Removing Some of the Fog Around Climate Change

Okay, so there is a debate as to "climate change". This article is not going to enter that portion of the debate that questions whether or not climate change is real, primarily because the climate has been constantly changing since the Earth was formed. Instead, this dissertation, if you will, shall revolve around the real issue - does it really matter?

Al Gore would say "certainly - it will destroy civilization". But that is not even close to being true, for the reasons brought forward here.

First, let us take the fear monger's claims that climate change will result in massive storms and weather phenomena the likes of which we have never seen.

Since the so-called "warming" stage that Gore hyped in his "documentray", there have been no hurricanes, tornadoes or other massive storms any greater than any in earlier history. In 1938 we saw the "Great New England Hurricane & Flood" which was one of the deadliest and most destructive tropical cyclones to impact New England, killing 682 people and destroying over 57,000 homes. In 1913 we experienced the "Great Lakes Storm" that battered and overturned ships on four of the five Great Lakes - thousands of square miles - and killing more than 250 people. And in 1900 (obviously before we had millions of petrol vehicles on the roads) we saw the Great Galveston Hurricane  that left up to 12,000 people dead - to the present day it is the deadliest single day event in U.S. history.

For the climate change bunch to claim the storms we see today can somehow be construed as being worse is sheer idiocy. For example, hurricane Katrina was only responsible for roughly 1200 dead, not the 12,000 that died in the 1900 blow.

As for the claim that global warming would somehow result in food shortages, that is absurd, according to history. Prior to the Little Ice Age that began in the 14th century (and lasted until the mid-1800's), the Earth was several degrees warmer than it is today, and had been in that "warm spell" from the 10th to 14th century. During the "warm" period, more land was arable and food was plentiful. Grapes grown for wine were produced as far north as England (today, it's only as far north as southern France). During the Little Ice Age (LIA), millions of people died of starvation and plague, as food became less plentiful, and rats moved in with the people. The "Black Death" is estimated to have killed up to 1/3 of the population of Europe and England.

And in a world where clean water is already becoming scarce, the melting of the fresh-water glaciers could be most helpful.

If global warming is not creating storms of unheard of proportions, or resulting in deserts with less arable land with the subsequent food shortages the climate change folks are ranting about, what is there left to worry about?

Well, skiing, for one. Snow could become scarce. And the folks at Toro would lose a fortune as snow blowers would not be so necessary.

Seriously, though, global warming would be somewhat detrimental to the elitists that choose to live so close to the coasts, in the event water levels rise. But despite the horror stories that (according to Gore) we would all be growing gills by now, sea levels have not risen appreciably - perhaps inches, but definitely not feet. I have seen no difference in the high-water mark at the beaches I have been frequenting for over 60 years.

Bear in mind, too, that ALL plant life breathes carbon dioxide, so it may not be a really good idea to cut production too much - after all, without plants breathing in carbon dioxide, there would be no oxygen for us - for that is what plants "exhale". Maybe the reason for the huge increase in asthma and other breathing difficulties is the result of paving over all the greenery, and cutting the rain forests.

In closing, I would add this: when the climate change bunch tell us that "99% of scientists agree...", that is both untrue and deceptive. Most scientists know absolutely nothing about climate. The only scientists we should consider listening to are actual CLIMATOLOGISTS, and only those whose income does not depend upon government grants or funding from those pushing climate change. And 99% do NOT agree - there are hundreds of climatologists that believe climate change is nothing more than a natural cycle, and than Man is not likely responsible.

/

White Privilege? Hardly!

Among many minority (and liberal) communities and on campuses rank with uneducated kids (and professors) we keep hearing about "white privilege". So, let's take a look at that.

Certainly in times long since past, there certainly was white privilege. Today, however, the only real privilege is what people earn for themselves. While it is true that a greater percentage of minorities start out life with less, that is not because whites have privilege. It is because they are either  a) from single parent homes, b) not educated enough to get ahead, or c) have become too dependent upon the entitlements that the democrat politicians hand out in order to keep them voting Democrat.

I know - that sounds like so much Republican spin, but that does not change the facts. You don't have to like the truth, but that does not make it less true. In any case, none of the above is a result of white privilege.

Adults in those communities can work harder at creating and maintaining a solid family structure. Women, for example, can and should avoid getting involved with any man who is not "good father" material. The signs are obvious. And when a couple does commit to one another, work at keeping it. As for insufficient education, there are two avenues - educate yourself (libraries are free), or vote for politicians who agree to make school choice available to all, regardless of your neighborhood. And finally, don't look at welfare as a career. Work hard at trying to free yourself from the "welfare chains" that keep you in slavery.

I am white. I was born into poverty. I attended the public school in my district - no choice. Neither my family nor my teachers prepared me for making it in the real world. It comes as no surprise that I ended up living on the streets, homeless, hungry, cold. I spent long hours, even in snowstorms, going through trash looking for cans, scrap metal - anything that would buy me a meal. It was not unusual to earn as much as $3-4 a day! Imagine trying to live on $1000 a year! Take that "white privilege" Mr Kaepernick.

But I wanted something more. In fact, I did not simply WANT more. I would not settle for anything less than the best I could muster. And not having "privilege", I knew I had to scrape and claw, busting my butt to move forward. I made the decision to not sleep at night without having moved closer to my goals that day.

I spent the next 45 years of my life working hard, working smart. As I moved forward, I took night classes at the community college. It took a long time, but eventually I had earned three degrees, all the while still busting my hide on dirty, but profitable hard work.

And now I am independently wealthy.

And not because of any falsely perceived privilege.

On the other side, there are fine examples of minorities who managed to do the same, despite their meager beginnings. Sidney Poitier. J-Lo.And, I am sorry to say, many minorities who "have it all", yet scream about being "oppressed" by "white privilege". Yeah, sure - Kaepernick with his $12 million deal with the NFL, or Jay Z, Beyonce and many others. They have tons more privilege than most white people, but they cry about being oppressed. Everyone should be that oppressed!

The only privileges in America are either the privilege that comes from having money, and the privilege of having the opportunity to get that money. And everyone has that opportunity. But not everyone has the drive, ambition or fortitude to pursue it.

Privilege? We all have the privilege of being able to DECIDE for ourselves which chains we will accept, and which we will cast off. If you doubt that, just take a look at the life of Jackie Robinson, or Louis Armstrong.

/

Liberal Thought - What It Is, and Is Not

Yes, I know - "liberal thought" might be an oxymoron. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Liberals - particularly progressives - like to believe they are thinkers, but in reality they only mimic the talking points fed to them by the insidious "liberal leaders". And those liberal leaders are dangerous because they, themselves are not really liberals. People like George Soros use liberalism in order to gain more power for themselves.

Let's look at some of the issues of liberals.

WAR - Many liberals waste their entire lives trying to put an end to war. They see it as a "bad" thing, and believe that the world would be a better place without war. If by "a better place" they mean a planet barren of all life, they would be correct. If we end war, we begin to rush headlong into extinction.

If no wars had ever been fought on Earth, the planet would have reached its maximum capacity of human life at some point in the 15th century, as all those who were not killed would have had children, who in turn would have had children. By the mid 1400's, the number of humans on Earth would have completely consumed all other life on Earth, as food would have become scarce. The planet would have been stripped, the same way that locusts strip a field, leaving it barren. And then Mankind would perish from starvation and disease - a much worse fate than war.

War is not nice. Not pleasant. But what liberals simply do not comprehend, war is an absolute necessity, as mankind has no real predators to keep our numbers in check.

INCOME EQUALITY - Liberals believe that all people should not only be created equal, but should also remain equal regardless of whether or not they do anything to earn it. While it may sound nice that everyone has a good life, it is not only unrealistic, but unnatural, as well. Every living thing on the planet must compete for its survival. This is because no species can continue to survive if the weak are allowed to survive. A species is only as strong as its weakest link.

Liberals believe in leveling the playing field by weakening the strong, while conservatives believe in strengthening the weak. If a person simply cannot care for themselves, society has an obligation to care for them. But there is no obligation to care for those who simply do not WANT to provide for themselves.

If a person wants income equality, they need to earn it, just like the guy who has already succeeded. A slob sitting on the couch stuffing his face with Twinkies while playing video games has no right to the same income as someone who worked hard getting grades in college, then worked hard for years working his way up until he finally has security. To a conservative, "income equality" means you should have equal income only if you worked equally hard as the other guy, invested what he invested, and did all the stuff necessary to succeed. A hobo who does nothing is not entitled to a Bill Gates income. In fact, he is only entitled to what he, himself, earns.

