames burn once more, Wright points, and says, "See? I was right. They are racist." In fact, Wright is the racist - fueling the fire for the express purpose of causing division.
But we were not racist until he made us that way by using his color to try and paint us as bad people, in an evil country, just because 200 years ago my great-great grandpaw paid twenty dollars for his great-great grandpaw. He forgets that it was my great grandfather who fought and died to set his great grandfather free. He forgets it was my grandfather who changed the Constitution, giving him the right to vote. He forgets that it was me, with thousands of other whites who marched on Selma, Alabama to fight for the rights of black Americans.
If white Americans are guilty of anything, we are guilty of spending blood, sweat and tears for hundreds of years to try and make things right. To eventually do the right thing. And to understand that it WAS the right thing, and worth the price that both blacks and whites paid.
If black Americans REALLY want equality, and REALLY want a country where color does not have any bearing, then the first thing they need to do is abandon those who fan the flames of hate. People like Reverend Wright, and those who follow him.
In closing, it strikes me that Wright is not only anti-American and anti-white, but also anti-Christian. The Christ that I know would never stir anger, suspicion and hate in a person's heart, just to push His own agenda. Christ professed forgiveness - Wright will not allow his followers to forgive. Christ professed love of everyone - Wright only loves blacks. Christ said to turn the other proverbial cheek - Wright just gives us the proverbial finger.
As long as there are Rev. Wrights, and those like him, America will never be one people. And we will all - black, white, red and yellow - pay for that.
Labels - good for foodstuffs in the grocery store. Bad for people!
Now, here is why all of that is pure BS.
First, while it is true that hundreds of years ago whites owned slaves, let us set the record straight about a few things, such as:
1) It was Black Africans who captured and sold other blacks to the slave traders
2) It was also white Americans who FREED the slaves
3) It was white Americans who gave their lives in the fight to free the slaves
4) Now this one is crucial - had we not brought the slaves to America, and then freed them, all Black Americans today would not be free - they would still be in Africa, suffering disease, famine and AIDS.
5) Not one single living Black American was ever a slave in America, and not one single living white American ever owned black slaves in America. For them to want retribution for slavery is absurd.
6) No person is responsible for the acts of others, particularly if those "others" died before the person was even born.
7) I am not guilty, and do not owe any black American an apology for any white people who, generations ago, may (or may not) have owned slaves. I will not carry the sins of others upon my back.
8) If black Americans believe it is fair to hold white Ameicans accountable for sins long since past, then they, too, should be held accountable for the sins of their own ancestors - sins like cannabalism. Frankly, both are absurd.
9) In many early black cultures, the tribes also captured and enslaved their fellow man. By their own standard, should they not be held just as accountable for having enslaved people? What makes them so special that THEY can have slaves with impunity, but when a white person owns slaves, it is unforgivable?
10) While black Americans claim to have suffered discrimination, they would do well to bone up on their history - at one time or another, every race, and every religion has suffered discrimination. Are Christians to hold modern Romans responsible for being fed to the lions? Should Jews hold todays Germans accountable for the acts of the Nazis? Are all Scots to be held accountable for the acts of terrorist Timothy McVeigh? And should fat people pass guilt on to all thin people for the abuse they suffered in schoolyards across America? Black Americans do not have exclusive rights to claims of discrimination.
It is high time for black Americans to stop the whining and crying over something that happened long ago, and to stop perpetuating the hatred, suspicion and anger that divides, rather than unifies.
One step they need to take is to stop making it a point to differentiate themselves by always labeling things as "black" or "white" - "black" American, "white" church, "black" history, "white" supremacy. As long as they use such divisive labels, there will never be harmony, or full acceptance. I do not think of myself, or call myself a "white" American. I am just an American. I do not go to a "white" church - I just go to church. Imagine if we all were to go around calling ourselves by our labels - "Hello, I am Bill, a white Scottish Christian with some Indian blood." Or, "Can you tell me where I can find the closest Greek Orthodox Church for Half-Breed Orientals and Caucasians?" If it sounds ridiculous, it is. And it is just as ridiculous when black American do it. They are just, plain Americans. No more, no less.
While many Black Americans make it a point to cry "racism" or "discrimination", the simple fact is that they are the ones who are racist. They are discriminating. Most "white" Americans are color blind when it comes to race. But then someone like Rev. Wright comes along, and using hatred, anger and anti-American racism, fans the old flames back to life by trying to make us feel guilty for something we had no part in. And then when those flames burn once more, Wright points, and says, "See? I was right. They are racist." In fact, Wright is the racist - fueling the fire for the express purpose of causing division.
But we were not racist until he made us that way by using his color to try and paint us as bad people, in an evil country, just because 200 years ago my great-great grandpaw paid twenty dollars for his great-great grandpaw. He forgets that it was my great grandfather who fought and died to set his great grandfather free. He forgets it was my grandfather who changed the Constitution, giving him the right to vote. He forgets that it was me, with thousands of other whites who marched on Selma, Alabama to fight for the rights of black Americans.
If white Americans are guilty of anything, we are guilty of spending blood, sweat and tears for hundreds of years to try and make things right. To eventually do the right thing. And to understand that it WAS the right thing, and worth the price that both blacks and whites paid.
If black Americans REALLY want equality, and REALLY want a country where color does not have any bearing, then the first thing they need to do is abandon those who fan the flames of hate. People like Reverend Wright, and those who follow him.
In closing, it strikes me that Wright is not only anti-American and anti-white, but also anti-Christian. The Christ that I know would never stir anger, suspicion and hate in a person's heart, just to push His own agenda. Christ professed forgiveness - Wright will not allow his followers to forgive. Christ professed love of everyone - Wright only loves blacks. Christ said to turn the other proverbial cheek - Wright just gives us the proverbial finger.
As long as there are Rev. Wrights, and those like him, America will never be one people. And we will all - black, white, red and yellow - pay for that.
Labels - good for foodstuffs in the grocery store. Bad for people!
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Time Travel
Today I watched a show on the History Channel called UNIVERSE. In that show, scientists - supposedly intelligent, educated people - were discussing the probability of time travel.
I guess a good education cannot instill common sense, because here's what I figured out a long time ago.
Let us assume time travel eventually exists. Sooner or later, someone will abuse it, and use it to change history. That is as certain as the fact that, eventually, someone will gain control of, and abuse, nuclear material. It is human nature.
So, let us assume that Joe Blow, in 2145, returns to the past, to 1932, and assassinates Hitler. At the precise instant he does so, he changes the entire future from that point on. The change is instant - it must be, because the previous circumstances no longer exist.
So, in the "new" year of 2145, Joe Blow cannot go back in time to kill Hitler, because Hitler never rose to power, and was never a problem. But if Joe cannot go back and kill Hitler, Hitler would then survive and rise to power.
This would, at best, create an unbreakable time loop. And here is why that is not possible, either. The only events that changed were "local" events - local to a specific period, on one tiny planet in the universe. It simply defies logic and science for such an event to create a loop that the entire universe would be caught up into. There is no logic or scientific data that indicates that time on Earth is separate from time elsewhere, and that time on Earth cannot affect time on Mars, for example. Because a change in our history - and future - could change any future that includes travel to, or colonization of Mars, so time is therefore not separate. Any loop created on Earth would ultimately affect the entire universe.
Now, here is my "proof" that such is not possible: it has not occured. If time travel ever becomes possible, future citizens would already have traveled back in time. They would already have visited. And changes would already have been made, creating a loop.
Of course, I could be wrong - maybe such a loop has already been created. That would, after all, account for all those instances of deja-vu.
I guess a good education cannot instill common sense, because here's what I figured out a long time ago.
Let us assume time travel eventually exists. Sooner or later, someone will abuse it, and use it to change history. That is as certain as the fact that, eventually, someone will gain control of, and abuse, nuclear material. It is human nature.
So, let us assume that Joe Blow, in 2145, returns to the past, to 1932, and assassinates Hitler. At the precise instant he does so, he changes the entire future from that point on. The change is instant - it must be, because the previous circumstances no longer exist.
So, in the "new" year of 2145, Joe Blow cannot go back in time to kill Hitler, because Hitler never rose to power, and was never a problem. But if Joe cannot go back and kill Hitler, Hitler would then survive and rise to power.
This would, at best, create an unbreakable time loop. And here is why that is not possible, either. The only events that changed were "local" events - local to a specific period, on one tiny planet in the universe. It simply defies logic and science for such an event to create a loop that the entire universe would be caught up into. There is no logic or scientific data that indicates that time on Earth is separate from time elsewhere, and that time on Earth cannot affect time on Mars, for example. Because a change in our history - and future - could change any future that includes travel to, or colonization of Mars, so time is therefore not separate. Any loop created on Earth would ultimately affect the entire universe.
Now, here is my "proof" that such is not possible: it has not occured. If time travel ever becomes possible, future citizens would already have traveled back in time. They would already have visited. And changes would already have been made, creating a loop.
Of course, I could be wrong - maybe such a loop has already been created. That would, after all, account for all those instances of deja-vu.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Separation of Church & State?
Before we get ahead of ourselves, I would like to make it clear that nowhere in the Constitution does it say there is to be a "separation of church and state." Nowhere. That assertion was nothing more than a misinterpretation by one Thomas Jefferson who, by the way, had no part in writing or approving the Constitution.
The Constitution simply states that "Congress shall make no law" that would infringe on our right to practice our religions. Period.
In other words, the Constitution precludes the state from interfering in religion, and prevents the state from establishing a state church - a religion that all citizens must adhere to. But nowhere does it even suggest that government must be separate from religion, or vice versa.
In other words, the government can fund churches, but only if the offer funding to ALL churches equally. The government may not, however, pass laws that RESTRICT religion, or restrict the practice of the religion by its parishoners.
Communities and states that prohibit practicing religion in certain places are violating the Constitution - the are "passing laws" that interfere with religion.
No, there is not supposed to be a wall between church and state, and building one only serves to hurt us all. If we truly want what is right, and what the founding fathers intended, it is as simple as allowing everyone to practice their religion as they see fit - even if it is on government property, because that is the right that we are guaranteed by the Constitution. And the government - city, state or federal - shall "make no law" in respect to religion.
But liberal courts feel that they have the right to usurp the Constitution. They have often ruled, in opposition to the Constitution, that government may, indeed, restrict religious practice, and to make laws concerning religion and the free practice thereof.
Such judges should be stripped of their robes and tossed out into the streets. If they cannot understand the plain English in the Constitution, they have no business practicing law.
The Constitution simply states that "Congress shall make no law" that would infringe on our right to practice our religions. Period.
In other words, the Constitution precludes the state from interfering in religion, and prevents the state from establishing a state church - a religion that all citizens must adhere to. But nowhere does it even suggest that government must be separate from religion, or vice versa.
In other words, the government can fund churches, but only if the offer funding to ALL churches equally. The government may not, however, pass laws that RESTRICT religion, or restrict the practice of the religion by its parishoners.
Communities and states that prohibit practicing religion in certain places are violating the Constitution - the are "passing laws" that interfere with religion.
No, there is not supposed to be a wall between church and state, and building one only serves to hurt us all. If we truly want what is right, and what the founding fathers intended, it is as simple as allowing everyone to practice their religion as they see fit - even if it is on government property, because that is the right that we are guaranteed by the Constitution. And the government - city, state or federal - shall "make no law" in respect to religion.
But liberal courts feel that they have the right to usurp the Constitution. They have often ruled, in opposition to the Constitution, that government may, indeed, restrict religious practice, and to make laws concerning religion and the free practice thereof.
Such judges should be stripped of their robes and tossed out into the streets. If they cannot understand the plain English in the Constitution, they have no business practicing law.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
"Mis-spoke"?
Hillary Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" last week when saying she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in March 1996. Mrs. Clinton often refers to the goodwill trip as an example of her foreign policy experience.
During a speech last Monday, she said, "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
Now, please forgive me if I am not as "eloquent" as Mrs. Clinton, but where I come from, when you say something that is blatantly false, it is not referred to as "mis-speaking". It is called "lying".
It comes as no surprise to me that Mrs. Clinton has lied about this, since it is painfully obvious to most people who have their eyes open that both Clintons have always been patholigical liars.
Mrs. Clinton has absolutely ZERO foreign policy experience. Neither does Mr. Obama. The primary difference between them is that Obama is not trying to BS the public into believing he has such experience.
During a speech last Monday, she said, "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
Now, please forgive me if I am not as "eloquent" as Mrs. Clinton, but where I come from, when you say something that is blatantly false, it is not referred to as "mis-speaking". It is called "lying".
It comes as no surprise to me that Mrs. Clinton has lied about this, since it is painfully obvious to most people who have their eyes open that both Clintons have always been patholigical liars.
Mrs. Clinton has absolutely ZERO foreign policy experience. Neither does Mr. Obama. The primary difference between them is that Obama is not trying to BS the public into believing he has such experience.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Reclaiming Your Health
There has been a lot of discussion lately on health care. But what no one seems to be talking about is that what they really mean is "sick care". It's not about staying healthy. It's all about being sick.
Health Care in America is expensive only because so many Americans get sick so often. This is not natural. In nature, good health is the norm, simply because it is necessary for survival of the species. So, why are so many Americans forced to spend so much of their treasure on fighting ill health?
IntelliBiz, publisher of "The Simple Man's Guide" series of how-to books has the answer to that, as well as a solution to most of our ills. Their latest work, "The Simple Man's Guide to Natural Health & Healing" is the result of 7 years of intensive research and practical application. In it you will discover how and why we got into such a sorry state, and exactly what we can do, individually, to regain and maintain optimal health for ourselves and our families.
