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.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
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.
Pandemic
This post covers an unusual topic, but I would feel remiss if I did not try to express an appropriate level of concern, and offer some thoughts on it.
Pandemics are a natural occurrence - they are one of nature's methods of "cleansing".
In 1918, the world suffered a pandemic - the Spanish Flu - which is estimated to have killed over 50 million people in just 18 months. If the world were to suffer another pathogen of that same level of deadliness, the loss of life could easily be upwards of 100 million people - partly because the population is so much greater today, and partly because modern air travel would help it to spread much faster, and further.
Most people fool themselves into thinking it cannot happen in this "day and age." But as even the CDC states, it WILL happen. The only real question is when, and how bad will it get.
You see, a vaccine cannot even begin to be created until the disease actually hits. We can then use the pathogen, itself, to create a vaccine. This stage - creating a vaccine - takes 2-3 months. It takes another 3-6 months to produce and distribute enough vaccine to protect only 10% of the population. By this time, the pandemic has already done much of its damage, since any flu can go worldwide within a few short weeks - or even days, under the right conditions.
We know a pandemic will occur. What we do not know is exactly what the pathogen will be, nor how bad it will get. But rest assured it will be very, very bad, if only by virtue of our congested populations and the frequency of air travel.
So the issue at hand is: what can a wise person do to help insure survival of his or her family?
While there are no guarantees, there certainly are steps that can be taken that will dramatically reduce your risk of contamination. Everyone should take these simple steps now, and be prepared, even if you do not think there is any danger. Remember: the wise person hopes for the best, but prepares for the worst. It is time to prepare.
Steps anyone can and should take:
1) Stock up on some N95 face masks. 100+ per family should be sufficient, because going out in public should be extremely limited during a pandemic
2) Stock up on nitrile gloves (like latex, but will not produce any allergy). If you do not know the proper way to remove them without contaminating yourself, ask a nurse to show you how.
3) Stock up on a supply of MRE's and non-perishable foods - preferably enough for your family for at least 6 months (preferably a year).
4) Stock up on hydrogen peroxide
5) Optional, if you can afford it: a propane generator with a large torpedo tank, to produce emergency electricity. In a pandemic, fuel will not be getting delivered to homes or gas stations.
6) Optional, in cold climates: a wood stove, with a supply of wood. If power fails, you will not freeze, nor be forced into shelters where infected people might be encountered.
At first sign of a deadly disease hitting the US, buy up as much non-perishable foods as possible, before panic sets in. Quarantine your family, at least for a week or so, to determine if the disease is a threat that is spreading
Do not permit anything into the home that has had human contact, including mail, unless it is handled and treated properly (use gloves, hydrogen peroxide etc.)
Burn mail after reading it, if possible. Otherwise, try to disinfect it with an anti-VIRAL (not antibiotic). Food packaging, if brought in: pour contents into other containers and burn the packaging.
If you must shop, choose off hours, such as late night or early morning, and wear mask and gloves. Do NOT allow anyone to touch or contact anything you will be bringing home - do not accept change, and do not allow anyone to swipe your card for you. As soon as you can, wipe your card with peroxide after swiping it.
In other words, take precautions.
Note, too, that most people may suffer a loss of income during a pandemic, so if you have savings, you will be better off.
But the essentials are simple: masks, gloves, hydrogen peroxide (anti-viral) and food stores.
One last note: it takes about two days to feel symptoms after becoming infected. So do not assume that you are safe just because no one in your area has symptoms. If you wait until your neighbors get sick, it is too late - you have probably already been infected. That is why I say - first case in the US, quarantine your family for at least a week, to see what transpires.
I sincerely hope this post reaches a lot of ears, and that those ears are resident on wise people.
Pandemics are a natural occurrence - they are one of nature's methods of "cleansing".
In 1918, the world suffered a pandemic - the Spanish Flu - which is estimated to have killed over 50 million people in just 18 months. If the world were to suffer another pathogen of that same level of deadliness, the loss of life could easily be upwards of 100 million people - partly because the population is so much greater today, and partly because modern air travel would help it to spread much faster, and further.
Most people fool themselves into thinking it cannot happen in this "day and age." But as even the CDC states, it WILL happen. The only real question is when, and how bad will it get.
You see, a vaccine cannot even begin to be created until the disease actually hits. We can then use the pathogen, itself, to create a vaccine. This stage - creating a vaccine - takes 2-3 months. It takes another 3-6 months to produce and distribute enough vaccine to protect only 10% of the population. By this time, the pandemic has already done much of its damage, since any flu can go worldwide within a few short weeks - or even days, under the right conditions.