IT TAKES A VILLAGE - This is liberal speak for letting the government raise your kids, which is the worst thing that could ever be conceived. Hitler tried this with his Youth Camps. While conservatives agree that the "village" should be supportive in parents' efforts in raising the kids, it is the responsibility of the parents. The village should only be a support structure. If John Doe sees Bob Jones' kid doing something wrong, he should notify John Doe.

GUN CONTROL - It does not matter to liberals that every study shows gun crime rates are  highest in areas that have the strictest gun controls. I say it does not matter to them because the facts do not fit their agenda, which has nothing to do with reducing crime and has everything to do with disarming the public. After all, it is much easier to control an unarmed population, and CONTROL is what it is all about for liberals. GUN control, BIRTH control, HEALTH control, INCOME control, ENVIRONMENTAL control, EDUCATION control, THOUGHT control. Liberals want to control every thing, and every one. That's why they do not like it when conservatives speak out. It's why the IRS targeted conservative groups. It's why ObamaCare was passed. It's why the Department of Education was created in 1972 (and education levels have dropped every year since). It's why Harry Reid thwarted the will of the People by not letting any House bill be brought to the Senate floor, and it is why Barak Obama kept doing end runs around Congress, and dictating policy and ignoring laws. It is why liberals push to get as many people on entitlements as possible.

LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS - this one is really simple - progressives want control, and a population that is hooked on drugs is easy to control. Those not hooked on drugs will be hooked on entitlements - a financial drug. If you get out of line, they can threaten to take away your drug or entitlement.

There are only three things that have kept liberal progressives from taking over America and creating a socialist/communist regime - Christianity, the Constitution and conservatives - the 3 C's. And if you are awake, you have seen liberals, with the help of liberal media and liberal institutions of "higher learning" attack all three, mercilessly. And that proves the point.

In all fairness, I should point out that it's not really the liberals so much as the nefarious leaders of progressivism. The puppet masters, like George Soros. The average liberal is, as described by the socialist Saul Alinsky, nothing more than a "useful idiot". The ignorant masses of "Wall Street Occupiers", "Black Lives Matter" and the drones that get brainwashed at Berkeley. Useful idiots. Even the powerful Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - and, yes, even Barak Obama - fall into the category of "useful idiots. They all do the dirty work of the Puppet Masters."

I almost pity them, but for the fact that they are so hateful and destructive.

/

The Real Reason The Democrats Lost

No matter what pundits you listen to, one thing becomes very clear from the start - Democrats have no idea how they lost the election to Trump, or why. It simply does not seem logical or even possible.

But it did happen. Republicans hold all three parts of the legislative and executive power in Washington. They hold most state legislatures and Governorships. And Democrats need to learn the right lesson from this if they are to have any chance of making a comeback anytime soon.

Here is what really happened, and why...

Setting aside personalities, honesty issues and nasty campaigning, Democrats should simply look at the county-by-county vote. Republicans won over 96% of ALL counties across the country. The only counties they won are the population-rich metropolitan areas, primarily around New York and California. What message this sends is that Democrats are only reaching their fellow elitists with their message, and that message rings sour to the folks in 96% of the country.

Winning the coastal epicenters of the elites will win them the popular vote almost every time, simply due to the vast populations in those areas (which is why the Founders invented the Electoral College, so a few cities don't run everything). But that does not get you the electoral college. That is won county-by-county and state-by-state, and Democrats lost most of those because their message is one that elitists such as Hollywood celebrities and D.C politicians can relate to, but most ordinary Americans cannot. Basically, then, the Democrats lost because of Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs, depicted as a pyramid, where the first need is the wide base, and the highest need is the pinnacle.

Elitists living in the metro areas have much different needs than other Americans. According to Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs, every person is on one of six levels of need, and normally strive to rise to the top. Those six levels, in order, are:

Physiological needs (food & water, clothing, shelter, sex)
Safety needs (personal & financial security, health & well-being, safety net against adverse impacts like accidents, unemployment)
Love and belonging (friendship, intimacy, family)
Esteem (respect from others as well as self; recognition; fame etc)
Self-actualization (achieving success in many things, such as parenting, athletics, art, creating/building)
Self-transcendance  (giving to a higher goal outside oneself; altruism, charity, spirituality)

Individuals just trying to survive, physically, have little or no interest in the same things that appeal to those in the self-actualization stage, for example. Too busy surviving. But once their physiological needs have been secured, they move toward ensuring their safety needs. And once those needs are met, they give greater importance to love and belonging. And so it goes, until they hit the wall (personal limitations) or reach the top.

Liberal elitists like celebrities and politicians are at or near the pinnacle, and as such their "needs" are more idealistic, and do not translate well in the real world that most people have to live in. While they float idealistic ideas and policies that are altruistic, those things do not put food on the table for every day Americans.

And the real problem for liberal Democrats lies in the simple fact that they actually believe that most Americans want and need the same things they, themselves want.

They don't. They are not "there" yet, and most will never be there, because there is just so much room at the top (remember, it really is a pyramid - the vast majority of people are at stage one).

Until Democrats come to terms with the simple fact that the majority of Americans outside the elitist epicenters are not on their level and do not find value in what they want, Democrats will keep losing.

/

Trump Should Pardon Hillary

Think about it - if Donald Trump pardons Hillary Clinton, he would immediately set America on a road to unity, showing that he doesn't hold a grudge and is magnanimous. Democrats around the country would look at him with different eyes. Much of the hate and lines of division would begin to wane, and America can get back to America's business.

Certainly, I believe Hillary belongs in jail. But I would be more than willing to let her skate if it means putting an final end to all of this anger and hate. This is America - it's okay for us to show our Christian, forgiving roots. As the saying goes, "killing them with kindness."

Let's begin to heal - Trump's very first move should be to pardon Hillary - but to ALSO advise the Clintons that they may no longer use their crooked foundation to peddle influence and enrich themselves. That should be a condition of the pardon.

/

EVERY Tax Is Paid By The Poor

 

I have had several people ask me to once again explain how taxing the rich, or businesses, results in taxing the poor. Others have flatly disagreed - they cannot see the larger picture. So, if you will bear with me for just a few minutes, perhaps I can clarify.

First, I can state emphatically that the rich do not pay any taxes - not ever. And the poor pay all the taxes - always. And that is precisely how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Now for proof of the pudding.

Let us say Joe is poor, and Mark is rich. Joe eats a lot of Ramen soup because it's cheap. Mark's company makes the Ramen soup. Joe works for Mark.

The government increases Mark's taxes. They also increase the taxes on capital gains. This pleases Joe because he thinks Mark has too much wealth.

Since Mark's taxes have increased, and he is not in business to lose money, he must now raise the cost of the Ramen that Joe buys. That's business - as costs rise, so do prices. Suddenly, Joe is not so pleased because he is now paying Mark's taxes every time he buys Ramen.

Mark also reduces company benefits, and lays Joe off because the increase on capital gains has forced investors to stop investing in his company. Needless to say, Joe is REALLY unhappy now - and poorer than ever. And he blames Mark, even though it was the "Joe's" of the world who demanded Mark's taxes be raised.

But it is much worse than that - increased taxes on EVERY business and rich person has resulted in the prices of ALL products and services to increase. Joe is now paying more for gas, his lawn mower, milk, pizza, movies, tires, car - everything he buys is now more expensive, because businesses always pass off any increase in costs - including taxes - onto the customers and employees. Taxes are a COB - cost of business - and is passed on to consumers. They have to. And the end result is that his customers are paying his taxes for him, because taxes are an expense, and expenses are built into the price of products and services.

The only people who cannot pass these added costs onto others are the poor - there is no one below them to pass them to.

This is how it works. Every time.

FACT #1: Increasing taxes - regardless of who you tax - always harms the economy, increases unemployment,  decreases investments that make the economy grow, and makes the poor even poorer.

Even you, the working stiff, pass on your taxes to people below you. Yes, you do. In order to pay higher taxes, you must earn more money than if you did not have any taxes to pay. Your paycheck reflects that. As businesses increase prices because of higher taxes, those higher prices mean YOU pay higher sales taxes (when the price goes up on an item, so does the amount of tax - you pay 5 cents on a one dollar item, and 6 cents on that item when the price increases to $1.20). So, when you get hit with higher property taxes, higher sales taxes etc., you have to ask for a raise, or you fall into poverty. And where do you think your boss is going to get that money for your raise? He has no money tree. He will get it from his customers by way of higher prices (again), which results in even higher cost of goods, plus higher sales taxes on those higher prices. But you have effectively passed on your taxes to those below you - and onto yourself again.