For example, did you know that our air has 40% less oxygen than it did just 100 years ago? Or that our soil, necessary for producing our food supply, is 80% depleted of nutrients and trace minerals, necessary for good health?
These and many other important facts are thoroughly researched, and solutions are provided that you, yourself, can implement. The volume also covers all the nutrients, minerals, vitamins, amino acids, fats, carbs and proteins, and shows you why you need each them, and how to make sure you get them in the right quantity, and in the right combinations.
The Guide then explores a natural, healthy, filling diet of good, wholesome foods including meats, fruits, nuts, and veggies (vegans can eliminate the meats), and includes a sample menu for maintaining optimal weight and health.
And finally, "The Simple Man's Guide to Natural Health & Healing" includes an alphabetical directory of illnesses and the natural treatments for them.
All in all, this is the best, most informative book we have ever reviewed on the subject of health. At just $19.95, it is the cheapest "Health Care Plan" around.
"The Simple Man's Guide to Natural Health & Healing" can be ordered online here.
You won't be disappointed.
Health Care in America is expensive only because so many Americans get sick so often. This is not natural. In nature, good health is the norm, simply because it is necessary for survival of the species. So, why are so many Americans forced to spend so much of their treasure on fighting ill health?
IntelliBiz, publisher of "The Simple Man's Guide" series of how-to books has the answer to that, as well as a solution to most of our ills. Their latest work, "The Simple Man's Guide to Natural Health & Healing" is the result of 7 years of intensive research and practical application. In it you will discover how and why we got into such a sorry state, and exactly what we can do, individually, to regain and maintain optimal health for ourselves and our families.
For example, did you know that our air has 40% less oxygen than it did just 100 years ago? Or that our soil, necessary for producing our food supply, is 80% depleted of nutrients and trace minerals, necessary for good health?
These and many other important facts are thoroughly researched, and solutions are provided that you, yourself, can implement. The volume also covers all the nutrients, minerals, vitamins, amino acids, fats, carbs and proteins, and shows you why you need each them, and how to make sure you get them in the right quantity, and in the right combinations.
The Guide then explores a natural, healthy, filling diet of good, wholesome foods including meats, fruits, nuts, and veggies (vegans can eliminate the meats), and includes a sample menu for maintaining optimal weight and health.
And finally, "The Simple Man's Guide to Natural Health & Healing" includes an alphabetical directory of illnesses and the natural treatments for them.
All in all, this is the best, most informative book we have ever reviewed on the subject of health. At just $19.95, it is the cheapest "Health Care Plan" around.
"The Simple Man's Guide to Natural Health & Healing" can be ordered online here.
You won't be disappointed.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Gun Control At The Supreme Court
It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many naive people who actually believe that banning guns will somehow result in lowering the rate of violent crime.
A couple of things I would like to point out to those folks:
1) People kill people. They kill people with or without guns. They strangle, use knives, pipes, bombs, arrows, vehicles, poisons - you name it, it has been used to kill.
2) People have been killing people since we first dropped out of the trees. That's about 40,000 years before guns. Guns simply make killing more efficient.
But the most important point lies in simple common sense. Imagine you are a violent criminal. You plan to rob liquor stores for a living, so you can get your drug money. To the east is a town where the residents are encouraged to own - and learn how to use - guns. A lot of armed citizens in that town. To the west is another town, like Washington DC, where citizens are prohibited from owning guns. Unarmed citizens (otherwise known as "prey").
Now I ask you - which town are you most apt to head for?
My next question is also founded in common sense: if you are a violent criminal, the kind who has no compunction about killing, would you be afraid to break the law by owning a banned gun?
There is a lot of truth in the old saying, "If you ban guns, only the criminals will be armed". And that is a very dangerous scenario, indeed.
Our Supreme Court justices are often wrong, and in some cases downright ignorant. But I really do not believe they have so little intelligence that they would uphold the DC ban on guns.
A couple of things I would like to point out to those folks:
1) People kill people. They kill people with or without guns. They strangle, use knives, pipes, bombs, arrows, vehicles, poisons - you name it, it has been used to kill.
2) People have been killing people since we first dropped out of the trees. That's about 40,000 years before guns. Guns simply make killing more efficient.
But the most important point lies in simple common sense. Imagine you are a violent criminal. You plan to rob liquor stores for a living, so you can get your drug money. To the east is a town where the residents are encouraged to own - and learn how to use - guns. A lot of armed citizens in that town. To the west is another town, like Washington DC, where citizens are prohibited from owning guns. Unarmed citizens (otherwise known as "prey").
Now I ask you - which town are you most apt to head for?
My next question is also founded in common sense: if you are a violent criminal, the kind who has no compunction about killing, would you be afraid to break the law by owning a banned gun?
There is a lot of truth in the old saying, "If you ban guns, only the criminals will be armed". And that is a very dangerous scenario, indeed.
Our Supreme Court justices are often wrong, and in some cases downright ignorant. But I really do not believe they have so little intelligence that they would uphold the DC ban on guns.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Solution to Health Care
It seems every politician is getting on the "health care" bandwagon these days, and, frankly, I find it disturbing that none of them even know what the issue is - so how can they solve the problem?
We do not have a "health care" crisis - we have a "sick care" crisis. The problem is not the cost of getting well, or maintaining our health. The problem is that Americans are being made sick by aggressive businesses who are getting rich at the expense of our health.
Let's understand a couple of very important facts:
1) The natural state of health is good health. In most cases, and barring genetic disease, we only become ill when we become weakened by our own foibles and actions (or inactions).
2) The vast majority of the food that is made available to consumers is not food at all. It has little in the way of nutrients, and generally is loaded with chemicals, antibiotics, preservatives, growth hormones, and even petroleum products - all of which are toxic.
3) The water in most communities is polluted with flouride or chlorine - both are poisons.
4) Drug companies, doctors and hospitals do not want people to be cured of anything - they would all go bankrupt if the population were to regain their natural state of health. Instead, they only want to keep us from dying, and to help us to "maintain" life. As long as they can do that - keep us alive, and keep us coming back - only then do they profit. If they cure us, they can no longer dip into our pockets.
So, if we keep from getting sick in the first place, then health care would not be a problem, and would not be expensive at all. Therefore, the issue is not "how to pay for health care" so much as it is "how to eliminate the need for health care".
Anyone with a desire to solve the health care crisis in America need look no further than to improving food and water supplies, and to necessitate at least a minimal amount of exercise on a daily basis.
Our foods and our water should be natural and organic, free of pesticides, chemicals, hormones, antibiotics and petroleum products. Certainly, this would make food more expensive, but not nearly as expensive as the health care that becomes necessary because of all the poisons in our diet.
And we need to go back to the days when physical education was a requirement in school. And every business should set aside at least two 10 minute breaks for employees to get aerobic exercise of some sort - even if it is just walking, stair-climbing or jogging in place. Exercise should be encouraged.
And we need to re-learn how to eat. Man was designed as a forager - walking all day, seeking small amounts of food. Call it "grazing", if you will - there was no ready supply of "instant food" from the local supermarket. The fact is, the body can only use just so much fuel at any given time, so the body is most efficient when we fuel it as we use it. Isn't it obvious that if your body can only use 100 calories per hour, that if you eat a 1000 calorie meal, much of that will get stored as fat? What the body cannot use, it stores or excretes. For this reason, nature indicates that we can better achieve optimal health if we 1) at natural foods, and 2) spread the eating out throughout the day, in 4-6 small meals and snacks.
If any politician wants to solve the health care crisis, let him or her confront the real issue - making it easier to stay healthy in the first place!
We do not have a "health care" crisis - we have a "sick care" crisis. The problem is not the cost of getting well, or maintaining our health. The problem is that Americans are being made sick by aggressive businesses who are getting rich at the expense of our health.
Let's understand a couple of very important facts:
1) The natural state of health is good health. In most cases, and barring genetic disease, we only become ill when we become weakened by our own foibles and actions (or inactions).
2) The vast majority of the food that is made available to consumers is not food at all. It has little in the way of nutrients, and generally is loaded with chemicals, antibiotics, preservatives, growth hormones, and even petroleum products - all of which are toxic.
3) The water in most communities is polluted with flouride or chlorine - both are poisons.
4) Drug companies, doctors and hospitals do not want people to be cured of anything - they would all go bankrupt if the population were to regain their natural state of health. Instead, they only want to keep us from dying, and to help us to "maintain" life. As long as they can do that - keep us alive, and keep us coming back - only then do they profit. If they cure us, they can no longer dip into our pockets.
So, if we keep from getting sick in the first place, then health care would not be a problem, and would not be expensive at all. Therefore, the issue is not "how to pay for health care" so much as it is "how to eliminate the need for health care".
Anyone with a desire to solve the health care crisis in America need look no further than to improving food and water supplies, and to necessitate at least a minimal amount of exercise on a daily basis.
Our foods and our water should be natural and organic, free of pesticides, chemicals, hormones, antibiotics and petroleum products. Certainly, this would make food more expensive, but not nearly as expensive as the health care that becomes necessary because of all the poisons in our diet.
And we need to go back to the days when physical education was a requirement in school. And every business should set aside at least two 10 minute breaks for employees to get aerobic exercise of some sort - even if it is just walking, stair-climbing or jogging in place. Exercise should be encouraged.
And we need to re-learn how to eat. Man was designed as a forager - walking all day, seeking small amounts of food. Call it "grazing", if you will - there was no ready supply of "instant food" from the local supermarket. The fact is, the body can only use just so much fuel at any given time, so the body is most efficient when we fuel it as we use it. Isn't it obvious that if your body can only use 100 calories per hour, that if you eat a 1000 calorie meal, much of that will get stored as fat? What the body cannot use, it stores or excretes. For this reason, nature indicates that we can better achieve optimal health if we 1) at natural foods, and 2) spread the eating out throughout the day, in 4-6 small meals and snacks.
If any politician wants to solve the health care crisis, let him or her confront the real issue - making it easier to stay healthy in the first place!
The Democrat Double Standard
We all know - though the mainstream media never admits it - that the Democrats adhere to a very strict set of double standards when it comes to ethics. Whenever a Republican makes an error in judgement, he or she is to be villified, removed from office, indicted and imprisoned, whether the scandal is one of sex, money or power. But when a Democrat runs afoul of the same thing, he or she is to be honored as a true American who just happens to be human - no big deal. No villification, no removal from office, no indictments and no prison.
A Republican alledgedly touches another man's knee, and he is arrested, goes to court, and is thrown out of office. But a Democrat has sex with an intern in the Oval Office, and he becomes a hero. When a Republican gives praise to a past member of the KKK at his birthday party, that Republican is tossed from office. But when a Democrat is actually a past member of the KKK, he gets re-elected for life.
And so it will be with great interest that I watch what will happen to New York Governor Elliot Spitzer. He got himself elected by arresting and prosecuting those involved in prostitution, while he, himself, solicited prostitutes. And now that he has been fingered, it will be interesting to see how the Democrats handle this. Bear in mind, this is not a simple case of getting it on with a hooker. It is important to note that Spitzer made his reputation - and even got elected - partly on his harsh stance against prostitution. He has already set the standard by which he, himself, should be judged. He sent people to prison for taking part in prostitution. Now he is guilty of the very same thing.
His cases as state attorney general included a few criminal prosecutions of prostitution rings and into tourism involving prostitutes.In 2004, he was part of an investigation of an escort service in New York City that resulted in the arrest of 18 people on charges of promoting prostitution and related charges.
Again, it is with interest that I will watch this play out. I'm betting that most Democrats will simply try to brush it off as a minor indiscretion that is not worthy of punishment. Any takers?
A Republican alledgedly touches another man's knee, and he is arrested, goes to court, and is thrown out of office. But a Democrat has sex with an intern in the Oval Office, and he becomes a hero. When a Republican gives praise to a past member of the KKK at his birthday party, that Republican is tossed from office. But when a Democrat is actually a past member of the KKK, he gets re-elected for life.
And so it will be with great interest that I watch what will happen to New York Governor Elliot Spitzer. He got himself elected by arresting and prosecuting those involved in prostitution, while he, himself, solicited prostitutes. And now that he has been fingered, it will be interesting to see how the Democrats handle this. Bear in mind, this is not a simple case of getting it on with a hooker. It is important to note that Spitzer made his reputation - and even got elected - partly on his harsh stance against prostitution. He has already set the standard by which he, himself, should be judged. He sent people to prison for taking part in prostitution. Now he is guilty of the very same thing.
His cases as state attorney general included a few criminal prosecutions of prostitution rings and into tourism involving prostitutes.In 2004, he was part of an investigation of an escort service in New York City that resulted in the arrest of 18 people on charges of promoting prostitution and related charges.
Again, it is with interest that I will watch this play out. I'm betting that most Democrats will simply try to brush it off as a minor indiscretion that is not worthy of punishment. Any takers?
Monday, March 3, 2008
Is "Green" Really Green?
"Green" this; "green" that. It's all you hear in some circles. And frankly, most of those who are talking do not have a clue - either that, or they are just being dishonest.
Most "green" solutions are not green at all.
Take electric cars. One of the first things we learn in middle school science class is that converting energy always - ALWAYS - results in a net loss. To make electricity, we need to expend even more energy than we get in return. Now, I may not be a genius, but to me, a loss is a loss, and not a gain. If we have to burn more fossil fuels to make electricity, then the "green" cars are actually polluting the air even more than those that run on petrol.
Ethanol: Same thing. Major universities have completed studies that prove that we actually burn up to 1.7 times MORE fossil fuels in the production of ethanol. Plowing the fields. Planting. Irrigating. Harvesting. Transporting. And only then do we incur the huge energy expenditures in processing it. Every stage requires the burning of fossil fuels.