We know a pandemic will occur. What we do not know is exactly what the pathogen will be, nor how bad it will get. But rest assured it will be very, very bad, if only by virtue of our congested populations and the frequency of air travel.
So the issue at hand is: what can a wise person do to help insure survival of his or her family?
While there are no guarantees, there certainly are steps that can be taken that will dramatically reduce your risk of contamination. Everyone should take these simple steps now, and be prepared, even if you do not think there is any danger. Remember: the wise person hopes for the best, but prepares for the worst. It is time to prepare.
Steps anyone can and should take:
1) Stock up on some N95 face masks. 100+ per family should be sufficient, because going out in public should be extremely limited during a pandemic
2) Stock up on nitrile gloves (like latex, but will not produce any allergy). If you do not know the proper way to remove them without contaminating yourself, ask a nurse to show you how.
3) Stock up on a supply of MRE's and non-perishable foods - preferably enough for your family for at least 6 months (preferably a year).
4) Stock up on hydrogen peroxide
5) Optional, if you can afford it: a propane generator with a large torpedo tank, to produce emergency electricity. In a pandemic, fuel will not be getting delivered to homes or gas stations.
6) Optional, in cold climates: a wood stove, with a supply of wood. If power fails, you will not freeze, nor be forced into shelters where infected people might be encountered.
At first sign of a deadly disease hitting the US, buy up as much non-perishable foods as possible, before panic sets in. Quarantine your family, at least for a week or so, to determine if the disease is a threat that is spreading
Do not permit anything into the home that has had human contact, including mail, unless it is handled and treated properly (use gloves, hydrogen peroxide etc.)
Burn mail after reading it, if possible. Otherwise, try to disinfect it with an anti-VIRAL (not antibiotic). Food packaging, if brought in: pour contents into other containers and burn the packaging.
If you must shop, choose off hours, such as late night or early morning, and wear mask and gloves. Do NOT allow anyone to touch or contact anything you will be bringing home - do not accept change, and do not allow anyone to swipe your card for you. As soon as you can, wipe your card with peroxide after swiping it.
In other words, take precautions.
Note, too, that most people may suffer a loss of income during a pandemic, so if you have savings, you will be better off.
But the essentials are simple: masks, gloves, hydrogen peroxide (anti-viral) and food stores.
One last note: it takes about two days to feel symptoms after becoming infected. So do not assume that you are safe just because no one in your area has symptoms. If you wait until your neighbors get sick, it is too late - you have probably already been infected. That is why I say - first case in the US, quarantine your family for at least a week, to see what transpires.
I sincerely hope this post reaches a lot of ears, and that those ears are resident on wise people.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Learning From Iowa
Well, the caucus in Iowa is now history. And while most pundits are now concentrating on New Hampshire's primary, I am thinking about what we might learn from Iowa.
The first thing we learned is that the far left liberals tried every deceptive trick in the book to convince people that Ron Paul was in the lead - WAY in the lead. Not only in Iowa, but in 45 states (which, of course, is completely bogus). Their purpose, of course, is to undermine the Republican primary process by artificially inflating Paul's numbers. I point, as a prime example, to the AOL "straw poll" that has shown Ron Paul well in the lead for the last two weeks - right up until the results came in.
Another thing we learned is that Hillary Clinton is not the "shoe-in" that many Democrats believed. She obviously is not the automatic pretender to the throne - though a pretender she is.
And we learned that a large number of voters actually support a solid Christian ethic in our government.
But most important, we learned that, in Iowa at least, the people want things to change in Washington.
And therein lies an enigma. Yes, they want change. But not just any change. They want more honesty, more integrity and more leadership. If they get those things, the people realize that all the rest - Iraq, health care, social security, taxes - will all fall into place.
Rather than focusing on issues, the people are focusing on character and leadership. The contenders should pay heed!
Of course, there are those pundits who will say that the vote for "change" is specific to the heartland, and that the more "elitist" places like New York and LA may have different ideas. And, to some extent, that is true. But even in those places the people want meaningful change. The difference, of course, is that middle America is grounded and the elitists are not. While middle, mainstream America seeks change in the quality of Washington, elitists have been brainwashed into believing the only change that is necessary is a change in party.
And that will cause a problem in '08. In many elitist areas, people will vote for a "shallow" and meaningless change, by voting for Hillary or Obama, while grounded Americans will vote for real change in the form of integrity and leadership.
Most of us know that leadership and integrity should win out. The problem, however, lies in the simple fact that a great number of people are so clouded by partisan hatred that they would rather vote for the Devil, himself, than to vote for a Republican - even if their futures depended upon it.