Every penny of tax is passed down to those below. And it stops with the poor, because they cannot pass it down - they are already at the bottom. Who would they pass those costs onto?

FACT #2: When businesses are taxed more, or capital gains taxes are increased, the business must do one of three things if they are to stay in business. They must either increase the costs of their products/services, OR they must reduce company benefits and/or lay people off, OR a combination of the two. (A 3rd option is to move to Mexico or China, taking the jobs with them). Regardless which they choose, it will result in a sagging economy, higher unemployment, fewer people insured (lost benefits), and the poor getting poorer.

There can be no other result.

On the other hand, you get the opposite result when you LOWER taxes. The cost of business becomes less costly, so businesses can hire more people. They become more competitive, driving prices down. This means the poor would have jobs and income, and the items they buy will not be increasing in price.

Here is a tidbit for you - until the income tax was passed into law in 1913, virtually everything remained reasonably stable in prices for over 100 years. As soon as the income tax was passed, it caused all prices to rise. And ever since 1913, prices have steadily risen according to the rise in taxation.

Virtually all economic problems originate from taxation. The higher the taxes, the bigger the problems.

Democrat politicians, unfortunately, either do not understand simple economics and logic - or do not care, as they have an agenda. In either case, giving them power is a grave mistake.

/

How To Put Hillary Down For The Count

It's a simple matter to put Hillary down for the count, quickly, if a few simple tried and true steps are followed.

FIRST and foremost it is not enough to bore people by simply stating a problem and that you will fix it (YAWN) . You need to entertain while you teach, so they GET IT AND REMEMBER IT! Most folks need illustrations they can relate to. Jesus knew that, and used parables to hammer home a point. Democrats also understand that, and use illustrations like pushing granny over a cliff. Illustrations make things easier to understand, and stick with people longer.

EXAMPLE:

Hillary says we should take the economic pie and cut it into smaller slices so the less fortunate can have more. Really? I say we just bake more pies so everyone can have more, not less. You do that by creating an environment that encourages the entrepreneurial spirit and business growth, which creates jobs, which, in turn, increases demand for products and services. And you do that by lowering the burden on businesses - cutting taxes and regulations. You cannot - CANNOT - get something to grow by restricting it . Restriction is how you grow miniature Bonsai trees, not a strong economy. Hillary's plan of higher taxes and more regulations will insure our economy will be a Bonsai, not a Redwood.

2) State unequivically that starting on Day One you will order a complete and thorough FORENSIC AUDIT of every government agency, and convince Congress to eliminate any and all waste, eliminate AND PROSECUTE fraud and to eliminate every item that is not necessary for the safety and general welfare of America. This will insure there will be an excess of money to continue funding necessary social services, such as Social Security and Medicare.

3) If hit with something that can hurt you, turn liabilities into assets (the basis of Ju Jitsu fighting), and following through on the following points:

*Business history (bankruptcies, debt, outsourcing etc) - in 2006 I was running a business. My responsibility was to my family, my creditors and my employees. As such, it was my job to serve them to the best of my ability. I did that, and obviously did it well. In 2017, as president, my new job will be to serve the American people to the best of my ability, and you can bet I will do that job just as well.

*On releasing tax returns - I am proud to pay the least amount of income tax possible, for several reasons. First, it again goes to my responsibility - first to God, then my family and business. By paying the least amount ALLOWED BY LAW, there is more profit to use for expansion, and hiring, which I continually do. I will do the same for America. It is helpful to note that even the I.R.S booklet states each citizen has an obligation to pay no more than is required by law. And as to charitable contributions, I would like to remind the Secretary and the media that the Bible specifically states that taking credit for good deeds do not store treasures for you in Heaven. To store good deeds to benefit you in Heaven you must give ANONYMOUSLY. If I were to claim them on my taxes, I would be cashing in those good deeds now. I do not need those rewards now - I have plenty already. I'd rather store them in Heaven, therefore I rarely claim all that I give. Christians understand.

*Contrary to what the Democrats and the media try to con people into believing, the recession of 2008 was caused totally and completely by Democrats - it just happened to come apart while a Republican was president. In 1936 FDR (D) created Fannie Mae. 1967, LBJ (D) privatized it, giving it freedom. 1977 Carter (D) signed the Community Reinvestment Act into law, requiring banks to make risky loans. In 1994 OBAMA (D) WAS CO-COUNSEL FOR ACORN in its suit against CITIBANK for red-lining, which led to Clinton (D) to pass the Bliley Bill REQUIRING banks to make at least 50% of all loans to the poor who could not possibly repay them. Since banks cannot stay in business if they lose money, this forced banks to create "derivatives", the bundling of notes to spread the risk, and sold them off, mainly to Fannie Mae. In 1996 Senators Frank (D) & Dodd (D) convinced Congress that Fannie Mae was healthy and needed no more regulation (as was requested by Bush). In 2008, the crap hit the fan...courtesy of 70 years of DEMOCRAT policies.

*Isis - In fighting, what Obama & Hillary do is called "telegraphing" blows, which guarantees you lose. Under my presidency, I will take the advice of the generals and admirals, formulate a plan - and KEEP THE PLAN SECRET until it is implemented and over with. Normandy would have been a disaster if the enemy knew when and where we were coming. Secrecy - That is the ONLY way to win any conflict

* Comey says Hillary plays fast & lose with the truth, and outright lies to American people - then lies about lying. It is unfortunate that he compromised the integrity of the FBI, a fine agency of great, dedicated patriots, but nevertheless he did manage to point out that Hillary Clinton is a serial liar, and compromised national security, and under any other circumstances she could not qualify for even the lowest level of security. Yet, she wants top level clearance.

*BENGHAZI - As S.O.S. she was responsible for all State Department policies and actions. That includes the horrid failure in Benghazi. While the facts do show she bore some direct responsibility, that matters little - as SOS, she was the ultimate party responsible - a boss is ALWAYS responsible for his or her employees and agents, and their actions

*Cyber-security: we need to utilize our best and brightest to get ahead of hackers. We don't have to stoop to the level of our enemies - we just have to prevent them from doing us harm. There are geniuses in America that are quite capable of doing that, and to initiate a social media war against our enemies. We will find those geniuses and pay them very well to get the job done.

*National Security: Unlike Obama & Hillary who follow advice of pundits and political hacks with no experience, YOU will follow the advice of those whose job it is to know how to win wars and keep the enemy at bay - Generals & Admirals. "If I do that, I'm sure they won't have me going off half-cocked. As a life-long, incredibly successful businessman, I know the value of surrounding myself with experts, not partisan bureaucrats, and getting the job done."

*GUN CONTROL: Strange that Hillary now calls gun control "gun safety". Democrats often try to change minds by changing the semantics, like calling illegal immigrants undocumented workers, and aborting a fetus as "choice". And her stance on "military style" weapons is deceptive - military STYLE is not the same as a military weapon. The military STYLE weapons are nothing more than a standard deer rifle  made to LOOK military. It does not function as a military. Military rifles, not available to the public are automatics - bullets keep flying as long as you hold down the trigger (or you run out of ammo). Military "style" weapons available to the public only fire one single shot for each separate pull of the trigger - the very same functionality as any deer rile. Putting on a Superman costume does not make you Superman, and putting a banana clip and hand grip on a deer rifle does not make it a military weapon of war.

*Trickle-Down economics: Hillary says it never works, but facts prove it ALWAYS works - PROVIDED government gets the Hell out of the way. When government gets in the way with higher taxes and more regulations, it upsets the system of free enterprise that allows the economy to work as it should. When "trickle down" fails, it fails only because of government interference. Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman proved supply-side economics is the only system that works that can be sustained. Wealth can only be created when a product and/or service is created, made available and sold. The value is in the product/service, and only money can create, produce and market. The money created is used to BUY inventory & supplies, HIRE employees (adding to the IRS coffers) who, in turn, SPEND on other goods/services, which supports other businesses and the jobs created by those businesses. In short, as Sean Hannity often says, no one ever got a good paying job from a poor person

*RACIST: Donald only went half way by mentioning the Florida club he built - why not mention the FIGHT with other clubs that do discriminate? The ones who tried to stop him? Donald not only invited all ethnicities as members, but fought for the privilege to do so

*IMMIGRATION: There are 3.5 million people entering the workforce in 2016. Only 2.7 million jobs were created in 2015. Unless they bring jobs with them, like drug dealing, illegals must take jobs from Americans, contrary to what Hillary's spinmeisters claim.