Then these new light bulbs: they don't tell us that fluorescent lights require mercury - a very
toxic substance. And when asked about this, they say, "It's minimal."
But not so minimal that the government requires they be disposed of as
hazardous waste, and not simply tossed out.
OK, so let's assume there is a "minimal" amount of toxic mercury in a fluorescent bulb. My next question is, "How minimal is it?" when, by mandate, hundreds of millions of these fluorescents will soon be in use. Multiply even a "minimal" amount by hundreds of millions and I somehow do not think it is minimal anymore. So, upon disposing of them, how "minimal" will be the environmental impact of all that mercury. And that is only the first set of questions. What about these facts:
1) Each CFL bulb uses about 10 times as much glass as an incandescent bulb, and making glass requires substantial fuel use. Multiply all that extra glass - and the cost to produce it, and the pollution created to produce it - by hundreds of millions of bulbs. Do you REALLY believe the environmental impact is still minimal?
2) If these hundreds of millions of bulbs will have to be disposed of as toxic waste, what is the cost of such disposal? Very few communities have accommodations for disposing of hazardous waste. So, you must either travel a considerable distance each time you blow a bulb (and use a lot of gas and oil) to dispose of them, or pay someone $15 plus shipping to dispose of them for you.
All in all, perhaps it is time for someone who is not
pushing a liberal agenda to figure out EXACTLY what is the environmental
impact of hundreds of millions of these bulbs, compared to incandescent
bulbs - adding up the additional production costs, additional disposal
costs, and the huge amount of mercury that must be dealt with - and the
cost incurred in doing so.
And all for a bulb that produces a very inferior kind of lighting.
I think it is time that we stop looking at the surface of something, and begin looking deeper into things. We need to start extrapolating into the future, by thinking, "If I do this now, what will be the probable effects later on. How will it affect other things?" (Bear in mind that ethanol has caused huge price increases in almost everything we eat and drink because it creates a shortage of corn, used to feed animals, from which we get meat, dairy etc. That means your cheese pizza is costing more. And milk is up to $5.00 per gallon!)
But be forewarned - the foolish (or dishonest) "greenies" won't like that sort of thinking. And they will argue with and dispute the facts. Frankly, they have bought into a lot of BS, and now refuse to back away. Good luck if you choose to try and sway them with the facts.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Chink in Obama's Armor
Senator Barak Obama has once again mis-spoken, and has once again retreated into the "spin zone" in order to change the subject.
Obama stated that he would draw the troops out of Iraq, and send them back in if Al Queda were to return to Iraq. Senator McCain corrected him, stating that Al Queda is already in Iraq, which is true.
Obama's "spin" response was that Al Queda is only in Iraq because Bush and McCain brought them into Iraq. This was not the issue, and is dishonest on several levels. The issue, presented by Obama, himself, was the implication that Al Queda is no longer in Iraq - after all, how could they "return" if they never left?
First, we are not in Iraq due solely to Bush and McCain, as implied by Obama - even the vast majority of Democrats voted for going into Iraq.
Second, for someone claiming to be the "agent of change for the future", Obama seems to retreat into the past in order to cover his mis-steps. After all, the issue had nothing to do with how, why or when Al Queda came to Iraq. The issue was whether or not they are there now, as stated by McCain, or if they were already gone, as implied by Obama when he said he would send troops only upon "Al Queda's return to Iraq". "Return" implies they are not there at this time, and that is incorrect. McCain was simply trying to correct Obama's statement, since Obama is obviously ignorant of what is actually going on in Iraq.
Obama, thinking people know that you are an empty suit, with words as your only strength. We realize you know nothing of foreign policy, or what is really going on. We know you have no inkling about money and economics, because your numbers do not even come close to balancing. We know you are nothing but a gas-bag, albeit a charming one. You remind me of the Pied Piper, and if given the chance, you will lead all your lemmings to destruction.
We know these things because you have no experience. We know it because you have not accomplished anything substantive while in office. We know it because you still refuse to talk issues, and offer anything of substance. We know it because your financial numbers do not even clome close to balancing. So far, your entire campaign has been one of rhetoric. Like you, there has been no substance.
So, I challenge you, Obama! Get in front of the cameras and tell America exactly what solutions you offer. Be specific. Deal with the issues. And explain to us what the effects of your choices would be. Begin answering some of the hard questions, and not just the stupid, meaningless ones that the Oba-maniacs in the media have been tossing your way, such as whether or not you like Farrakhan.
Stand up, Obama. Tell us what is really in your heart. If you are going to propose 400 million in new government programs, show us, exactly, how those programs will be paid for. If you think government should rule the people rather than vice versa, tell us why.
Exactly what would you do about the illegal immigrants already here? How, exactly, would you fund free college for everyone? And what would be the effect if every child were to go to college, even though the number of jobs requiring college degrees are not increasing? What, exactly, would you do about "sanctuary cities" that laugh at and ignore the laws of this country? What type of person, exactly, would you appoint to the Supreme Court? Why, exactly, do you refuse to wear the American Flag lapel pin, and why, exactly, do you refuse to place your hand on your heart when the pledge of allegiance is recited?
If you want the votes of thinking people, Obama, then you must begin giving us something more substantive to think about. The fools, the blind and the lemmings will follow you simply because of your empty words. But thinking, educated people need more.
So, whatcha got, Obama? I'll bet you have nothing. Nothing but grand words of hope and change. I'll bet you have nothing more to offer except empty promises, grand lies and useless rhetoric.
Obama stated that he would draw the troops out of Iraq, and send them back in if Al Queda were to return to Iraq. Senator McCain corrected him, stating that Al Queda is already in Iraq, which is true.
Obama's "spin" response was that Al Queda is only in Iraq because Bush and McCain brought them into Iraq. This was not the issue, and is dishonest on several levels. The issue, presented by Obama, himself, was the implication that Al Queda is no longer in Iraq - after all, how could they "return" if they never left?
First, we are not in Iraq due solely to Bush and McCain, as implied by Obama - even the vast majority of Democrats voted for going into Iraq.
Second, for someone claiming to be the "agent of change for the future", Obama seems to retreat into the past in order to cover his mis-steps. After all, the issue had nothing to do with how, why or when Al Queda came to Iraq. The issue was whether or not they are there now, as stated by McCain, or if they were already gone, as implied by Obama when he said he would send troops only upon "Al Queda's return to Iraq". "Return" implies they are not there at this time, and that is incorrect. McCain was simply trying to correct Obama's statement, since Obama is obviously ignorant of what is actually going on in Iraq.
Obama, thinking people know that you are an empty suit, with words as your only strength. We realize you know nothing of foreign policy, or what is really going on. We know you have no inkling about money and economics, because your numbers do not even come close to balancing. We know you are nothing but a gas-bag, albeit a charming one. You remind me of the Pied Piper, and if given the chance, you will lead all your lemmings to destruction.
We know these things because you have no experience. We know it because you have not accomplished anything substantive while in office. We know it because you still refuse to talk issues, and offer anything of substance. We know it because your financial numbers do not even clome close to balancing. So far, your entire campaign has been one of rhetoric. Like you, there has been no substance.
So, I challenge you, Obama! Get in front of the cameras and tell America exactly what solutions you offer. Be specific. Deal with the issues. And explain to us what the effects of your choices would be. Begin answering some of the hard questions, and not just the stupid, meaningless ones that the Oba-maniacs in the media have been tossing your way, such as whether or not you like Farrakhan.
Stand up, Obama. Tell us what is really in your heart. If you are going to propose 400 million in new government programs, show us, exactly, how those programs will be paid for. If you think government should rule the people rather than vice versa, tell us why.
Exactly what would you do about the illegal immigrants already here? How, exactly, would you fund free college for everyone? And what would be the effect if every child were to go to college, even though the number of jobs requiring college degrees are not increasing? What, exactly, would you do about "sanctuary cities" that laugh at and ignore the laws of this country? What type of person, exactly, would you appoint to the Supreme Court? Why, exactly, do you refuse to wear the American Flag lapel pin, and why, exactly, do you refuse to place your hand on your heart when the pledge of allegiance is recited?
If you want the votes of thinking people, Obama, then you must begin giving us something more substantive to think about. The fools, the blind and the lemmings will follow you simply because of your empty words. But thinking, educated people need more.
So, whatcha got, Obama? I'll bet you have nothing. Nothing but grand words of hope and change. I'll bet you have nothing more to offer except empty promises, grand lies and useless rhetoric.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Human Sacrifice in America
Well, it had to happen. Another illegal immigrant has killed Americans because the "sanctuary mindset" of liberals allows illegals to hide in plain sight.
This woman, Olga Franco from Guatamala, hit a school bus, killing four innocent children. Over the last year, there have been several incidents similar to this.
My big beef is with the liberal "thinkers" (is that an oxymoron?) like Geraldo Rivera who keep harping that these situations (and deaths) are not an immigration issue - rather, they are issues of drunk driving, bad driving or criminal activity. They claim that such things happen even to Americans.
Of course they do. But that is not the point. The very simple and clear point is that deaths caused by illegal immigrants are PREVENTABLE. If we were to take a harder stance on illegal immigration, and if we were to prohibit "sanctuary cities", and deport illegals when discovered, and if we were to enforce the law, all those deaths could have been prevented. THAT is the issue.
Of course we cannot prevent all such deaths. But we most certainly can and should prevent those that are preventable. For people like Geraldo to minimalize the death of Americans by saying "We cannot prevent all deaths, so let's not prevent any" is not only absurd, but incredibly immoral.
Liberals need to understand that if even one death can be prevented by simply adhering to current laws, then that is what we must do. But, unfortunately, people like Geraldo believe that some unnecessary deaths are acceptable - perhaps even desired - in order to achieve their liberal agenda. They believe, apparently, in human sacrifice, not unlike the pagan sacrifices of tossing virgins into volcanoes to appease the Gods.
Of course, any thinking person already knows that liberals believe in human sacrifice - they condone deaths at the hands of illegals; they advocate strongly for abortion and partial birth abortion; and they even support euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. Liberals, of course, do not see it as human sacrifice, however. To them, it is simply a case of "the end justifies the means."
To me, it is a case of them having no respect for life, honesty or the law.
This woman, Olga Franco from Guatamala, hit a school bus, killing four innocent children. Over the last year, there have been several incidents similar to this.
My big beef is with the liberal "thinkers" (is that an oxymoron?) like Geraldo Rivera who keep harping that these situations (and deaths) are not an immigration issue - rather, they are issues of drunk driving, bad driving or criminal activity. They claim that such things happen even to Americans.
Of course they do. But that is not the point. The very simple and clear point is that deaths caused by illegal immigrants are PREVENTABLE. If we were to take a harder stance on illegal immigration, and if we were to prohibit "sanctuary cities", and deport illegals when discovered, and if we were to enforce the law, all those deaths could have been prevented. THAT is the issue.
Of course we cannot prevent all such deaths. But we most certainly can and should prevent those that are preventable. For people like Geraldo to minimalize the death of Americans by saying "We cannot prevent all deaths, so let's not prevent any" is not only absurd, but incredibly immoral.
Liberals need to understand that if even one death can be prevented by simply adhering to current laws, then that is what we must do. But, unfortunately, people like Geraldo believe that some unnecessary deaths are acceptable - perhaps even desired - in order to achieve their liberal agenda. They believe, apparently, in human sacrifice, not unlike the pagan sacrifices of tossing virgins into volcanoes to appease the Gods.
Of course, any thinking person already knows that liberals believe in human sacrifice - they condone deaths at the hands of illegals; they advocate strongly for abortion and partial birth abortion; and they even support euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. Liberals, of course, do not see it as human sacrifice, however. To them, it is simply a case of "the end justifies the means."
To me, it is a case of them having no respect for life, honesty or the law.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Electability???
My point exactly! Republicans, for all their faults, tend to vote for the person they believe is best suited to the job that needs to be done. In fact, that is what most sane and reasonable people would do.
In watching the "Lunt Forum" after the Democratic debate on Thursdy evening, the Democrat voters in the room were asked why they would vote for one candidate or the other. Their general response was "electability."
It really makes one wonder how so many voters could be so blinded by partisan ignorance! Instead of wanting to vote for the best Democratic candidate suited to lead, and protect America, they feel it is more important to vote for the person who is most likely to beat the Republican candidate. So what if their candidate might be an inexperienced fool. Perhaps even downright dangerous and incompetent. As long as the candidate can beat the Republicans, that's all that counts!
How utterly stupid.
The way I see it, each and every American citizen of voting age should vote for the person who has the best leadership ability, has a good grasp of the problems at hand, and has solid, sound solutions to offer. And we should vote for that person regardless of whether he/she is Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Sure, belonging to a party is fine. But regardless of party, we are supposed to be electing the best leader available.
It does not matter one iota if he or she smiles better, orates better, dresses best, or can eat a taco without getting salsa on their shirt. And it does not matter what party they are affiliated with. All that matters - and all that should be seriously considered in the voting booth - is who is best qualified to do the job that faces America over the next four years.
Sometimes that may be a Republican. Sometimes it may be a Democrat. Right now, at this point in our history, we need a leader who understands the threats our nation is facing. Heaven forbid if Al Gore had been president on 9/11!
It does no good whatever to provide health care or jobs if we are dead, dying, or fighting for our very survival!
I would like to see a better health care system. And a better education system. But even more important, I would like our nation to get the murderous threat of terrorism behind us, first. Unless we do that, it may be a waste of time to do anything else. Dead people do not need doctors or schools.