And that is sad. The American people deserve the best leaders we can get - and it should be of small consideration as to what party they belong to.
We should all strive to forget party for a moment, and think about the realities of the candidates' leadership ability. Hillary claims that ability, but the facts, and her record, actually show otherwise. And Obama is so incredibly inexperienced - in today's world, that is not what we need in a leader. Ron Paul is a nut. Giuliani is a Democrat in Republican clothing, which shows an inherent dishonesty. McCain is too liberal on important issues, such as immigration. And Romney - well, it's hard to pin him down, which also is not a good sign of leadership.
That leaves three true contenders, if meaningful change is what you want. But only two are running, with only one a serious contender.
Newt Gingrich is a strong, thoughtful man with proven leadership ability. He is probably the best man for the job facing us in the years ahead. But he is not running. Duncan Hunter is nearly ideal, but he is not a serious contender because the financing is not behind him - it's hard to raise money when you refuse to become a puppet of special interests.
That leaves Mike Huckabee. He has integrity, and the ability to lead. And his funding comes from the people, not special interests. His message is strong and clear, since it got through even though he could not compete with the others on a dollar-for-dollar campaign. In other words, any candidate who can make such a great showing, without having the money behind him to get the word out, is obviously a man with the right message.
Now we have to wait and see if the majority of America is willing to vote for real change, and not empty political promises.
The first thing we learned is that the far left liberals tried every deceptive trick in the book to convince people that Ron Paul was in the lead - WAY in the lead. Not only in Iowa, but in 45 states (which, of course, is completely bogus). Their purpose, of course, is to undermine the Republican primary process by artificially inflating Paul's numbers. I point, as a prime example, to the AOL "straw poll" that has shown Ron Paul well in the lead for the last two weeks - right up until the results came in.
Another thing we learned is that Hillary Clinton is not the "shoe-in" that many Democrats believed. She obviously is not the automatic pretender to the throne - though a pretender she is.
And we learned that a large number of voters actually support a solid Christian ethic in our government.
But most important, we learned that, in Iowa at least, the people want things to change in Washington.
And therein lies an enigma. Yes, they want change. But not just any change. They want more honesty, more integrity and more leadership. If they get those things, the people realize that all the rest - Iraq, health care, social security, taxes - will all fall into place.
Rather than focusing on issues, the people are focusing on character and leadership. The contenders should pay heed!
Of course, there are those pundits who will say that the vote for "change" is specific to the heartland, and that the more "elitist" places like New York and LA may have different ideas. And, to some extent, that is true. But even in those places the people want meaningful change. The difference, of course, is that middle America is grounded and the elitists are not. While middle, mainstream America seeks change in the quality of Washington, elitists have been brainwashed into believing the only change that is necessary is a change in party.
And that will cause a problem in '08. In many elitist areas, people will vote for a "shallow" and meaningless change, by voting for Hillary or Obama, while grounded Americans will vote for real change in the form of integrity and leadership.
Most of us know that leadership and integrity should win out. The problem, however, lies in the simple fact that a great number of people are so clouded by partisan hatred that they would rather vote for the Devil, himself, than to vote for a Republican - even if their futures depended upon it.
And that is sad. The American people deserve the best leaders we can get - and it should be of small consideration as to what party they belong to.
We should all strive to forget party for a moment, and think about the realities of the candidates' leadership ability. Hillary claims that ability, but the facts, and her record, actually show otherwise. And Obama is so incredibly inexperienced - in today's world, that is not what we need in a leader. Ron Paul is a nut. Giuliani is a Democrat in Republican clothing, which shows an inherent dishonesty. McCain is too liberal on important issues, such as immigration. And Romney - well, it's hard to pin him down, which also is not a good sign of leadership.
That leaves three true contenders, if meaningful change is what you want. But only two are running, with only one a serious contender.
Newt Gingrich is a strong, thoughtful man with proven leadership ability. He is probably the best man for the job facing us in the years ahead. But he is not running. Duncan Hunter is nearly ideal, but he is not a serious contender because the financing is not behind him - it's hard to raise money when you refuse to become a puppet of special interests.
That leaves Mike Huckabee. He has integrity, and the ability to lead. And his funding comes from the people, not special interests. His message is strong and clear, since it got through even though he could not compete with the others on a dollar-for-dollar campaign. In other words, any candidate who can make such a great showing, without having the money behind him to get the word out, is obviously a man with the right message.