ALL OF THE ABOVE should be clearly stated, as shown, in a televised speech. Then commercials should be proliferated on each individual point, and used in debates as needed

DON'T INTERRUPT! It makes you appear to be on the defensive - not good.
DON'T LET HILLARY GET YOU IN THE WEEDS with BS issues that mean nothing to the people. When she or the moderators (or the media) bring up minor issues that don't matter, IGNORE THEM, or simply say, "Sorry, Hillary - I am going to concentrate on the real issues that real people care about. Let me know when you get around to wanting to debate THOSE."

Smile - don't sneer

How To Scam The Phone Scammers

Every now and again (like, daily) I get calls from people claiming to be with Google, Microsoft, a credit card company or even some law enforcement agency. Unfortunately, too many people fall for their scams, most particularly the elderly.

Here's what I do - it is both simple and effective. I tell the person (if it is a live person) I waste as much of their time as possible without providing any info, then ask them to give me their number and I will call them back, to verify they are who they say they are. They have two options - either they will not give their number (because they are scammers), or they will give their number (because they are stupid) and hope you will call back so they can get your info.

In the former instance, you have simply dropped them. In the latter instance, call the local authorities and give them the number the scammer gave you, so they can trace it. Scammer busted.

Now, if you get such calls and they are robocalls - a recording - simply hang up. That is always a scam. I usually leave the phone "off the hook" until they disconnect, as that wastes their time.

/

Why Earledreka White Was Wrong - and How It Could Have Been Different

Earledreka White, a black woman, was stopped for a motor vehicle infraction. The police officer, following protocol, asked for driver's license etc. The woman, probably because she is black and expecting racism, refused to comply, and called 911 for a second officer.

Although White already failed to comply, stating she was being "harassed" because the officer was following standard protocol, the video shows the cop waited patiently for nearly 3 minutes while she called 911.

Now here is perhaps the most important point - whenever anyone, regardless of the offense (or their color) refuses to comply with a police officer, the standard operating procedure requires the officer to handcuff the individual until such time as the threat level has been determined. This procedure is for the safety of the officer because most police officers who are killed on duty are killed during a minor traffic stop. He, like you, wants to go home at night to be with his family. Only an idiot would not understand that.

The officer did not know the woman. He did not know if she might be armed. He did not know if she might be on drugs. He did not know if she had warrants. All he knew was that she committed a motor vehicle infraction, and that she refused to comply with his requests. And in doing his duty as required (after patiently waiting for 3 minutes), he handcuffed her to insure his own safety until the threat level is determined.

White again refused to comply, and resisted, and tried to fight him. She escalated the situation. Why she did so we do not know, but I suspect it was for the purpose of pushing the Black Lives Matter agenda.

There is a lesson here, for anyone stopped by the police for any reason: do exactly what the officer asks you to do, immediately and without argument. Do nothing more, nor anything less. Chances are if you are not a felon and have no warrants, you will soon be on your way. And if you feel you were stopped without cause, or have any gripe as to how you are treated, take it to court. But do NOT argue with the officer, resist detention, or resist arrest. If you do, you will not like how it ends.

In Illinois a police officer had stopped a man. The man told the officer he had a gun. Per strict police procedure, the officer ordered him to place his hands on the dash. Instead, the man reached down, presumably for his license. The officer thought he was reaching for the gun and shot the man. Though tragic, it was a good shoot, as the officer knew he had a gun, the man did not comply with the officer's request to keep his hands clear, and the officer wanted to go home that night. Had the man simply done what he was told, the officer would have had no reason to feel threatened and would not have shot him.

Ms White should have simply complied with the officer, who would have then either issued her a warning or a ticket, and she would have been on her way. She chose, instead, to be adversarial, resulting in  making the situation worse. That's on her.

/

Why It Does Not Matter Where Trump Ties Are Made

With all due respect to those who are unaware of a CEO's responsibility to his/her company, employees, and stock holders, Hillary Clinton seems to be trying to make hay out of the fact that Trump has products, such as his line of ties, made outside the United States, and is trying to hammer him with that. And to many, having his products outsourced may seem a bit unpatriotic. But it is not. What IS unpatriotic is a tax rate and harsh regulations that force businesses out of the U.S.

A CEO's first and greatest responsibility is to maximize profits. Period. And in this day and age, that almost REQUIRES that products be outsourced simply because our government imposes the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and imposes the most restrictions and heavy-handed regulations, all of which makes it impossible to "maximize" profits.

And it is Democrat administrations and a Democrat congress that typically keeps those taxes high, and imposes thousands of new regulations every year. It is Republicans that want lower taxes and less government. The problem lies in the fact that Democrats convince people that it is the "greedy corporations" that are the problem, and they need to be taxed and regulated in order to achieve some sort of "social justice". So, they get away with it because the folks never realize that by punishing business, you drive it away. Money and businesses go where they are most welcome, and that is not in the U.S.

That said, by outsourcing manufacturing, Trump is being a good CEO, and is doing his job successfully. Take that to the logical conclusion, if elected president we should expect him to do for America what he did for his company - make it WORK! Being POTUS would give him a different responsibility, and there is no reason to believe he would not take that one just as seriously.

Trump gets the job at hand DONE. And if his new job is POTUS,  first and greatest responsibility would be to make America great again, and to make America a place that welcomes the money and the business.

So, to make a long story short, it really does not matter where Trump makes his ties...

The Misinformation About "Assault Weapons" & Gun Controls

The anti-gun people like Michael Bloomberg use fear mongering coupled with misinformation to con ordinary folks into believing stricter gun laws are required. This aricle will present the facts that the Bloombergs of the world do not want you to know. Understand - whenever bureaucrats or far-left people want to fulfill an unpopular agenda like gun control, or legalizing drugs, they always resort to disseminating misinformation, and in some cases they simply and blatantly lie, to get people to accept something they normally would not support.

I will not get into all the statistics from the FBI and DOJ that overturn many of the bogus "facts" that anti-gun people spout - you can and should check those out for yourself. For example, the FBI records indicate that 61% of all gun deaths are suicide. Anyone intent on suicide will find a means of doing so, gun or no gun.

1) "Assault weapons" like the AR-15 are NOT assault weapons at all. An assault weapon is fully automatic - pull the trigger, it keeps firing until you release the trigger or it runs out of ammo. Such weapons are not available to ordinary citizens except those who have been provided a special license by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabacco & Firearms (BATF). AR-15's available to the public are nothing more than ordinary SEMI-automatic hunting rifles (one shot for each separate pull of the trigger) that is designed to LOOK like an assault weapon. Think of it like this - just because you dress up as Superman does not make you Superman

2) Stricter gun laws actually make us less safe. Whereas criminals do not adhere to laws, gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Note that cities like Chicago, which have the toughest gun laws, also have the most gun crime. The reason is simple - criminals do not follow the law, and Chicago has no control over its criminal element. So ask yourself - do drug laws make people less likely to obtain drugs? Neither would more gun laws.

3) We already have sufficient gun regulation. The problem lies with the fact that liberals like Michael Bloomberg, Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to allow them to be enforced. In fact, it was AG Eric Holder who permitted "Fast & Furious" to transport illegal weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

4) While "Universal Background Checks" sounds like common sense, nothing could be further from the truth. For starters, it could never be universal because criminals would not comply, nor do they have to. They will continue to get their weapons as they always have - black market, thefts etc. And the DOJ, itself, states that universal background checks are unenforceable without complete gun registration. And in every case, gun registration in other nations has always preceded the confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens

5) Many of the "Universal Background Check" laws proposed by Bloomberg and others have hidden fangs that will effectively destroy our right to defend ourselves. For example, it would make criminals out of most law-abiding citizens. Some of the proposed laws are written to include things like making it a felony to loan a gun to a relative or friend for hunting, or to even let someone hold your gun to look at it. And in many instances those laws would include sections making it a crime to have the gun and the ammo anywhere near each other - what good is that if an armed intruder breaks in to do you harm?

6) The anti-gun people often use the strawman that the Second Amendment only preserves our right to have guns for hunting, and the AR-15 is not a "hunting" rifle. First, it IS a hunting rifle - it is nothing more than the same semi-auto use for hunting that is dressed in a Superman costume. More important, the Second Amendment never mentions hunting. The right to bear arms was deliberately meant to allow citizens to own AND CARRY arms for purposes of defense - defense against either individual aggressors, or the government, itself.