Make no mistake about it - Islam has one objective (even the so-called "moderate Muslims"), and that is to rule the world. It says so in their Koran. Their prophet has told them to have as many children as possible, to overwhelm all others. He told them to go forth to other lands, and infiltrate every nation. He told them to use force, and murder, if necessary.
Look around, folks. That is exactly what is happening. They are spreading out in every nation. They are propagating like rabbits. Just look at that one Muslim woman in India who was in the news this week. At 120 years old, she has 11 children, 120 grandchildren, 250 great-grand children and 20 great-great grandchildren. For those who have basic math skills, that one Muslim woman is responsible for bringing forth 401 new Muslims.
And the "soldiers" among them - the jihadists - are killing anyone who stands against them. It has nothing to do with detente. And all the "nice" talk in the world will not deter them. Their objective is clear, and nothing anyone does will make them waiver from it. Total world domination, at whatever cost. And if liberals on the left want to hide their heads in the sand, or refuse to acknowledge that the threat is real, and cannot be stopped by peaceful means, then they deserve everything they get.
But my family deserves better! So I will vote for the candidate that will take the strong stand. Because weakness will only get us dead.
Clinton has said she wants to make nice with the enemy, and even protect them (she refused to vote for extending FISA, for example). And Obama is even worse - he wants to welcome them with a smile and open arms.
We would be safer if we elected Britney Spears!
In watching the "Lunt Forum" after the Democratic debate on Thursdy evening, the Democrat voters in the room were asked why they would vote for one candidate or the other. Their general response was "electability."
It really makes one wonder how so many voters could be so blinded by partisan ignorance! Instead of wanting to vote for the best Democratic candidate suited to lead, and protect America, they feel it is more important to vote for the person who is most likely to beat the Republican candidate. So what if their candidate might be an inexperienced fool. Perhaps even downright dangerous and incompetent. As long as the candidate can beat the Republicans, that's all that counts!
How utterly stupid.
The way I see it, each and every American citizen of voting age should vote for the person who has the best leadership ability, has a good grasp of the problems at hand, and has solid, sound solutions to offer. And we should vote for that person regardless of whether he/she is Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Sure, belonging to a party is fine. But regardless of party, we are supposed to be electing the best leader available.
It does not matter one iota if he or she smiles better, orates better, dresses best, or can eat a taco without getting salsa on their shirt. And it does not matter what party they are affiliated with. All that matters - and all that should be seriously considered in the voting booth - is who is best qualified to do the job that faces America over the next four years.
Sometimes that may be a Republican. Sometimes it may be a Democrat. Right now, at this point in our history, we need a leader who understands the threats our nation is facing. Heaven forbid if Al Gore had been president on 9/11!
It does no good whatever to provide health care or jobs if we are dead, dying, or fighting for our very survival!
I would like to see a better health care system. And a better education system. But even more important, I would like our nation to get the murderous threat of terrorism behind us, first. Unless we do that, it may be a waste of time to do anything else. Dead people do not need doctors or schools.
Make no mistake about it - Islam has one objective (even the so-called "moderate Muslims"), and that is to rule the world. It says so in their Koran. Their prophet has told them to have as many children as possible, to overwhelm all others. He told them to go forth to other lands, and infiltrate every nation. He told them to use force, and murder, if necessary.
Look around, folks. That is exactly what is happening. They are spreading out in every nation. They are propagating like rabbits. Just look at that one Muslim woman in India who was in the news this week. At 120 years old, she has 11 children, 120 grandchildren, 250 great-grand children and 20 great-great grandchildren. For those who have basic math skills, that one Muslim woman is responsible for bringing forth 401 new Muslims.
And the "soldiers" among them - the jihadists - are killing anyone who stands against them. It has nothing to do with detente. And all the "nice" talk in the world will not deter them. Their objective is clear, and nothing anyone does will make them waiver from it. Total world domination, at whatever cost. And if liberals on the left want to hide their heads in the sand, or refuse to acknowledge that the threat is real, and cannot be stopped by peaceful means, then they deserve everything they get.
But my family deserves better! So I will vote for the candidate that will take the strong stand. Because weakness will only get us dead.
Clinton has said she wants to make nice with the enemy, and even protect them (she refused to vote for extending FISA, for example). And Obama is even worse - he wants to welcome them with a smile and open arms.
We would be safer if we elected Britney Spears!
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Dangerous Presidential Candidates
This is something that we, the people, need to stop and think about.
First, it is important that Americans know what our presidential candidates stand for. We have a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION to know where they stand on issues important to us. Of this there is no doubt.
But many presidential candidates use dishonesty to hide what they stand for, and refuse to offer any insight into where they stand, or in presenting solutions. But it's even worse than that.
Here is an example: this week, the Senate voted on important issues concerning terrorism, FISA and surveillence. Neither of the Democratic presidential candidates voted. And the insidiousness of this becomes apparent when you realize WHY they chose not to vote: had they voted for these things, they would lose the support of the far-left, and if they voted against them, they would lose the Independent and centrist voters. In other words, both Clinton and Obama chose not to vote for purely devious reasons - to hide from the voters the position they take on such issues. Yet, they ask people to vote for them, anyway. They want us to vote "blindly", without us knowing whether or not they will act on our behalf. They show they are more concerned with popularity and polls than they are with facing the tough issues and taking a stand, and doing the work of the people. It shows they are unwilling to do the current job we elected them to do, so why should we consider giving either of them an even higher position? They can't even handle the job of Senator, so they are obviously unfit to be President.
Can America really afford a President that refuses to take a stand? Or refuses to have core principles? Can we really afford a President that acts according to the most recent polls, rather than on principle?
If neither Clinton nor Obama are willing to stand up and vote for or against important issues, for fear of losing voter support, then they have no right to ask for any votes at all. They have no business running for any public office, let alone the most powerful office on Earth.
Their unwillingness to take a position on important issues only proves they are unworthy, and cannot be trusted.
I say we should toss those bums out on their ears - not only should we not give them our votes to be President, but we should not even re-elect them to any other office. They are either unwilling or unable to do the job. They were elected to vote on those issues. They chose not to, because they were afraid of losing support. Do we really want a President whose fear of losing popularity will affect their decisions?
I certainly do not! I would rather vote for someone who took an unfavorable stand than to vote for someone who was too weak and fearful to take any position at all.
First, it is important that Americans know what our presidential candidates stand for. We have a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION to know where they stand on issues important to us. Of this there is no doubt.
But many presidential candidates use dishonesty to hide what they stand for, and refuse to offer any insight into where they stand, or in presenting solutions. But it's even worse than that.
Here is an example: this week, the Senate voted on important issues concerning terrorism, FISA and surveillence. Neither of the Democratic presidential candidates voted. And the insidiousness of this becomes apparent when you realize WHY they chose not to vote: had they voted for these things, they would lose the support of the far-left, and if they voted against them, they would lose the Independent and centrist voters. In other words, both Clinton and Obama chose not to vote for purely devious reasons - to hide from the voters the position they take on such issues. Yet, they ask people to vote for them, anyway. They want us to vote "blindly", without us knowing whether or not they will act on our behalf. They show they are more concerned with popularity and polls than they are with facing the tough issues and taking a stand, and doing the work of the people. It shows they are unwilling to do the current job we elected them to do, so why should we consider giving either of them an even higher position? They can't even handle the job of Senator, so they are obviously unfit to be President.
Can America really afford a President that refuses to take a stand? Or refuses to have core principles? Can we really afford a President that acts according to the most recent polls, rather than on principle?
If neither Clinton nor Obama are willing to stand up and vote for or against important issues, for fear of losing voter support, then they have no right to ask for any votes at all. They have no business running for any public office, let alone the most powerful office on Earth.
Their unwillingness to take a position on important issues only proves they are unworthy, and cannot be trusted.
I say we should toss those bums out on their ears - not only should we not give them our votes to be President, but we should not even re-elect them to any other office. They are either unwilling or unable to do the job. They were elected to vote on those issues. They chose not to, because they were afraid of losing support. Do we really want a President whose fear of losing popularity will affect their decisions?
I certainly do not! I would rather vote for someone who took an unfavorable stand than to vote for someone who was too weak and fearful to take any position at all.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The "Super-delegate" Farce
The Democratic party, in its quest to subvert the election process and the Constitution, uses a dirty trick known as "Super Delegates". These delegates are not elected by the people, nor are they required to vote according to the will of the people. They are, instead, appointed by the Democratic Party leadership - the elites, not the folks - and may vote any way they please (or are instructed to by the leadership).
The Constitution goes to great lengths to detail precisely how the election process is to work, and nowhere does it mention, or allow for, such "super delegates".
These delegates are "set aside" by the Democratic party, to be called upon to choose the party nominee regardless of who the people may actually vote for. For example, if Obama gets more "regular" delegates than Hillary, and the party leadership prefers Hillary, the super delegates will be used to swing their weight behind Hillary, and make her the nominee, against the will of the people.
Super Delegates are illegal, since they are not given any such power by the Constitution. No party should be permitted to hijack the will of the people - or even be in a position to make that possible.
But then again, we are talking about the Democratic party - in my opinion they are the sneakiest, most dishonest, disingenuous bunch of liars and crooks to ever assemble. These are the same people who hijacked the Congress when it came time to vote on judicial nominees, rather than to allow a vote, as called for in the Constitution. These are the same people who appointed justices who subverted the Constitution to allow state and local governments to steal the property of citizens, and who find "hidden" rights in the Constitution that simply do not exist.
So why should it surprise anyone that the Democrats would hijack the election process?
The Constitution goes to great lengths to detail precisely how the election process is to work, and nowhere does it mention, or allow for, such "super delegates".
These delegates are "set aside" by the Democratic party, to be called upon to choose the party nominee regardless of who the people may actually vote for. For example, if Obama gets more "regular" delegates than Hillary, and the party leadership prefers Hillary, the super delegates will be used to swing their weight behind Hillary, and make her the nominee, against the will of the people.
Super Delegates are illegal, since they are not given any such power by the Constitution. No party should be permitted to hijack the will of the people - or even be in a position to make that possible.
But then again, we are talking about the Democratic party - in my opinion they are the sneakiest, most dishonest, disingenuous bunch of liars and crooks to ever assemble. These are the same people who hijacked the Congress when it came time to vote on judicial nominees, rather than to allow a vote, as called for in the Constitution. These are the same people who appointed justices who subverted the Constitution to allow state and local governments to steal the property of citizens, and who find "hidden" rights in the Constitution that simply do not exist.
So why should it surprise anyone that the Democrats would hijack the election process?
Friday, February 1, 2008
Why The Economy Went South
I am not so naive as to think any one factor is responsible for the economy being weakened. But I can say with certainty just exactly what the pivot point was - the one thing that started the pendulum swinging the other way. Are you ready? The increased minimum wage, courtesy of the only thing the Democrat Congress is solely responsible for.
How can that be? After all, aren't low income people getting more money to spend? Wouldn't that juice up the economy?
On the surface (which is the only way Democrats ever see anything), that would appear logical. But conservatives are a bit wiser and smarter - they tend to look below the surface.
Let's get one thing straight - every time we increase the minimum wage, we do great harm to the economy. Period. If you do not believe that, consider what really happens when the minimum wage is increased.
Let's start with where those extra funds for wages will come from. I certainly hope you are bright enough to realize the employer is not going to take it out of his own pocket. If he did, there would be no gain to the economy because for every dollar extra that low income workers now have to spend, the employer has one less to spend, so it would be a wash. More to the point, the employer is not going to jeopardize his own security by paying that money out of his own pocket, even if he could afford to. That leaves only one place where the money can come from - the employer must increase the prices of his products and services. In short - you, me and the low income person will have to pay more for our goods and services.
About the extra dollar per hour...
It does not benefit the low income family at all. Not one iota. Why? Because for every dollar extra that he gets paid, he must now pay an extra dollar for the higher priced goods and services, because the prices of products and services had to increase in order to pay the minimum wage.
But it gets worse. Now a spiral has been set in motion. With rising prices (caused by an increase in minimum wage), all other income earners are now suffering a loss. Their income did not go up, but the cost of living has gone up. In order to avoid losing ground, every other employee across the country must request a raise in pay, to cover the cost of living increase. And once again, where do you think all that raise money is going to come from? You guessed it - another increase in prices of products and services.
With this second round of price increases, the low income person is now spending more in higher prices than he is getting in increased wages, resulting in a net loss, causing more poverty.
Common sense and logic indicates that forced wage increases result in damage to the economy, higher prices, inflation, recession and more poverty - exactly the opposite effect that was desired.
And that is why conservatives oppose minimum wage increases.
And that is the precise moment that the economic pendulum began to swing the other way.
And that is why I can say with certainty that the economic momentum was stopped by the Democrats - again!
How can that be? After all, aren't low income people getting more money to spend? Wouldn't that juice up the economy?
On the surface (which is the only way Democrats ever see anything), that would appear logical. But conservatives are a bit wiser and smarter - they tend to look below the surface.
Let's get one thing straight - every time we increase the minimum wage, we do great harm to the economy. Period. If you do not believe that, consider what really happens when the minimum wage is increased.
Let's start with where those extra funds for wages will come from. I certainly hope you are bright enough to realize the employer is not going to take it out of his own pocket. If he did, there would be no gain to the economy because for every dollar extra that low income workers now have to spend, the employer has one less to spend, so it would be a wash. More to the point, the employer is not going to jeopardize his own security by paying that money out of his own pocket, even if he could afford to. That leaves only one place where the money can come from - the employer must increase the prices of his products and services. In short - you, me and the low income person will have to pay more for our goods and services.
About the extra dollar per hour...
It does not benefit the low income family at all. Not one iota. Why? Because for every dollar extra that he gets paid, he must now pay an extra dollar for the higher priced goods and services, because the prices of products and services had to increase in order to pay the minimum wage.