Now we have to wait and see if the majority of America is willing to vote for real change, and not empty political promises.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Charlie Wilson's War
If you have not yet seen this movie, you have likely seen the commercials promoting it. But whether you have seen it or not, or intend to, there are a few things you may want to take note of.
First, the movie, though BASED on true events, is a work of fiction. Congressman Charlie Wilson did play a critical part in getting congress to approve funds to support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, so they could fight the Soviet Army. The idea, of course, was to keep the Soviets so embroiled in an unwinnable war, using up their resources, so they would not be able to grow stronger in the Cold War. The war in Afghanistan was seriously depleting the Soviet strength.
The effect, which was far greater than Charlie Wilson ever dared dream, was that eventually the Soviet Union collapsed under continual fire from Ronald Reagan, with the Soviets having been weakened in Afghanistan. So, while it may be true that Charlie Wilson helped in defeating the Soviets, he was only one part that contributed to their demise. It is very likely that the Soviet Union would still have floundered in Afghanistan, and would still have collapsed even without American funding.
But here is what the movie does not really tell. Osama bin Laden was one of the leaders of the Mujahideen. He used the American funding, arms and training AGAINST America as soon as the Soviets were defeated. If not for Charlie Wilson's "contribution", bin Laden might not have survived Afghanistan, and even if he had, he would not have had the same level of arms and training to use against us.
No one can say for sure how history may have been altered had Charlie Wilson not involved himself in the affairs of the Mujahideen. Perhaps there would have been little difference. On the other hand, perhaps there would never have been an "Al-Qaeda", or its leader, to plan the 9/11 attack, or the attack on the USS Cole.
What is certain, however, is that Charlie Wilson's actions directly benefitted Osama bin Laden and his followers.
I would have greater respect for the "Hollywood Elitists" if they were to cover a topic with greater objectivity and truth, and tell the whole story - and not just the part that pushes their liberal agenda. Charlie Wilson is a Democrat, and in this important election year, Hollywood was determined to create a Democrat hero for the whole country to embrace.
While I can appreciate Charlie Wilson's actions, and in that respect he may well be some sort of hero, I also acknowledge the consequences of those actions, which have brought tragedy to the world.
In conclusion, the movie, like the book, is entertaining. But take it with a large grain of salt - there is much more to the story, and the ultimate ending has not yet occurred, because the effects of Charlie Wilson's "war" are still playing themselves out, and will continue to play out as long as there is an Al-Qaeda.
First, the movie, though BASED on true events, is a work of fiction. Congressman Charlie Wilson did play a critical part in getting congress to approve funds to support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, so they could fight the Soviet Army. The idea, of course, was to keep the Soviets so embroiled in an unwinnable war, using up their resources, so they would not be able to grow stronger in the Cold War. The war in Afghanistan was seriously depleting the Soviet strength.
The effect, which was far greater than Charlie Wilson ever dared dream, was that eventually the Soviet Union collapsed under continual fire from Ronald Reagan, with the Soviets having been weakened in Afghanistan. So, while it may be true that Charlie Wilson helped in defeating the Soviets, he was only one part that contributed to their demise. It is very likely that the Soviet Union would still have floundered in Afghanistan, and would still have collapsed even without American funding.
But here is what the movie does not really tell. Osama bin Laden was one of the leaders of the Mujahideen. He used the American funding, arms and training AGAINST America as soon as the Soviets were defeated. If not for Charlie Wilson's "contribution", bin Laden might not have survived Afghanistan, and even if he had, he would not have had the same level of arms and training to use against us.
No one can say for sure how history may have been altered had Charlie Wilson not involved himself in the affairs of the Mujahideen. Perhaps there would have been little difference. On the other hand, perhaps there would never have been an "Al-Qaeda", or its leader, to plan the 9/11 attack, or the attack on the USS Cole.
What is certain, however, is that Charlie Wilson's actions directly benefitted Osama bin Laden and his followers.
I would have greater respect for the "Hollywood Elitists" if they were to cover a topic with greater objectivity and truth, and tell the whole story - and not just the part that pushes their liberal agenda. Charlie Wilson is a Democrat, and in this important election year, Hollywood was determined to create a Democrat hero for the whole country to embrace.
While I can appreciate Charlie Wilson's actions, and in that respect he may well be some sort of hero, I also acknowledge the consequences of those actions, which have brought tragedy to the world.
In conclusion, the movie, like the book, is entertaining. But take it with a large grain of salt - there is much more to the story, and the ultimate ending has not yet occurred, because the effects of Charlie Wilson's "war" are still playing themselves out, and will continue to play out as long as there is an Al-Qaeda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)