7) The Second Amendment specifically and clearly states that "the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be INFRINGED. The Bloombergs of the world want us to overlook the definitions of BEAR and INFRINGE. To bear means to carry. Infringe means to undermine; to encroach on. Whereas the Amendment states the right shall NOT be infringed, that means no one has any right or authority to prevent any legal citizen from owning or carrying a gun.

8) While the Supreme Court has ruled that the government may regulate which weapons do not fall into "personal use" category (i.e. rocket-propelled grenades, for example), any handgun or rifle that is not fully automatic is deemed to be for personal use. After all, if you are confronted by a gang of 8, do you REALLY want to have a weapon that can only hold 7 rounds because some liberal bureaucrat orders it? Don't laugh - it happened in New Orleans during Katrina, as gangs looted businesses and homes. The short take - the person who survives a lethal confrontation will ordinarily be the one who is better armed, and better trained in the use of said arms.

9) Perhaps most important: killers kill. If you take away every gun on the planet, they will STILL kill, but with different - and often more terrible - means. Look at 9-11, where a few boxcutters helped terrorists gain control of massive airplane "bombs" that murdered 3000. Or the Boston Bombers who killed and maimed with pressure cookers. And let's not forget chemical weaponry, or biological agents. Killers will kill. Guns have nothing to do with that, but in the hands of law abiding citizens those guns can help save lives. To stop a bad guy with a gun takes a good guy with a gun. And the bad guys will always have guns, no matter how many laws are passed.

Before you fall for the so-called "common sense" measures of gun control, do your homework. You will find that in EVERY instance the liberal anti-gunners have included things designed to move their gun confiscation agenda further forward, in hidden, sneaky ways - like making you and your child  criminals if you hand one of your guns over to your child to take him or her hunting. Or even to teach them gun safety.

If you are not familiar with the "Overton Window" principle that unscrupulous people use to "move the needle" in their direction, you may want to read "The Overton Window" by Glenn Beck. Not a hard core Beck fan, but this is one time he definitely nailed it. The short take - they push a proposal that is on the fringe of acceptability, yet still acceptable to the public. Once that becomes the norm, the needle has been moved forward, creating a new window, further advanced. They will then push a proposal that is on the new "fringe", and so it goes. For example, they may know they cannot push gun confiscation through - yet. So they try to push more acceptable proposals that bring the concept closer, such as universal background checks. Once they move that needle forward, it is easier to pass gun registration, moving the needle even further. Eventually it results in confiscation - just as it did in the UK and Australia.

Think of it this way - you cannot sit down and eat a cow. But if you take the cow to a butcher, and you eat one burger or steak each day, eventually you will eat that cow.

'Nuff said. "Let he who hath wisdom understand."

/

Twitter Trolls

There are some on Twitter who arrogantly profess to tell me what I believe and what I do not. And they try to do what many on the left always try to do - define a person according to THEIR one-sided views and opinions. A prime example is when they try to describe Republicans as wanting polluted air and water, and want to toss Grandma off a cliff. It's all BS, but that is what they thrive on - they cannot win an argument on merit, so they try to slime the person they disagree with.

So, this post has a singular purpose: to state what I do and do not believe, in a clear fashion. And while those on the left, including atheists and their ilk may try to twist it to be what they want it to be, the reader can and should take my beliefs to be exactly as I state them here - no more, no less.

I believe that living things, as a general rule, evolve
I do not believe evolution can account for the existence of the universe
Therefore, I believe that Creationism and Evolution can co-exist. They are not mutually exclusive. First comes birth (creation), then comes growth (evolution)
I believe God exists, but having given us free choice, does not generally interfere, but does so now and again just to let us know He's still around
Like any good Father, God lets us make mistakes so we can learn, and grow stronger
I believe the Earth warms, then cools, then warms
I believe people are arrogant if they think there is anything we can or should do about the climate cycles
As a Christian I understand that the Bible does not profess Earth to be 6000 years old. In Hebrew, the word for "day" (yom) can also mean epoch, era or any other period of time. It was King James who made that (incorrect) interpretation
I believe anyone who takes any INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures as being accurate should remember it is only an interpretation
I believe Islam is not a religion of peace, but moderates want Islam to evolve into one. Others do not
I believe that, while unlikely, it is possible that Mankind is just a huge game of "Forge of Empires" being played by unseen forces of Good and Evil
I believe evil truly exists
I believe most people are generally good, but all can be bad at times
I believe Political Correctness is a disease that could destroy America, designed to stifle free speech and expression
I believe politicians who promises anything for "free" is being blatantly dishonest - there is no free lunch
I believe the liberal professors in our colleges and universities are harming our youth, and America
I believe the liberal media intentionally misleads people, to further a liberal agenda
I believe people kill people, and would do so, guns or no guns.
I believe we should welcome honest, hard-working, law abiding immigrants who will assimilate
I believe we should deport those who cheat, cut the line and come here illegally, especially if they are convicted of any crime
I believe "sanctuary cities" are in violation of federal law and the Constitution, and should not be allowed
I believe American citizens should have more rights than illegals
I believe my life belongs to God, my family, myself  & my country - in that order
I believe we are all brothers and sisters - but we don't have to like them all
I believe others have the right to disagree with me, and be wrong if they so choose
I believe abortion is murder except when there is a real threat to the life of the mother, or in cases on incest
I believe only violent offenders should take up space in prisons. Others should be subject to other penalties
I believe dealing in drugs that can, and do, kill is a violent crime
I especially believe my wife, my best friend, is the most wonderful woman I have ever met

AND, I believe that those who refuse to respect my right to my opinions, or try to bully me from expressing them are not worthy of any consideration from anyone, anywhere

I believe a lot of folks won't like my beliefs.
And I believe I don't give a hoot

And I believe I'll grab a cold one, and watch Duck Dynasty

/

Atheism, Evolution, Creationism & Yellow Jackets

WOW! I tweeted that Bill Nye is not a scientist (he is not) and that he understands nothing about Creationism, so he might not want to show his ignorance by speaking on the subject. Well, it went viral - within minutes I was being inundated by every atheist on Twitter with the most outrageously ignorant comments, many of which were mere personal attacks - the last refuge of someone without a viable argument. They are like yellow jackets - one attacks, and that draws out every other bee in the nest. It's really pathetic that they are so insecure that they need to gang up, getting all their buddies involved, just so they can prove themselves to be jerks who refuse to accept that other peoples' beliefs may differ from their own. So intolerant, from those who claim to be the tolerant ones.

Every atheist retweeted to every other atheist, and so on down the line. They seem to have a "pack" mentality - they have an inherent need to try and squelch another person's speech by ganging up on those they disagree with. A mob. If you have ever been stung by a yellow jacket because you got too close to the nest, you know what I mean - every other bee in the nest begins to home in on the hormone from the sting, and they swarm you. Well, that's how atheists and far-left liberals are.

After my comment, I received Tweets calling me stupid for not believing in evolution, even though I never even said anything about it. I simply said 99% of Christians do not believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. Suddenly, and even though that ALLOWS for evolution, the atheists were swarming me with insults about how I know nothing about evolution.

And it did absolutely no good whatever to explain that evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive, and that I certainly do believe in evolution among living things that exist. But I pointed out the common sense that in order for something to evolve, it must first exist, and that ultimately requires being created. Inanimate non-living things cannot evolve. Rocks cannot evolve, yet they exist. If their existence is not due to evolution, where DID they come from?

They then fire back with how everything was created from nothing. Mind you, these mental midgets are telling me that "scientific theory" is everything, yet they are quick to ignore the First Law of Physics (a science) - matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So their theory that everything just magically appeared goes against both physics & common sense. Not to mention that their theory is even crazier than one that claims everything is created by some Greater Power.

They say I am ignorant for believing SOMETHING created the building blocks of the universe, but they think it is perfectly sane to believe NOTHING created it.

These intellectual morons will never get it. They are incapable of understanding that while evolution explains a lot about how we got from early Man to Modern Man, it does nothing to prove that there was no creation. It only shows that, once created, we begin to adapt and evolve. And if that evolution is too slow, there is nothing to say Divine Intelligence could not interject an upgraded model like Adam. After all, if Genesis is correct, and Eve was made from Adam's rib, that sure sounds like cloning to me. It reminds me of the guy from New York who went to St Louis and stopped there, then states there is no Los Angeles because he has never seen it. For some reason their little brains cannot seem to comprehend that, though rocks cannot evolve, and therefore do not fit in with evolution, they still exist nonetheless.