But it gets worse. Now a spiral has been set in motion. With rising prices (caused by an increase in minimum wage), all other income earners are now suffering a loss. Their income did not go up, but the cost of living has gone up. In order to avoid losing ground, every other employee across the country must request a raise in pay, to cover the cost of living increase. And once again, where do you think all that raise money is going to come from? You guessed it - another increase in prices of products and services.
With this second round of price increases, the low income person is now spending more in higher prices than he is getting in increased wages, resulting in a net loss, causing more poverty.
Common sense and logic indicates that forced wage increases result in damage to the economy, higher prices, inflation, recession and more poverty - exactly the opposite effect that was desired.
And that is why conservatives oppose minimum wage increases.
And that is the precise moment that the economic pendulum began to swing the other way.
And that is why I can say with certainty that the economic momentum was stopped by the Democrats - again!
Berkeley vs the Marines
Well, Berkeley, CA is at it again. By all their actions it is evident that the people of Berkeley are unpatriotic, anti-American anarchists. Now they are trying to drive Marine recruiters out of town - they want no part of the U.S. Military.
Hm-m-m. I know just what to do. It's simple, really.
First, I would remove all military personnel from Berkeley. Then I would make sure every citizen of Berkeley is made aware that no matter what happens, the federal government will never send any federal people - or money - into Berkeley. If they suffer wildfires, they can put them out alone. Mudslides? No federal help there, either. And if that overdue massive quake hits? Sorry, Berkeley - you are on your own.
And I would make sure they fully understand just how alone they are - even if terrorists were to attack in Berkeley, the military and federal government would sympathize - but would not interfere or lift a finger, because the military is not welcome in Berkeley.
And then I would make sure the entire world - even the terrorists - understands that Berkeley is no longer under the protection of the U.S. government, because the "will of the people of Berkeley" ousted the military.
And once the terrorists know they can hit a city of liberal acceptance of sin, and do so with impunity, it may not be long before we no longer have to worry about Berkeley, or the nutcases that live there. And other malcontents who would consider making the same unpatriotic move would have second thoughts...
Berkeley residents seem to be far too ignorant to understand one simple fact: the liberal ideas that Berkeley loves are precisely the same decadent things that Islam cannot condone, and wants to destroy. It seems most unwise for rabbits to party in front of the wolf's den, and actually believe that they can use diplomacy to keep the wolf at bay.
Not merely unwise, but downright stupid!
Oh - these nut jobs are Democrats, and want Hillary or Obama to become president. Think about that when YOU go into the voting booth.
Hm-m-m. I know just what to do. It's simple, really.
First, I would remove all military personnel from Berkeley. Then I would make sure every citizen of Berkeley is made aware that no matter what happens, the federal government will never send any federal people - or money - into Berkeley. If they suffer wildfires, they can put them out alone. Mudslides? No federal help there, either. And if that overdue massive quake hits? Sorry, Berkeley - you are on your own.
And I would make sure they fully understand just how alone they are - even if terrorists were to attack in Berkeley, the military and federal government would sympathize - but would not interfere or lift a finger, because the military is not welcome in Berkeley.
And then I would make sure the entire world - even the terrorists - understands that Berkeley is no longer under the protection of the U.S. government, because the "will of the people of Berkeley" ousted the military.
And once the terrorists know they can hit a city of liberal acceptance of sin, and do so with impunity, it may not be long before we no longer have to worry about Berkeley, or the nutcases that live there. And other malcontents who would consider making the same unpatriotic move would have second thoughts...
Berkeley residents seem to be far too ignorant to understand one simple fact: the liberal ideas that Berkeley loves are precisely the same decadent things that Islam cannot condone, and wants to destroy. It seems most unwise for rabbits to party in front of the wolf's den, and actually believe that they can use diplomacy to keep the wolf at bay.
Not merely unwise, but downright stupid!
Oh - these nut jobs are Democrats, and want Hillary or Obama to become president. Think about that when YOU go into the voting booth.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Hillary Snubs Independents
Surprise! Hillary Clinton's first words upon winning in Florida was "Thank you Florida Democrats".
Seems like she does not give any recognition to the many Independents who made her "win" possible.
Perhaps Independents in other states should take note.
Personally, I have no use for anyone, of either party, who is so self-serving, self-righteous and arrogant.
Seems like she does not give any recognition to the many Independents who made her "win" possible.
Perhaps Independents in other states should take note.
Personally, I have no use for anyone, of either party, who is so self-serving, self-righteous and arrogant.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Red Herring Economy
Both the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates are beathing a huge sigh of relief now that the economy seems to be in trouble. It's the best thing that could have happened for them. Why?
Because they really, really needed a "red herring" issue to take the discussion away from the more important, and more difficult issues, like immigration.
The last thing presidential candidates on either side of the aisle want is to have to talk about immigration. That's because the political elites of both parties are so far out of sync with "normal" Americans. Most Americans - over 80% - want to control the border and not provide amnesty of any kind. But the politicians, thinking they know better, want amnesty. They do not want to control the border.
Any issue that moves the discussion away from immigration, Social (in)Security reform or any number of other political thorns is a blessing to both parties.
It is my opinion that no candidate should be allowed to base their campaign on one issue, while putting the others on the back burner, hoping voters will not notice. Every candidate needs to thoroughly address each of the important issues. And they need to provide details on excatly how they would deal with each.
Any candidate that cannot, or will not do that will certainly NOT get my vote.
And as a special note to John McCain, I put more stock in your past voting record than I do in your empty promises for the future. You have been in Congress for generations, and you have a long history of siding with liberals on important issues. That is not the sort of thing that can be buried by rhetoric and hype - a leopard does not change his spots overnight. If you were to get elected, you would quickly forget your promises and push your own, liberal agenda, just as you always have.
Because they really, really needed a "red herring" issue to take the discussion away from the more important, and more difficult issues, like immigration.
The last thing presidential candidates on either side of the aisle want is to have to talk about immigration. That's because the political elites of both parties are so far out of sync with "normal" Americans. Most Americans - over 80% - want to control the border and not provide amnesty of any kind. But the politicians, thinking they know better, want amnesty. They do not want to control the border.
Any issue that moves the discussion away from immigration, Social (in)Security reform or any number of other political thorns is a blessing to both parties.
It is my opinion that no candidate should be allowed to base their campaign on one issue, while putting the others on the back burner, hoping voters will not notice. Every candidate needs to thoroughly address each of the important issues. And they need to provide details on excatly how they would deal with each.
Any candidate that cannot, or will not do that will certainly NOT get my vote.
And as a special note to John McCain, I put more stock in your past voting record than I do in your empty promises for the future. You have been in Congress for generations, and you have a long history of siding with liberals on important issues. That is not the sort of thing that can be buried by rhetoric and hype - a leopard does not change his spots overnight. If you were to get elected, you would quickly forget your promises and push your own, liberal agenda, just as you always have.
McCain - Democrat in Republican Clothing
It is with great despair that I see McCain making such a strong showing in the polls. And I know it is only because, like the Democrats, he is willing to tell any lies that are necessary to con the folks into voting for him.
Although he voted AGAINST the Bush tax cuts, he now says he is for them. And while he said he would vote AGAINST making them permanent, he now says he would make them permanent. Although he voted to provide amnesty to 20 million illegals, he now says he would build a fence - but he STILL is not saying he would oppose amnesty - he still wants that.
McCain is always aligning himself with the most liberal Democrats in Congress. No Democrats are more liberal than Teddy "drown them and run" Kennedy, or Russ "surrender as fast as possible" Feingold.
The McCain/Feingold act was a travesty perpetrated against the First Amenment, and has caused serious problems in campaign financing.
The propoed McCain/Kennedy bill would have granted amnesty to 20 million people who broke our laws - even those who are murderers and rapists.
In the past, when McCain ran for President, Rpublicans could easily see him for the liberal Democrat he is. This time around, McCain has decided that, to win, he must be much sneakier. He must not run on his record, but rather on promises of what he will stand for in the future.
Hype and BS, frankly. McCain is a liberal Democrat who calls himself a Republican just so he can appeal to the larger base (most people are conservative by nature). He is a con-artist of the highest order - right up there with Murtha, as far as I am concerned.
McCain will say anything to get elected. But the TRUTH is that he does NOT understand the economics of capitalism, he does NOT understand the flaws in his immigration bill, he does NOT understand what "the people" want, and he does NOT understand what a Republican is.
Typical liberal Democrat. And any Republican who would vote for him should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for allowing him to fool them so easily.
If McCain is nominated, I doubt he will win the Presidency, because true conservatives - about half the Republican party - would probably rather stay home than vote for him.
Although he voted AGAINST the Bush tax cuts, he now says he is for them. And while he said he would vote AGAINST making them permanent, he now says he would make them permanent. Although he voted to provide amnesty to 20 million illegals, he now says he would build a fence - but he STILL is not saying he would oppose amnesty - he still wants that.
McCain is always aligning himself with the most liberal Democrats in Congress. No Democrats are more liberal than Teddy "drown them and run" Kennedy, or Russ "surrender as fast as possible" Feingold.
The McCain/Feingold act was a travesty perpetrated against the First Amenment, and has caused serious problems in campaign financing.
The propoed McCain/Kennedy bill would have granted amnesty to 20 million people who broke our laws - even those who are murderers and rapists.
In the past, when McCain ran for President, Rpublicans could easily see him for the liberal Democrat he is. This time around, McCain has decided that, to win, he must be much sneakier. He must not run on his record, but rather on promises of what he will stand for in the future.
Hype and BS, frankly. McCain is a liberal Democrat who calls himself a Republican just so he can appeal to the larger base (most people are conservative by nature). He is a con-artist of the highest order - right up there with Murtha, as far as I am concerned.
McCain will say anything to get elected. But the TRUTH is that he does NOT understand the economics of capitalism, he does NOT understand the flaws in his immigration bill, he does NOT understand what "the people" want, and he does NOT understand what a Republican is.
Typical liberal Democrat. And any Republican who would vote for him should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for allowing him to fool them so easily.
If McCain is nominated, I doubt he will win the Presidency, because true conservatives - about half the Republican party - would probably rather stay home than vote for him.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Crime and Non-Punishment
I'm sure I am not the only one to notice that our judicial system is badly broken. It is geared toward protecting criminals while penalizing innocent victims.
The Bill of Rights guarantees us the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure. No problem - that is a good amendment, to be sure. The problem I have lies in how lawmakers and the courts have usurped and corroded it.
Nowhere in the amendment does it say that a proven criminal should go free, to wreak more havoc on innocent people, just because of a typographical error on a search warrant. Nowhere does it say that a guilty person should ever get a "get out of jail free" card simply because someone did not cross all the T's.
But that is exactly what happens. It seems the courts - more interested in protecting the rights of criminals - have arbitrarily decided that an illegal search should result in the criminal being set free - rewarded for being guilty.
That is bad law. VERY bad law! Two wrongs do not make a right!
In a sane world, the guilty party, being guilty, would still be punished, but he would have company - the person who made the error and violated his rights. This is a simple case that there are two crimes here - the crime that the criminal committed, and the crime that was then committed against him by violating his rights. Two crimes should result in two punishments.
Instead, our legal system says that two crimes should result in NO punishment. The criminal goes free, and the people who violated his rights are not held accountable, either.
Is it any wonder we have so much crime? And so much disrespect for the legal system?
We, the People, need to stand up and demand that crimes be punished, regardless of technicalities. And if a criminal's rights are violated, the violator should be held accountable, as well. But to actually reward a criminal just because a law official makes an error is absolutely unconscionable.
Yes, we are to be protected from illegal search and seizure. But that in no way erases our liability when we commit a crime.
The Bill of Rights guarantees us the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure. No problem - that is a good amendment, to be sure. The problem I have lies in how lawmakers and the courts have usurped and corroded it.
Nowhere in the amendment does it say that a proven criminal should go free, to wreak more havoc on innocent people, just because of a typographical error on a search warrant. Nowhere does it say that a guilty person should ever get a "get out of jail free" card simply because someone did not cross all the T's.
But that is exactly what happens. It seems the courts - more interested in protecting the rights of criminals - have arbitrarily decided that an illegal search should result in the criminal being set free - rewarded for being guilty.
That is bad law. VERY bad law! Two wrongs do not make a right!
In a sane world, the guilty party, being guilty, would still be punished, but he would have company - the person who made the error and violated his rights. This is a simple case that there are two crimes here - the crime that the criminal committed, and the crime that was then committed against him by violating his rights. Two crimes should result in two punishments.
Instead, our legal system says that two crimes should result in NO punishment. The criminal goes free, and the people who violated his rights are not held accountable, either.
Is it any wonder we have so much crime? And so much disrespect for the legal system?
We, the People, need to stand up and demand that crimes be punished, regardless of technicalities. And if a criminal's rights are violated, the violator should be held accountable, as well. But to actually reward a criminal just because a law official makes an error is absolutely unconscionable.
Yes, we are to be protected from illegal search and seizure. But that in no way erases our liability when we commit a crime.
Snow Day Tirade
In Virginia, a middle school child called the school superintendent and left a nasty message on the man's machine because the man had not called a "snow day".
The man's wife then called the child back and gave him Hell for what he did.
The child then posted the woman's tirade on the Internet, where people soon began berating the woman.
But I think there seems to be a loss of perspective here, and I think people are being conned by that kid.
First, he did not post his OWN message on the Internet - you know, the one where the little SOB went on a tirade of his own, and showing incredible disrespect for authority.