They say I believe in a "Magic Guy In The Sky". Yet they believe in the magic of something being created from nothing. They try to tell me I am stupid because I point out that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed", that I believe God created himself, even though I never said that, either. But here is the point they are not smart enough to understand - intelligence has no physical properties - it does not exist as "matter". And the ultimate intelligence (Divine Intelligence) is powerful enough to create a physical universe in which to exist, much as we create a house, or city, to exist in.

The short take: Creation does not depend on evolution, but evolution does depend on creation. You were created. Now you are evolving. Simple, to anyone capable of thought. But atheists and evolutionists just cannot see it. And they simply refuse to respect that others may not share their myopic view of things.

Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive - there is plenty of evidence to suggest both are true - that a Divine Intelligence created, and then evolution took over. Because Man CAN evolve to a better Man (just 300 years ago the average man was 5'6" - today it is 5'9"), but it is not likely that he developed or evolved from any other creature.

They like to think they are intellectually superior, despite their not-so-impressive I.Q.'s. But they are actually inferior, as they do not couple their "intellect" with common sense.

/

Clashing Realities - How To End Racism in America

With all the talk of racism today, and all the anger, distrust and violence associated with it, it behooves us as a nation to find a way to put racism behind us. But how?

Before getting into how we can fix this, we need to determine the root cause - the REAL reason why one race feels as though they are being persecuted. Many have touched on various possible causes, but few have ever come close to getting to the bottom of it. To do that, we must face certain realities that we, ourselves may not be familiar with. Each race exists in a reality different from any other race. So I am going to ask you to put aside your biases for just a few minutes, and put yourself into one of the following scenarios.

 If you are white, put yourself in this situation:

You are born out of wedlock, and into poverty. Your father, if you even know who he is, no longer is a participant in your life - he's out of the picture. Lord only knows what your mother must do to try and support you - maybe she works 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs and has no time to raise you. Or maybe it's worse than that, with prostitution and drugs. To make matters worse, you are placed into a school that is sub-standard, and which will never prepare you for anything other than life on the streets. You learn more from members of the local gangs than you do in school.

You can see what is happening to your mother. Add everything up, and the anger builds. Anger at an unfair society that takes a baby that was born equal and turns him or her into something seen as inferior, facing hopelessness and a lack of respect for others, and even for life itself.

You see your life as hopeless, and not worth the litter in the alleys you gravitate to. And if your life has no value, then NO life has value, and it would not bother you to take the life of someone who gets in your way.

And as you fall into a life of crime, drugs, prostitution and self-loathing, you act in ways that cause other races to fear you. And when they fear you, they treat you with distrust, disrespect and loathing. And that just proves to you that you are righteous in your own hatred of them. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On the other hand, if you are a minority, put yourself into this situation. You are now white for a few moments. You see what is happening in the streets. You see people who do not speak clear English, wear their pants down around their knees, hide their faces with hoodies, and engaging in the behavior mentioned above. And every day the news is filled with stories of blacks killing blacks  - thousands a year in Chicago, alone. You become incredibly leary when you encounter someone of that race, even if that person is a good person, because you do not KNOW him. The reality of life as a black man, coupled with what you see, and hear in the news has created preconceived notions as to what you might expect if you interact with them. And when fear clashes with anger, you get violence.

OK, there we have the two scenarios - in one case, there is distrust and hatred born of hopelessness. And in the other case, distrust and hatred is born of fear and what you see when faced with such a person. He hates you, and you hate him. Not because of anything you or he may have actually done, but only because of different realities clashing.

Fixing this will not be easy, nor will it happen quickly. But it CAN be fixed before another generation arrives and grows up.

First, we need leaders who will address the breakup of the family unit, and help families stay together. If, for example, a woman can collect more welfare if the father is not in the home, then there will be no man in the home. We need to change the narrative that will increase the odds of a father accepting responsibility for his children. And for those families who still do not include a father figure, we must provide one, in the form of "big brothers and sisters" and mentors.

We must make it easier for a single mother to support and care for her children - with those mentors and with free, quality day care and more support.

And we need to get certain representatives and senators to stop blocking "school choice". Every child, regardless of circumstance or neighborhood should be afforded the best K-12 education possible. A good education will do more to end the hopelessness and self-loathing that now exists in many minority communities. Dump the unions that want to keep the status quo - they are concerned only with their members - the teachers - at the expense of the children.

And our police should receive additional training to help them come to grips with possible outcomes when realities clash. Without letting their guard down, they need to be more empathetic with those whose reality is harsh.

And our leaders must never, ever "pander" to minorities. This just perpetuates the distrust and disrespect by inferring that they ARE being persecuted. If any candidate for any office resorts to pandering, do not vote for them. They should not get a single vote.

And every candidate for office should ascribe to the suggestions above, and work tirelessly to make them happen.

As for race-baiters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the not-so-Reverend Wright, we can deal with them by not empowering them or suppporting them. If anyone wants to use race to divide us, they should be ignored.

And on the other side, black leaders, families and clergy need to work tirelessly to bring an end to the black-on-black crime in their communities, and instill in their children a deeper respect for others.

And within a generation we could all but wipe out most of the root causes of racism. If minorities have hope, a family, a good education and support structure that surpasses that of gangs and drugs, and if the rest of us work tirelessly to help make that happen, America will again be the "Shining Beacon" for this troubled world.



If you find any value in this post, please pass it on, because it will take a lot of us to make it happen.

/

The Dallas Debacle - How To Stop The Carnage

In the wake of the horrible tragedy in Dallas the other day, where 12 police officers were shot, America seems to be confused as to how we can stop this kind of carnage. What confuses me is why so many people are confused as to what can be done to stop it, when the shooter, himself, told us where the blame lies, and how to fix it.

To hear many (particularly on the left, but to a lesser extent on the right) the blames lies in gun ownership, because the victims were shot, or in cases like the cop who shoots an unarmed black person, the blame lies with "rampant racism". In other instances, they claim the fault lies in income inequality, or with the wealthy.

Neither guns nor racism nor wealth are to blame. Those are nothing more than "staw men" designed to get us to NOT focus on the real issue.  All of these tragedies are caused by hatred, distrust, disrespect and disdain for certain groups of people. And while that, in some cases, is racism (on both sides), that is still not the cause. If we want to put a stop to such tragedies, we need to address the issue that CAUSES that hatred and disdain - the rhetoric on the left that stokes the flames, and douses an ember with gasoline, often for their own personal gain in the form of power. It is, quite simply, the essence of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and Saul Alinkski's "Rules for Radicals". Stir the pot. Divide people. Get them angry and hateful and fighting each other so you can go in and pick up all the marbles.

When a politician, for example, uses a tragedy like Dallas or Ferguson to push their political agenda, they are fanning the flames - they are pumping the gas when they, as leaders, should be pumping the brakes. When that politician panders to a specific group, whether it be blacks, hispanics or the poor, that politician is intentionally creating a rift, a division, among Americans. They are using an "Us versus Them" strategy to divide and conquer. And in doing so, for the express purpose of getting those groups to vote for them, they are laying the groundwork for a "Dallas Debacle".

When you hear a politician, or someone in the media (who does this to get ratings - a different type of vote) blaming guns, or cops, or the wealthy, or anything other than the rhetoric that divides us, then you are hearing the very people who are to blame.

Putting a stop to these tragedies is as simple as putting a stop to the rhetoric that divides. And we do that at the voting booth - simply do not vote for anyone who panders for votes, or engages in rhetoric that divides instead of unites. If we keep them out of office, we take away their power to inflame. And if we stop patronizing media outlets that use that rhetoric to increase sales or ratings, then they, too, lose their power to divide us.

And if any of this makes  sense to you, you can do your part by passing this on.

"United we stand. Divided, we fall." We, and only we can decide which it will be.

/

Matt Damon Again Shows His Ignorance

OK, so this is getting absurd - Matt Damon (not unlike many Hollywood airheads) insists on proving to the world how ignorant he is. Last month he tried, unsuccessfully, to play an economist, and got it so wrong because he never bothered to do even basic research. And now he says all guns in America should be confiscated. Really?

Every single study, and all of the statistics prove a few points that Damon and his ilk are apparently unaware of (or CHOOSE to ignore). First, bad guys do not, and will not abide by laws. Anyone willing to murder fellow human beings will not be deterred by a law that says he cannot have a gun. The bad guys will ALWAYS have guns. Look at Chicago, a city with the toughest gun laws, yet every street punk and gang member has one, and the murder rate is the highest in the nation.

Next, in EVERY case where a bad guy with a gun started killing people, he or she was only stopped by a good guy with a gun. None has ever been stopped with rhetoric - or gun laws!

Follow that with the simple fact (and common sense) that criminals (predators) seek out easy marks (unarmed prey) and avoid confronting those who may be armed. This is shown most impressively by the fact that every - EVERY - mass shooter (either a deranged person or terrorist) has chosen to do his killing in a gun-free zone such as a mall, theater, school and the like. Imagine if the entire country was a gun-free zone!

So, let us for the moment look at America as a nation where guns are made illegal, and all honest citizens turn in their guns. Since criminals will not turn in theirs, we would have a nation where the criminals and killers will be unfettered. And even if, by some major miracle, we could confiscate all the guns from criminals, that still would not end the violence - any 10 year old can build a gun. I was only 8 when I made my first "zip gun". It's not rocket science. So criminals would STILL get guns.

And even if we could erase the technology for building guns, those intent on killing will use other methods. Remember the Boston Bombers who used pressure cookers? McVey who made a bomb from fertilizer? The maniac who used a sword? Those who use knives? Biological or chemical agents (the guy who poisoned bottles of Excedrin)? Or how about jet-liners (or box cutters), like the ones that murdered 3000 citizens on 9-11?

To the Hollywood elite like Matt Damon I would make a simple suggestion - stick to playing a smart person on TV and don't insert yourself into subjects you do not comprehend. Just because you can play a doctor on TV does not make you a doctor.

/

Political Correctness & the Left - Why They Love It

The vast majority of people who believe in and practice Political Correctnes are liberals. Have you ever wondered why? It's simple, really.

If there is one thing that gives liberals heartburn and prevents them from having their way of ruling over us, rather than being ruled by us, it is the Constitution. It is liberals who try to squelch free speech, freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. These, and other rights in the Constitution make it difficult for liberals to force their agenda on America.

So they invent something called Political Correctness back in the '70's. This seemingly harmless method of imposing "niceness" gained ground simply because it was promoted as being the "civilized" way to express oneself. In reality, it was an end-run around the Constitution, by castrating the First Amendment. When outcries from liberals saying "Hey, guys", or using terms like "queer", or having Indian names for sports teams is no longer permissible, they are blatantly taking away our right of free speech and expression. To a liberal, those rights only apply to them. THEY can speak at college campuses and spout their diatribe, but conservatives cannot. Conservative speech is shouted down, or eggs and pies thrown at them. What's more, "pacifist" liberals believe violence is okay as long as it promotes their agenda and shuts down opposing views. That is Fascism.

I'll get this out of the way - I do not favor Donald Trump as a presidential candidate - I would have preferred a true conservative. But he is absoluterly, 110% correct when he says Political Correctness is the bain of a free and civilized society. If only one side can present their views, then neither freedom nor civilization exists.

Liberals like Soros, Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Reed and most of Hollywood and all liberal "professors" know they cannot destroy the Constitution, But they CAN make it irrelevant with the help of Political Correctness.

/

How and Why Joe Biden Can Become the Democrat Nominee

Let's start with the obvious - Bernie Sanders, Lord love him, will never be president, no matter what. While the democrat party is moving toward socialism, they are not yet ready to put forth a socialist right now, because they know America would never elect a socialist.

This brings us to Hillary. But there is a better than even chance Hillary will be indicted, or at least a recommendation for indictment, and if that happens, the DNC will be scrambling to find a replacement, because America is not ready to elect a criminal, either.

If Hillary is indicted, her Super Delegates will melt away faster than an ice cream cone in a microwave oven. She would no longer have a majority, which creates a contested convention. In such a scenario, those Super Delegates, all of whom are Senators and other party leaders would vote for someone that a) suits their agenda and b) is liked well enough to have a shot at getting elected. They will, after a few votes, settle on "Uncle Joe" Biden.

Of course, Bernie and his supporters would be rioting in the streets, which would only hurt the crippled Democrat Party further, reducing even Biden's chance of winning.

If Hillary is indicted, it would take a miracle for the democrat nominee, which is likely to be Biden, to win in November.

But who knows? America elected Obama twice, despite the damage he has done to the economy, our foreign relations and our military.

What Matt Damon is not Smart Enough to Understand

At the MIT Commencement, Matt Damon, actor (not economist) stated that it was the banks and Wall Street that caused the economic collapse, further stating they committed theft and fraud.

I'll get to the specifics that show Mr Damon's ignorance shortly, but for now I will state unequivically (and will prove) that it was not the banks and Wall Street (though they may, indeed, be corrupt). The only theft and fraud was when the government, ruled by a Democrat majority, bailed them out, and when Obama stole the money from GM stockholders and gave it to his donor buddies in the unions. THAT was the theft and fraud. The banks and Wall Street were mere beneficiaries of Democrats giving away taxpayer money to their cronies and donors.

So, just exactly what DID cause the crash? Would you beleive it was 60 years of Democrat bills? And Mr Obama, himself? Did you know it was Obama, as a lawyer in the 80's, who sued to force banks to issue bad mortgages to people who could not afford them? And that forced banks, in order to protect their depositors, to reduce the risks by "bundling" those sub-prime mortgages, creating the derivatives that brought down Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac?

All economic experts and studies agree on a couple of points - the meltdown was triggered (not caused by) the selling of "derivatives" and the foolishness and mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which in turn caused the housing industry to fold up like a cheap suit. This resulted in foreclosures, bankruptcies and further resulted in products not being purchased, as people are not furnishing or remodeling homes, or they simply do not have the money, as their recent home equity loans put them under water. Like the ripples when you toss a stone into a pond, the devastation spread outward, touching even the furthest shore.

So, why did this happen? The answer is complex, but I will attempt to simplify it a bit.

The infamous derivatives, the main trigger, are nothing more than a bunch of risky mortgages bundled together, then shares of that bundle are sold off to investors - because of the risk, most were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So the question now is, "Why were there so many risky mortgages? It sounds like the banks are responsible, just as the Democrats say. Those nasty banks made bad loans, which were bundled by that greedy Wall Street  bunch, and sold off to the mismanaged Fannie & Freddie. Right?"

Not quite. It LOOKS that way, and that is what Democrats want you to believe - they need to have voters hate all the appropriate "straw men". And, since the trigger was pulled while Bush was in office, they claim it is therefore "Bush's fault."

But things are rarely as they appear. Let's dig a bit deeper.

Barney Frank (D) and Chris Dodd (D) were the guys who were supposed to be overseeing Fannie Mae. When George Bush and John McCain saw problems arising in 2003-04, they attempted to push through a bill that would regulate them better. Frank & Dodd killed the bill, convincing Congress that "Fannie Mae is fine - there are no problems."

So, in the final stages, it was Democrats who not only fell asleep at the wheel, but convinced Congress not to take action. Now we go deeper.

Why were derivatives even necessary? Why were those risky mortgages being created? And this is where it begins to get meaty. It actually starts back in the '70's, under Jimmy Carter (D). Democrats believed that every American - even the poor - should be able to own their own home. But banks did not want to make such risky loans in areas known as "redline districts" - areas that were in decline and/or populated by the poor. In other words, since banks are in the business of making money, not losing it, they were reluctant to loan money to people who could not repay.

In come the Democrats, led by "community organizing" groups like ACORN. Together they pass a law in Congress known as CRA - the Community Reinvestment Act. This bill REQUIRED banks to make the risky loans. Banks were no longer permitted to use "redlining" to refuse mortgage applications. This was the beginning for what would later force the creation of derivatives.

Banks could still refuse mortgages to those who could not qualify based on income and credit history, however, so the problem at this point was relatively minor. But then along comes ACORN again. ACORN sued the banks through their attorney, community organizer Barack Obama (D)*. The lawsuit forced stronger changes to the CRA. Under Bill Clinton (D), the Bliley bill was passed which strengthened the CRA of the '70's and literally forced banks to make even riskier loans. And the bubble of risky notes grows out of control.

Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”

Now, as I said, banks have to make, not lose, money. Otherwise they would not survive. So it became necessary for them to "spread the risk" by bundling the risky notes - if a few defaulted, the rest would cover the losses. This bundling was the creation of derivatives. Banks were forced into this by the CRA and the Bliley bill, both signed into law by Democrats.

So now we have Fannie Mae under Frank (D) and Dodd (D) buying up risky notes that the Bliley Bill and CRA required banks to make, under Carter (D) and Clinton (D), and forced by Obama (D).