I can tell you a couple of things about this situation. First, the kid was WAY out of line. He had no business questioning the authority or decision of the superintendent. Second, the kids' parents are to blame, for not raising their brat to have any respect. And raising a kid that thinks "it's all about me." A selfish, self-righteous, disrespectful little brat who would benefit from some strict discipline.
And the woman was correct - the little brat was way out of line.
And if my child had ever done something like that, I would have grounded him for a week for making the call, and I would have grounded him for two months for posting his one-sided propaganda on the Internet.
I have raised three children. I raised them to be respectful, honest, and to have integrity. I never had to spank any of them, and only grounded one of them once. And every one of them grew up to be fine young men and women to be proud of.
But I can guarantee that the brat who is responsible for this stupidity over a snow day will grow up to be a loud-mouthed, bigoted, self-righteous ass that no one except Michael Moore could be proud of. This kid, and his parents, are what is wrong with the world today.
The man's wife then called the child back and gave him Hell for what he did.
The child then posted the woman's tirade on the Internet, where people soon began berating the woman.
But I think there seems to be a loss of perspective here, and I think people are being conned by that kid.
First, he did not post his OWN message on the Internet - you know, the one where the little SOB went on a tirade of his own, and showing incredible disrespect for authority.
I can tell you a couple of things about this situation. First, the kid was WAY out of line. He had no business questioning the authority or decision of the superintendent. Second, the kids' parents are to blame, for not raising their brat to have any respect. And raising a kid that thinks "it's all about me." A selfish, self-righteous, disrespectful little brat who would benefit from some strict discipline.
And the woman was correct - the little brat was way out of line.
And if my child had ever done something like that, I would have grounded him for a week for making the call, and I would have grounded him for two months for posting his one-sided propaganda on the Internet.
I have raised three children. I raised them to be respectful, honest, and to have integrity. I never had to spank any of them, and only grounded one of them once. And every one of them grew up to be fine young men and women to be proud of.
But I can guarantee that the brat who is responsible for this stupidity over a snow day will grow up to be a loud-mouthed, bigoted, self-righteous ass that no one except Michael Moore could be proud of. This kid, and his parents, are what is wrong with the world today.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Martin Luther King Jr
I am old enough to remember Dr. King. And I can state with a fair degree of certainty that if he were alive today, he would be a Republican.
Why? It's simple - being a wise and intelligent person, he would realize that Democrats are purposely keeping black Americans down, in a type of economic slavery. It is Democrats that create the entitlements, and try to insure that those in poverty should forever remain in poverty.
He would also note that the Republican Welfare Reform Act was the second single greatest act in history to empower black Americans. Because of that, the percentage of blacks to increase income, and the percentage of blacks to open their own businesses has snowballed.
Dr. King would understand that while the Democrats are all too willing to give a hungry man a fish, the Republicans would rather teach him how to fish, thereby empowering him.
And Dr. King just might notice that it is Republicans, not Democrats, who have appointed black Americans into some of the highest positions in the land.
And Dr. King would be a Republican today.
Why? It's simple - being a wise and intelligent person, he would realize that Democrats are purposely keeping black Americans down, in a type of economic slavery. It is Democrats that create the entitlements, and try to insure that those in poverty should forever remain in poverty.
He would also note that the Republican Welfare Reform Act was the second single greatest act in history to empower black Americans. Because of that, the percentage of blacks to increase income, and the percentage of blacks to open their own businesses has snowballed.
Dr. King would understand that while the Democrats are all too willing to give a hungry man a fish, the Republicans would rather teach him how to fish, thereby empowering him.
And Dr. King just might notice that it is Republicans, not Democrats, who have appointed black Americans into some of the highest positions in the land.
And Dr. King would be a Republican today.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Confederate Flag Debate
This is really an absurdity!
Why does anyone debate whether or not the Confederate Flag should fly?
Sure, I understand that it represents a reprehensible part of our history. But that is exactly the point.
We need to be reminded of the bad part of our history every bit as much as the good part. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Since no one alive today was present during the Civil War, we NEED reminders.
Those who object to the flag are myopic, bigoted, narrow-minded people who strive to cause a rift where none exists. They are divisionists.
The Confederate Flag represents a tough period in our history. But it is only a piece of cloth, and it is a necessary reminder, lest we forget what so many Americans died for. It is not just a symbol of the Confederacy. It is a symbol of how far our country went to abolish slavery. Had there been no Civil War, we might still have slavery today.
When I see the Stars and Bars, I see something that points out that there will always be differences among people, and in most cases, good wins out over evil. When I see that flag, I see an America that fought to abolish the slavery it stood for. It reminds me that the battle between good and evil is never over.
Sure, we could outlaw all symbols of "bad" history - the Confederate flag, the swastika etc., but if we were to do that, new generations would have no knowledge of the evil, and we would be doomed to make the same mistakes all over again.
Those narrow-minded divisionists need to get a life! They need to understand that the flag is not the problem - THEY are the problem! What we do NOT need are those who would purposely divide people, the same way that the Confederate flag once divided people.
The flag is harmless. But the people who make it an issue are not - they are dangerous!
Why does anyone debate whether or not the Confederate Flag should fly?
Sure, I understand that it represents a reprehensible part of our history. But that is exactly the point.
We need to be reminded of the bad part of our history every bit as much as the good part. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Since no one alive today was present during the Civil War, we NEED reminders.
Those who object to the flag are myopic, bigoted, narrow-minded people who strive to cause a rift where none exists. They are divisionists.
The Confederate Flag represents a tough period in our history. But it is only a piece of cloth, and it is a necessary reminder, lest we forget what so many Americans died for. It is not just a symbol of the Confederacy. It is a symbol of how far our country went to abolish slavery. Had there been no Civil War, we might still have slavery today.
When I see the Stars and Bars, I see something that points out that there will always be differences among people, and in most cases, good wins out over evil. When I see that flag, I see an America that fought to abolish the slavery it stood for. It reminds me that the battle between good and evil is never over.
Sure, we could outlaw all symbols of "bad" history - the Confederate flag, the swastika etc., but if we were to do that, new generations would have no knowledge of the evil, and we would be doomed to make the same mistakes all over again.
Those narrow-minded divisionists need to get a life! They need to understand that the flag is not the problem - THEY are the problem! What we do NOT need are those who would purposely divide people, the same way that the Confederate flag once divided people.
The flag is harmless. But the people who make it an issue are not - they are dangerous!
More on Taxes
As you know, the Democrats have a love affair with taxes - they just cannot get enough. That is because the Democratic party is socialistic in nature, and they believe that virtually all income should go to the government, and the government should supply everything the people need. Of course, history proves that socialism does not work, but that does not stop the Democrats.
But here is an eye-opener on taxes - something that Democrats do not want you to notice. And it explains how and why even one more penny of taxes is devastating.
Let's say you earn $100. The IRS takes 20%, leaving you with $80 to put into the economy. And you do just that - you pay that $80 to your accountant, which has now made $80. The IRS taxes him 20%, leaving him with just $64. Like a good capitalist, he spends that $64. The person who gets it has earned $64, and the IRS takes 20%, leaving only $51.20 to put back into the economy.
As you can see, it will not be long before the government has all the money, and there is nothing left to put back into the economy.
That is the "Law of diminishing returns" in action.
So, why is there still money? Because the government spends it. Instead of the PEOPLE putting it back into the economy, the government does that. Unfortunately, the government is wasteful, and there are always "administration costs". So, we, the People, do not get our money's worth, as we would if we were the ones to be spending it.
So, what would work best, and still allow for a reduction of taxes?
The very first thing that we, the People, should insist upon is that everything that can be taken care of at a lower level should, indeed, be handled at that lower level. In other words, we should first try to handle things at the family level. If too big for that, it should then be passed to the community or church. If too big for them, then it goes to the county level, and bigger jobs to the state. The ONLY jobs the government should be handling are those very few that are just too big and complex to be handled at any other level. Like national defense, or the Postal Service.
By removing so much of the burden from Uncle Sam, he will no longer need as much money. This leaves each of us with more money (and more responsibility).
We need to stop being lazy and irresponsible. We need to stop passing our responsibilities off onto the schools, the states and the federal government.
The People are supposed to be in control - remember "Of the People, By the People, For the People"? But we cannot be in control if we keep passing our responsibilities onto government, which, in turn, forces them to tax us more, and waste more.
If you want to take back your country; if you want to regain your freedoms; if you want to keep more money in your pockets; then you must stand up and take responsibility. Contact your representatives and let them know this is how you feel, and if they want your vote, they need to make changes. If enough voters were to do that, Congress would have little choice but to put things right.
But here is an eye-opener on taxes - something that Democrats do not want you to notice. And it explains how and why even one more penny of taxes is devastating.
Let's say you earn $100. The IRS takes 20%, leaving you with $80 to put into the economy. And you do just that - you pay that $80 to your accountant, which has now made $80. The IRS taxes him 20%, leaving him with just $64. Like a good capitalist, he spends that $64. The person who gets it has earned $64, and the IRS takes 20%, leaving only $51.20 to put back into the economy.
As you can see, it will not be long before the government has all the money, and there is nothing left to put back into the economy.
That is the "Law of diminishing returns" in action.
So, why is there still money? Because the government spends it. Instead of the PEOPLE putting it back into the economy, the government does that. Unfortunately, the government is wasteful, and there are always "administration costs". So, we, the People, do not get our money's worth, as we would if we were the ones to be spending it.
So, what would work best, and still allow for a reduction of taxes?
The very first thing that we, the People, should insist upon is that everything that can be taken care of at a lower level should, indeed, be handled at that lower level. In other words, we should first try to handle things at the family level. If too big for that, it should then be passed to the community or church. If too big for them, then it goes to the county level, and bigger jobs to the state. The ONLY jobs the government should be handling are those very few that are just too big and complex to be handled at any other level. Like national defense, or the Postal Service.
By removing so much of the burden from Uncle Sam, he will no longer need as much money. This leaves each of us with more money (and more responsibility).
We need to stop being lazy and irresponsible. We need to stop passing our responsibilities off onto the schools, the states and the federal government.
The People are supposed to be in control - remember "Of the People, By the People, For the People"? But we cannot be in control if we keep passing our responsibilities onto government, which, in turn, forces them to tax us more, and waste more.
If you want to take back your country; if you want to regain your freedoms; if you want to keep more money in your pockets; then you must stand up and take responsibility. Contact your representatives and let them know this is how you feel, and if they want your vote, they need to make changes. If enough voters were to do that, Congress would have little choice but to put things right.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Danger of The Democrat Platform
It's high time someone told it the way it really is, without all the spin and hype.
Democrats profess to stand for certain things. Let's take a closer look:
1) Universal Health Care. Exceedingly expensive, made more so because government involvement, by law, will require administrative costs to be added. And, since the government's only source of income is taxes, the burden will be passed to all Americans, making them poorer, and more dependent upon the government
2) They want to "fight poverty", so they say. But the reverse is true. See #1 above - higher taxes equals less money in your pocket. Period. The Democrats fight to KEEP people poor, because it keeps them dependent (see #5 below). And if a person depends on you, they will vote for you, to keep the entitlements coming. Democrats NEED to keep people poor, and need to increase poverty.
3) They say they are "for the children." Again, the reverse is true. They use children. They exploit children (watch them parade kids in front of Congress and the press in order to push their agenda - you'll never see a Republican do that). Democrats are all for abortion, any time, any place, any reason - just how does that "protect" the children? They are killing them! And EVERY judge who has set child molesters free has been a Democrat. And every legislator that fought AGAINST Jessica's law has been a Democrat. Is that how they protect the children? If so, keep them away from my kids!
4) Democrats cannot get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan fast enough. That is true. But it is also dangerous. Every time we lose a war, we lose power, credibility, and we set ourselves up for more attacks because our enemies view retreat for what it is - weakness! And as much as I would like this to be a perfect world, it is not. In this world, the strong survive and the weak die. No matter how "civilized" some of us may become, life on this planet will ALWAYS be a case of survival of the fittest. So, it matters not at this point whether we should have gone to war. What matters now is that we win, because the alternative will create a more dangerous world for every American.
5) Democrats want to tax the rich even more. The problem lies in the simple fact that the poor do not add much to the GDP, nor do they hire a lot of employees. It is the wealthy who hire people, pay them, produce goods and keep the economy humming well enough so that most other Americans can live reasonably well. Take more money from the rich, and you reduce the capital for hiring and producing. This causes layoffs, reduced health care benefits etc. As a business owner myself, every time my taxes go up, I am forced to make cuts in the workforce, or buying equipment for producing the goods that Americans want and need. When my taxes go down, I can hire more people, and produce more. It cannot get any simpler than that. Why can't Democrats understand that?
6) Democrats want more entitlements. While it is nice to get "freebies", the problem lies in the simple fact that a) it raises taxes, and lowers our income, b) it makes us more dependent upon government, which reduces our freedoms, and c) it becomes a tool for generating votes (see #2 above). Not many people will bite the hand that feeds them. And that leads to tryanny of the worst kind. It is why blacks and latinos tend to be poorer, yet vote Democrat. Think about it - if a person depends on entitlements, that person becomes the slave to the master who hands out the entitlements. Like a whipped dog, waiting for his master to put a few morsels in his dish.
At this point, allow me to interject some insight. Whenever people are placed in such a position, they have little left to lose, and little self-respect. Is it any wonder that our prisons are full of people who come from such a background? They are not criminals because they are black, hispanic or because they are poor. They are criminals because liberal Democrats have robbed them of their dignity, self-respect and independence, and there is nothing left. Why not sell drugs? Why not steal? Why not join gangs?
7) Democrats want open borders and amnesty. And while it sounds good that America welcomes everyone, there are realities that the Democrats either refuse to acknowledge, or are simply ignorant of them. For one thing, America's resources are not without end - the more people who demand them, the less there is to go around, creating more poverty. And open borders would cause billions of people to come here, since America is the nation of opportunity that so many others want to come to. If you think housing is expensive now, imagine the cost when our population doubles (and demand doubles). And there are other limitations - we already do not have enough energy to go around. We do not have enough spaces in school or college classrooms for all students who want to attend. Environmentalists will not allow us to develop many areas, so resource availability will dwindle and evaporate. Unemployment would soar, as the population grows much faster than jobs. And imagine twice as many cars on the highways...the list goes on.
What I find really strange is the sheer hypocrisy of the liberals. For example, on the one hand they want to open America's doors for everyone. Yet it is those very same liberals who passed laws in most states that require communities to restrict growth. Here in Maine, only a certain number of building permits for new homes can be issued each year in a community. Even if you buy a piece a land, you may never be able to build your home on it, unless you "win" the permit lottery. Still, those liberals want us to let everyone come here. Where will they live? As I write this, my own community is passing zoning that would prohibit building on any piece of land less than 3.5 acres. Where would millions upon millions of immigrants live, when the liberals who invite them here will not allow them to build a place to live?
There is no doubt that the liberal, Democrat agenda is dangerous to America. And it becomes even more sinister because they are so adept at brainwashing uneducated, poorer people into believing that they will make life better and easier for them. Vote Democrat, and keep the food stamps and rent vouchers coming. Only now we can add health care, and other entitlements, to suck even more people into the insidious liberal web.
On the other hand, Republicans believe in empowering the people. Make them less dependent. Make them stronger. Help them to help themselves, and prosper.
The long and the short of it:
Democrats believe in giving a hungry person a fish. And when he is hungry again, they will allow him to come back tomorrow and beg for another fish.
A Republican would rather teach the hungry person HOW to fish, so he can continue feeding himself forever, with dignity, and without begging.
And when the day comes when the government coffers are empty, the people that depend upon government will perish. But those who were taught how to fish will survive.
You see, it really is this simple - Democrats know that weak, poor, dependent people keep Democrats in office for the short term. Republicans know that strong, independent people make a strong, free nation for the long term.
If you doubt this, ask yourself: how many poor, entitlement-dependent people ever got ahead? How many are in Congress? How many have ever been elected President? How many ever get to go to Harvard?
And then ask "Why?" It is not the Republicans who are holding them down, or imprisoning them with entitlements. Every entitlement is a chain that keeps a man bound to his master.
Don't believe it? If you have a job, and it provides good benefits that you and your family depend upon, just how often will you say "No" to your boss? Just how much would you grovel to keep your job? Be honest - no one is watching.
Except God.
Democrats profess to stand for certain things. Let's take a closer look:
1) Universal Health Care. Exceedingly expensive, made more so because government involvement, by law, will require administrative costs to be added. And, since the government's only source of income is taxes, the burden will be passed to all Americans, making them poorer, and more dependent upon the government
2) They want to "fight poverty", so they say. But the reverse is true. See #1 above - higher taxes equals less money in your pocket. Period. The Democrats fight to KEEP people poor, because it keeps them dependent (see #5 below). And if a person depends on you, they will vote for you, to keep the entitlements coming. Democrats NEED to keep people poor, and need to increase poverty.
3) They say they are "for the children." Again, the reverse is true. They use children. They exploit children (watch them parade kids in front of Congress and the press in order to push their agenda - you'll never see a Republican do that). Democrats are all for abortion, any time, any place, any reason - just how does that "protect" the children? They are killing them! And EVERY judge who has set child molesters free has been a Democrat. And every legislator that fought AGAINST Jessica's law has been a Democrat. Is that how they protect the children? If so, keep them away from my kids!
4) Democrats cannot get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan fast enough. That is true. But it is also dangerous. Every time we lose a war, we lose power, credibility, and we set ourselves up for more attacks because our enemies view retreat for what it is - weakness! And as much as I would like this to be a perfect world, it is not. In this world, the strong survive and the weak die. No matter how "civilized" some of us may become, life on this planet will ALWAYS be a case of survival of the fittest. So, it matters not at this point whether we should have gone to war. What matters now is that we win, because the alternative will create a more dangerous world for every American.
5) Democrats want to tax the rich even more. The problem lies in the simple fact that the poor do not add much to the GDP, nor do they hire a lot of employees. It is the wealthy who hire people, pay them, produce goods and keep the economy humming well enough so that most other Americans can live reasonably well. Take more money from the rich, and you reduce the capital for hiring and producing. This causes layoffs, reduced health care benefits etc. As a business owner myself, every time my taxes go up, I am forced to make cuts in the workforce, or buying equipment for producing the goods that Americans want and need. When my taxes go down, I can hire more people, and produce more. It cannot get any simpler than that. Why can't Democrats understand that?
6) Democrats want more entitlements. While it is nice to get "freebies", the problem lies in the simple fact that a) it raises taxes, and lowers our income, b) it makes us more dependent upon government, which reduces our freedoms, and c) it becomes a tool for generating votes (see #2 above). Not many people will bite the hand that feeds them. And that leads to tryanny of the worst kind. It is why blacks and latinos tend to be poorer, yet vote Democrat. Think about it - if a person depends on entitlements, that person becomes the slave to the master who hands out the entitlements. Like a whipped dog, waiting for his master to put a few morsels in his dish.
At this point, allow me to interject some insight. Whenever people are placed in such a position, they have little left to lose, and little self-respect. Is it any wonder that our prisons are full of people who come from such a background? They are not criminals because they are black, hispanic or because they are poor. They are criminals because liberal Democrats have robbed them of their dignity, self-respect and independence, and there is nothing left. Why not sell drugs? Why not steal? Why not join gangs?
7) Democrats want open borders and amnesty. And while it sounds good that America welcomes everyone, there are realities that the Democrats either refuse to acknowledge, or are simply ignorant of them. For one thing, America's resources are not without end - the more people who demand them, the less there is to go around, creating more poverty. And open borders would cause billions of people to come here, since America is the nation of opportunity that so many others want to come to. If you think housing is expensive now, imagine the cost when our population doubles (and demand doubles). And there are other limitations - we already do not have enough energy to go around. We do not have enough spaces in school or college classrooms for all students who want to attend. Environmentalists will not allow us to develop many areas, so resource availability will dwindle and evaporate. Unemployment would soar, as the population grows much faster than jobs. And imagine twice as many cars on the highways...the list goes on.
What I find really strange is the sheer hypocrisy of the liberals. For example, on the one hand they want to open America's doors for everyone. Yet it is those very same liberals who passed laws in most states that require communities to restrict growth. Here in Maine, only a certain number of building permits for new homes can be issued each year in a community. Even if you buy a piece a land, you may never be able to build your home on it, unless you "win" the permit lottery. Still, those liberals want us to let everyone come here. Where will they live? As I write this, my own community is passing zoning that would prohibit building on any piece of land less than 3.5 acres. Where would millions upon millions of immigrants live, when the liberals who invite them here will not allow them to build a place to live?
There is no doubt that the liberal, Democrat agenda is dangerous to America. And it becomes even more sinister because they are so adept at brainwashing uneducated, poorer people into believing that they will make life better and easier for them. Vote Democrat, and keep the food stamps and rent vouchers coming. Only now we can add health care, and other entitlements, to suck even more people into the insidious liberal web.
On the other hand, Republicans believe in empowering the people. Make them less dependent. Make them stronger. Help them to help themselves, and prosper.
The long and the short of it:
Democrats believe in giving a hungry person a fish. And when he is hungry again, they will allow him to come back tomorrow and beg for another fish.
A Republican would rather teach the hungry person HOW to fish, so he can continue feeding himself forever, with dignity, and without begging.
And when the day comes when the government coffers are empty, the people that depend upon government will perish. But those who were taught how to fish will survive.
You see, it really is this simple - Democrats know that weak, poor, dependent people keep Democrats in office for the short term. Republicans know that strong, independent people make a strong, free nation for the long term.
If you doubt this, ask yourself: how many poor, entitlement-dependent people ever got ahead? How many are in Congress? How many have ever been elected President? How many ever get to go to Harvard?
And then ask "Why?" It is not the Republicans who are holding them down, or imprisoning them with entitlements. Every entitlement is a chain that keeps a man bound to his master.
Don't believe it? If you have a job, and it provides good benefits that you and your family depend upon, just how often will you say "No" to your boss? Just how much would you grovel to keep your job? Be honest - no one is watching.
Except God.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The "Green" Farce
So, the "greenies" want all of us to drive electric cars, apparently unaware that the majority of electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, which LOSES energy in the conversion to electricity. Go figure. But their "green" plan gets worse.
They also want to mandate that we all use ONLY the CFL lights - fluorescents. They tell us that they are "better" for the environment. So, being the person I am, I always have to ask "What are they NOT telling us?"
Well, they don't tell us that fluorescent lights require mercury - a very toxic substance. And when asked about this, they say, "It's minimal." But not so minimal that the government requires they be disposed of as hazardous waste, and not simply tossed out.
OK, so let's assume there is a "minimal" amount of toxic mercury in a fluorescent bulb. My next question is, "How minimal is it?" when, by mandate, hundreds of millions of these fluorescents will soon be in use. Multiply even a "minimal" amount by hundreds of millions and I somehow do not think it is minimal anymore. So, upon disposing of them, how "minimal" will be the environmental impact of all that mercury. And that is only the first set of questions. What about these facts:
1) Each CFL bulb uses about 10 times as much glass as an incandescent bulb, and making glass requires substantial fuel use. Multiply all that extra glass - and the cost to produce it, and the pollution created to produce it - by hundreds of millions of bulbs. Do you REALLY believe the environmental impact is still minimal?
2) If these hundreds of millions of bulbs will have to be disposed of as toxic waste, what is the cost of such disposal? Very few communities have accommodations for disposing of hazardous waste. So, you must either travel a considerable distance each time you blow a bulb (and use a lot of gas and oil) to dispose of them, or pay someone $15 plus shipping to dispose of them for you.
All in all, perhaps it is time for someone who is not pushing a liberal agenda to figure out EXACTLY what is the environmental impact of hundreds of millions of these bulbs, compared to incandescent bulbs - adding up the additional production costs, additional disposal costs, and the huge amount of mercury that must be dealt with - and the cost incurred in doing so. And all for a bulb that produces a very inferior kind of lighting.
Reminds me of the "ethanol" farce, where is costs 1.7 times as much to produce ethanol as petrol, and uses even more fossil fuels in the production of ethanol than if the fossil fuels, themselves, were used. And all so we can now pay $5 per gallon for milk, and a lot more for beef, chicken, eggs, cheeses, pizza, ice cream and anything else that relies on dairy (which relies on the corn, now made so expensive because it is being used to make the stupid ethanol). Just another mindless scheme by liberals who simply cannot see past their noses. It doesn't matter to them if it does not make sense. Does not matter to them if it is counter-productive, or even if it does not do what it is supposed to do. All they care about is that it's DIFFERENT, and they WANT it that way. Liberals want change for the sake of change, and not for the sake of improving anything.
Of course, money helps! Liberals make a lot of money selling bogus carbon offsets, toxic light bulb disposal services etc.
Suggestion: before buying into any liberal hype, take a moment to think things through. Ask what they are NOT telling you. Figure out what the end result will be, down the road. Whether it's CFL's, ethanol, global warming or health care - ASK MORE QUESTIONS! Sure, health care for everyone SOUNDS good. But think about it - just exactly WHERE do you think the government will get all the money that such a massively expensive plan will cost? Remember, the government has only ONE source of income - TAXES. And WE pay those taxes. So, the health care is not free, nor inexpensive, since by involving the government, the administration costs will be huge. So, instead of paying $1.00 for a dollar's worth of health care, we will now pay $2.00 for that dollar's worth of health care. Dumb!
There are better ways, cheaper ways, more effective ways of dealing with problems. Involving the government in ANY of them is just asking to be ripped off, cheated, short-changed and dependent. But that is the liberal, Democrat way - pay all your money to the government, and they will take care of you, cradle to grave. Of course, that means giving up your independence, which means you no longer are a free people. Instead of being "Of the People, By the People, For the People", it would be "Of the Government, By the Government, For the Government", making all of us nothing more than subjects, rather than citizens.
So, enjoy your wasteful ethanol. Enjoy the higher prices. Enjoy the higher taxes. Enjoy all the mercury. Enjoy the bastardized health care. And remember fondly of the days when being an American meant you were free, independent, and in charge. Because those days will be gone forever.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Global Warming???
Well, I have done even more research concerning Al Gore's bogus assertions concerning global warming - while I do not necessarily doubt that the climate changes, I seriously doubt that Al Gore knows what he is talking about.
So, for those of you who are not yet ready to follow Chicken Little in his belief that the sky is falling - at least, not without more evidence - here are a few facts that have surfaced, that Al Gore has "conveniently" left out of his "Inconvenient Truth":
1) According to NASA, the five warmest years ever recorded on Earth all occurred before World War II (before 1940)
2) The hottest temperatures ever recorded on the face of the Earth were between 1913 and 1922. The temperature reached 134 degrees in California in 1913, in 1917 it reached 120 degrees for 43 consecutive days, and in 1922, in Libya, the temperature reached the current record high of 136 degrees. Of course, the industrial revolution had hardly started, and Man's "carbon footprint" was minimal. Until we begin seeing such temps again, I am not going to be too quick to worry about global warming.
3) The COLDEST temperature ever recorded on planet Earth occured in 1983, reaching -129 degrees in Antarctica
4) The most snowfall ever to fall on Earth occurred in the winter of 1998-1999, in the state of Washington - a whopping 95 feet on Mount Baker!
5) The polar ice cap at the South Pole is getting thicker each year
6) The average mean temperature on Earth was warmer - for DECADES - in the 1300's than it is now - perhaps Al Gore can blame that on all the cows and sheep passing gas.
7) While there are no SUV's on Neptune or the other planets, astronomers tell us that the average temperature at Neptune's South Pole has risen an average of 18 degrees over the last 40 years, with similar increases on at least three other planets. This would seem to indicate a NATURAL, cyclical occurrence, rather than anything caused by Mankind. In short, it appears that the Sun may be running a little hot lately - as it has, periodically, ever since the solar system began. The heat of the Sun does not remain constant.
8) While there may (or may not) be more "scientists" who agree about global warming, the majority of scientists in the field of climatology and weather tend to disagree - and THEY are the experts.
9) Many of the scientists who originally believed in global warming have since changed their position, now that more facts have come to light. Changing one's position when new facts arise is a sign of intelligence. Unfortunately, most of the sheep who blindly follow Al Gore, the Chicken Little of the modern age, are not that intelligent - they refuse to allow facts to change their beliefs.
Frankly, I feel quite secure in making the following statements:
1) The Earth may be warming, but it is not caused by Man, nor can Man stop it
2) The warming is cyclical, natural and temporary
3) Al Gore has no clue - he is pushing the Global Warming farce for political and financial gain
4) The people who mindlessly follow the global warming scam, without ever being intelligent enough to actually research the facts for themselves, deserve to be fleeced, as do all sheep
5) Whenever any spinster makes a disingenuous statement such as "most scientists agree", understand what they are NOT saying - they are not saying "experts in the field of climatology". Many of those "scientists" they are quoting are NOT experts in climate - a herpetologist (who studies snakes), is a "scientist" that may agree there is global warming. But what does a snake-charmer know? So, always ask for clarification - don't buy "facts" that have no real bearing on the issue at hand.
6) Throughout history, "everyone" has been wrong more often than they have been right. Just because "everyone" believes we are responsible for global warming does not make it so. To offer examples:
a) "Everyone" once thought the world was flat
b) "Everyone" once thought the Sun revolved around the Earth
c) "Everyone" once believed there were witches
d) "Everyone" once thought "bleeding" a person would heal him
e) "Everyone" once thought Man would never fly
f) "Everyone" once thought Man would never walk on the moon
g) "Everyone" once believed in the Sun God
i) Until last year, "Everyone" believed Pluto was a planet (it has since been proven to not be a planet)
j) Until 1853, "everyone" thought the gorilla was a myth
k) Until 1963, "everyone" believed the coelocanth had been extinct for millions of years - until a fisherman caught one
l) Until the Japanese caught one on film last year, "everyone" thought the "giant squid" was science fiction
m) And, in the 1970's - just 30 years ago - the same scientists who are now crying "global warming" were claiming that we were entering a new "Ice Age". Even Newsweek printed stories on it. And "everyone" believed it.
Just because "everyone" believes something, that does not make it so. In fact, history indicates that if "everyone" believes something, there is a 63% chance that it is NOT true, because "everyone" has been wrong 63% of the time.
All I am saying is that a WISE person will, at the very least, keep an open mind, and not simply believe something just because "everyone else" says so.
But the real question remains: if global warming is not what Gore, scientists and the UN say it is, why are they saying it?
The reasons are far more sinister than global warming - and more dangerous. While scientists push it for money, because they make their living from research grants (which are NOT given unless the scientists make a strong case for their research), Al Gore and the UN push if for a very dark reason - globalization, which the liberals and the UN have been pushing for decades.
By coming up with a "global" problem of massive proportions, they can literally force people to give up their rights, their freedoms and their sovereignty, all for the "global good". The UN can impose their will on free people, and reduce us to "subjects of the Earth" rather than citizens of our free nation.
The UN is made up of nations which, by themselves, have no power. They are small, and America poses a threat to them by virtue of our strength. They have on goal - to minimalize America. Reduce its strength and power. And the best way to do that is by using fear of a pending "global" disaster.
Al Gore never made any secret of his yearning for a One World nation. But in order to create it, America must give up its Constitution, its freedoms, and its sovereignty. There would be no "America". There would only be the New World Order, spoken so highly of by the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Rockefellers, Kennedys and other liberal elitists who hate everything America stands for (Bill Clinton tried very hard to decimate our intelligence agencies and military, and even wrote that he hated the military). To this date, liberal Democrats are trying to minimalize our military.
Global Warming: it is more than just a farce. It is a sinister part of a larger plan to minimalize America and decimate its strength. As far as I am concerned, those who promote golbal warming are traitors, and those who follow them are mindless zygots.
So, for those of you who are not yet ready to follow Chicken Little in his belief that the sky is falling - at least, not without more evidence - here are a few facts that have surfaced, that Al Gore has "conveniently" left out of his "Inconvenient Truth":
1) According to NASA, the five warmest years ever recorded on Earth all occurred before World War II (before 1940)
2) The hottest temperatures ever recorded on the face of the Earth were between 1913 and 1922. The temperature reached 134 degrees in California in 1913, in 1917 it reached 120 degrees for 43 consecutive days, and in 1922, in Libya, the temperature reached the current record high of 136 degrees. Of course, the industrial revolution had hardly started, and Man's "carbon footprint" was minimal. Until we begin seeing such temps again, I am not going to be too quick to worry about global warming.
3) The COLDEST temperature ever recorded on planet Earth occured in 1983, reaching -129 degrees in Antarctica
4) The most snowfall ever to fall on Earth occurred in the winter of 1998-1999, in the state of Washington - a whopping 95 feet on Mount Baker!
5) The polar ice cap at the South Pole is getting thicker each year
6) The average mean temperature on Earth was warmer - for DECADES - in the 1300's than it is now - perhaps Al Gore can blame that on all the cows and sheep passing gas.
7) While there are no SUV's on Neptune or the other planets, astronomers tell us that the average temperature at Neptune's South Pole has risen an average of 18 degrees over the last 40 years, with similar increases on at least three other planets. This would seem to indicate a NATURAL, cyclical occurrence, rather than anything caused by Mankind. In short, it appears that the Sun may be running a little hot lately - as it has, periodically, ever since the solar system began. The heat of the Sun does not remain constant.
8) While there may (or may not) be more "scientists" who agree about global warming, the majority of scientists in the field of climatology and weather tend to disagree - and THEY are the experts.
9) Many of the scientists who originally believed in global warming have since changed their position, now that more facts have come to light. Changing one's position when new facts arise is a sign of intelligence. Unfortunately, most of the sheep who blindly follow Al Gore, the Chicken Little of the modern age, are not that intelligent - they refuse to allow facts to change their beliefs.
Frankly, I feel quite secure in making the following statements:
1) The Earth may be warming, but it is not caused by Man, nor can Man stop it
2) The warming is cyclical, natural and temporary
3) Al Gore has no clue - he is pushing the Global Warming farce for political and financial gain
4) The people who mindlessly follow the global warming scam, without ever being intelligent enough to actually research the facts for themselves, deserve to be fleeced, as do all sheep
5) Whenever any spinster makes a disingenuous statement such as "most scientists agree", understand what they are NOT saying - they are not saying "experts in the field of climatology". Many of those "scientists" they are quoting are NOT experts in climate - a herpetologist (who studies snakes), is a "scientist" that may agree there is global warming. But what does a snake-charmer know? So, always ask for clarification - don't buy "facts" that have no real bearing on the issue at hand.
6) Throughout history, "everyone" has been wrong more often than they have been right. Just because "everyone" believes we are responsible for global warming does not make it so. To offer examples:
a) "Everyone" once thought the world was flat
b) "Everyone" once thought the Sun revolved around the Earth
c) "Everyone" once believed there were witches
d) "Everyone" once thought "bleeding" a person would heal him
e) "Everyone" once thought Man would never fly
f) "Everyone" once thought Man would never walk on the moon
g) "Everyone" once believed in the Sun God
i) Until last year, "Everyone" believed Pluto was a planet (it has since been proven to not be a planet)
j) Until 1853, "everyone" thought the gorilla was a myth
k) Until 1963, "everyone" believed the coelocanth had been extinct for millions of years - until a fisherman caught one
l) Until the Japanese caught one on film last year, "everyone" thought the "giant squid" was science fiction
m) And, in the 1970's - just 30 years ago - the same scientists who are now crying "global warming" were claiming that we were entering a new "Ice Age". Even Newsweek printed stories on it. And "everyone" believed it.
Just because "everyone" believes something, that does not make it so. In fact, history indicates that if "everyone" believes something, there is a 63% chance that it is NOT true, because "everyone" has been wrong 63% of the time.
All I am saying is that a WISE person will, at the very least, keep an open mind, and not simply believe something just because "everyone else" says so.
But the real question remains: if global warming is not what Gore, scientists and the UN say it is, why are they saying it?
The reasons are far more sinister than global warming - and more dangerous. While scientists push it for money, because they make their living from research grants (which are NOT given unless the scientists make a strong case for their research), Al Gore and the UN push if for a very dark reason - globalization, which the liberals and the UN have been pushing for decades.
By coming up with a "global" problem of massive proportions, they can literally force people to give up their rights, their freedoms and their sovereignty, all for the "global good". The UN can impose their will on free people, and reduce us to "subjects of the Earth" rather than citizens of our free nation.
The UN is made up of nations which, by themselves, have no power. They are small, and America poses a threat to them by virtue of our strength. They have on goal - to minimalize America. Reduce its strength and power. And the best way to do that is by using fear of a pending "global" disaster.
Al Gore never made any secret of his yearning for a One World nation. But in order to create it, America must give up its Constitution, its freedoms, and its sovereignty. There would be no "America". There would only be the New World Order, spoken so highly of by the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Rockefellers, Kennedys and other liberal elitists who hate everything America stands for (Bill Clinton tried very hard to decimate our intelligence agencies and military, and even wrote that he hated the military). To this date, liberal Democrats are trying to minimalize our military.
Global Warming: it is more than just a farce. It is a sinister part of a larger plan to minimalize America and decimate its strength. As far as I am concerned, those who promote golbal warming are traitors, and those who follow them are mindless zygots.
Monday, January 7, 2008
The Fallacy of Ethanol
There have been a number of people who have been trying to convince us that ethanol is a viable source of energy. But is there any truth in what they claim? Major universities have completed studies that prove that we actually
burn up to 1.7 times MORE fossil fuels in the production of ethanol.
Plowing the fields. Planting. Irrigating. Harvesting. Transporting. And
only then do we incur the huge energy expenditures in processing it.
Every stage requires the burning of fossil fuels.
According to David Pimental (agricultural expert, Cornell University) it would take 11 acres of farmland to grow enough corn to make enough ethanol to run the average U.S. automobile for one year, if blended with gasoline, as it now is. This is equal to the amount of farmland required to feed seven people for one year. More important, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol, while one gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. This means it takes 70 percent more energy to produce ethanol than the energy that is actually in the ethanol.
Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs. In other words, production of ethanol creates a substantial LOSS of energy, making ethanol production unsustainable. An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels. But even more important is the fact that we cannot replace the fossil fuel with ethanol, because ethanol is so much more expensive than fossil fuels when you add the costs of converting the corn into ethanol.
The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price. Now, here is something the ethanol crowd won't tell you. Corn is a "heavy feeder" - it requires more fertilizer, more nitrogren and phosphorous than most other crops, erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn uses up groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water.
In short, corn is not a sustainable energy source, especially in the amount that would be required. And then we must consider costs to consumers. Using all the corn necessary to make a difference results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices. Your food costs would increase significantly. And if a drought occurs, food for human consumption could disappear. And, to make matters worse, the U.S. Census states the world population is expected to double over the next 40 years. With food resources already strained, can we really afford to turn food into fuel?
If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States. I would like to see America become self-sufficient insofar as energy is concerned. But before we jump onto any bandwagon, we really need to look at the bigger picture, and ask ourselves what the ultimate cost would be. What are the long term effects? Is it sustainable? Does it cost more to make than what you get? What are the dangers?
I just hope we do not run out of time before we find answers.
According to David Pimental (agricultural expert, Cornell University) it would take 11 acres of farmland to grow enough corn to make enough ethanol to run the average U.S. automobile for one year, if blended with gasoline, as it now is. This is equal to the amount of farmland required to feed seven people for one year. More important, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol, while one gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. This means it takes 70 percent more energy to produce ethanol than the energy that is actually in the ethanol.
Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs. In other words, production of ethanol creates a substantial LOSS of energy, making ethanol production unsustainable. An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels. But even more important is the fact that we cannot replace the fossil fuel with ethanol, because ethanol is so much more expensive than fossil fuels when you add the costs of converting the corn into ethanol.
The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price. Now, here is something the ethanol crowd won't tell you. Corn is a "heavy feeder" - it requires more fertilizer, more nitrogren and phosphorous than most other crops, erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn uses up groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water.
In short, corn is not a sustainable energy source, especially in the amount that would be required. And then we must consider costs to consumers. Using all the corn necessary to make a difference results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices. Your food costs would increase significantly. And if a drought occurs, food for human consumption could disappear. And, to make matters worse, the U.S. Census states the world population is expected to double over the next 40 years. With food resources already strained, can we really afford to turn food into fuel?
If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States. I would like to see America become self-sufficient insofar as energy is concerned. But before we jump onto any bandwagon, we really need to look at the bigger picture, and ask ourselves what the ultimate cost would be. What are the long term effects? Is it sustainable? Does it cost more to make than what you get? What are the dangers?
I just hope we do not run out of time before we find answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)