As you can see, Bush had nothing to do with all this - in fact, this mess is what HE "inherited" from Clinton. But it actually goes back further.

In the 1930's, FDR (D) created Fannie Mae. And in the '60's, Lyndon Johnson (D) privatized Fannie Mae, giving it the ability to grow out of control, nearly unrestricted.

Everyone involved in the creation of the meltdown was a liberal Democrat - FDR, Johnson, ACORN, Carter, Obama, Clinton, Frank, Dodd.

One more thing to consider - the meltdown began in July 2007. Democrats controlled Congress since January 2007. Since it is Congress that makes law, they bear some responsibility.

I have been posting this true history for almost 5 years. Still, liberals like Damon, Whoopie, Sarandon, Sanders, Clinton & Obama are still blaming Bush, banks and Wall Street, and Republicans are just too stupid to dispute them by using these facts taken from government agencies and the Congressional Record.

If more people were less ignorant and more willing to at least check out the facts, Democrats would not get a single vote come November. It they and their cronies who are responsible for bringing America to its knees.

*
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance

Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011

State/Territory Illinois

Obama's $12 Billion "Hidden" Tax On Us

President Obama just passed an executive order requiring businesses to push up the salary cap for overtime to over $45,000. In other words, salaried employees earning more than $27,000 and less than $45,000 per year (about 4.2 million) will be able to collect overtime pay in addition to their salary. Sounds reasonable, eh?

Not so much. This move will cost businesses $12 BILLION per year. And since businesses (unlike the government) cannot print money, they must increase the cost of their products and services. This means that all consumers, rich or poor, you and I, will be paying that $12 billion. This amounts to a back-door tax on all of us - even the poor.

So, assuming Mr Obama is not a complete idiot, why would he hit us with such a tax just before a critical election?

Remember that 4.2 million people who will GET that $12 billion? They are VOTERS. And many will remember this boon come election day, while the rest of us who are getting soaked will not, simply because most people do not realize that the $12 billion is coming from their pockets.

Ever the corrupt, partisan liberal politician, Obama has struck another blow against democracy by buying another 4 million votes to keep the corrupt politicians in power, and sending us the bill!

The New American Slavery

Yes, I know - Lincoln (a Republican, by the way) freed the slaves 150 years ago. But slavery exists once again in America, though it is in a different form.

One hundred years after Abe set forth the Emancipation Proclamation that effectively made all slavery in America unlawful, a Republican congress enacted the Civil Rights act, despite Democrats who opposed and even filibustered against it. Then President Lyndon Baines Johnson, a democrat, put forth the so-called "war on poverty" with the emphasais on public welfare programs - giving hand-outs instead of a hand up. On the surface, it sounds pretty good - level the playing field by giving free benefits to the poor, which are primarily black Americans. But that was not the true intent, nor the actual result.

Before proceeding, please note that I speak from experience here. In 1989 I became homeless after a rough divorce. Destitute, with no assets from which to get a new start, I ended up living from homeless shelter to homeless shelter, eating in soup kitchens and getting food stamps. A proud, independent person, that really tortured my very soul at first, but out of necessity I grew accustomed to living off the good graces of others. I became addicted to a life that was a life devoid of any real worth, but also devoid of any responsibility. Life was difficult, yet incredibly simple. Until one day when I looked in a mirror and asked myself, "Billy boy, what the HELL are you DOING? You only get one life, and when it's gone, there's no do-overs. Get your ass in gear and take back your life!" I did. As a real estate investor I now earn enough to pay $89,000 in income taxes each year! So I firmly believe in getting off the dole and doing for oneself. And that is the back story.

When the government starts providing for people, the people become dependent, and therefore, vulnerable. The government can then control the people by giving or taking benefits. Welfare is like a drug, but even more addictive as it becomes a matter of survival. We now have 4th and 5th generation welfare families who know no other way to survive. They have been successfully stripped of any sense of independence and self-reliance which are necessary for success in a world where everyone must compete or fail. Along with the loss of independence goes any sense of personal responsibility - oh, how much easier it is to just not worry about survival when the government pays all your bills. Take a nap in the park, then go to the soup kitchen, then sack out in the shelter.

Now think about this - slaves had no personal responsibility, and certainly no chance for independence. They lived by the good graces of their masters. They did as they were told, simply because they would not be fed, clothed or housed otherwise (not to mention beaten). That is slavery. And now I ask you, how is that any different from a black American who has been stripped of responsibility and independence, and does as the government tells him or he will lose his food stamps, section 8 housing and other welfare benefits?

Thanks to the democrats' "war on poverty" and insistence that welfare be expanded rather than actually helping the poor to rise up to a better life, the poor - again, primarily black Americans - are once again slaves. The only difference is who the master is - the government.

Statistics over the last 50 years prove beyond any doubt that welfare harms more than it helps. Everyone knows this. So why would any political party intentionally continue with ever increasing entitlements? In a word, CONTROL. If they can control your access to food, clothing, housing, health care etc., they control you. But it goes further than that - they also control how those people vote, simply by telling them that if they vote for anyone but Democrats, they will lose their precious entitlements. Threats of losing the only way of life they know is frightening. And this is how Democrats retain power - and keep their slaves.

And it is 100% intentional.

If black Americans want to end slavery once and for all; if they want to beat down the racism that keeps them under someone's thumb; if they want to ever have the so-called "priviledge" that whites supposedly have - then they need to get smart and realise that the Democrats are actually harming them, not helping.

When Republicans passed welfare reform in the 90's, for the first time in 40 years records show the black community began to prosper. But that was short-lived as Democrats soon took over congress and have since undone welfare reform and the prosperity that it brought.

If you are white, understand that your "white priviledge" is provided by the democrats, as they use their power to keep black Americans in poverty. If you are black, understand that to democrat politicians, your "black lives don't matter" beyond your ability and willingness to keep Democrats in office. They promise much, but deliver nothing.

You know it's true. You know the black community has never gained any ground under democrats. They still do not get school choice. They still do not have decent jobs. They still do not get respect.

White or black, think about that when you go to the polls.

As with most conservative  Republicans, here is what I would like to see done:

1) Offer school choice, particularly to the disadvantaged and less fortunate, that they may get an education that will serve them well

2) Instead of permanent handouts that debilitate, give them a hand up, with education, training, mentoring and temporary welfare to keep them afloat until they can manage on their own. Instead of giving them a fish that feeds them for a day, teach them how to fish, so they can feed themselves for a lifetime.

3) Remove regulations that prevent the growth of businesses, that there would be jobs available

4) Make it unacceptable, as it once was, for any individual or group to foster racism via race-baiting, or to use race as a weapon against those with whom one disagrees

These simple things would go a long way toward reducing poverty and providing a level playing field for all. Unfortunately, democrat politicians have continuously opposed all of them.

/

Putting Putin in His Place - Hard

If I were President I would order the military to shoot down any non-ally aircraft that violates the Rules of Engagement. I would then get Putin on the "hotline" and say, "The United States of America will no longer tolerate your belligerence or provocative activities. Take note that ANY Russian military vehicle that comes too close to America ships, planes or personnel, or those of our allies, that Russian vehicle will be destroyed immediately and without warning.

"We have not ignored you out of fear. We have ignored you up until now because you, Mr Putin, and not necessarily your nation, are of little consequence. You are akin to an ankle-biting dog.

"If you continue to try and get under our skin, it is an itch we will scratch, and scratch HARD! There will be no further warning nor discussion - keep clear of American assets, or pay the penalty for your indiscretions.You decide how many more planes you want to lose."


"Have a nice day, Vlad."

How To Get Mexico To Pay For The Wall

Donald Trump likes to tell anyone who will listen that he will "build a great, beautiful wall", and "make Mexico pay for it." Today, he outlined how he would get Mexico to pay up - by withholding wire transfers from illegals to their families in Mexico.

Sounds good on the surface, but like many ideas from the Donald, not practical. Imagine the cost, trying to track and halt millions of transfers each month. Nope. Bad idea. But there IS a simple way.

The United States gives Mexico $757.7 MILLION in foreign aid. Simply tell Mexico that we will withhold all foreign aid until they pony up for the wall. Simply explain that it is Mexico's unwillingness to stem the tide of illegals (because they want the extra billion a year in wire transfers), so the cost of the preventive measures should be borne by Mexico.

This would cost us nothing to implement, and would not require hiring tens of thousands of government employees to track and withhold wire transfers.

Mexico NEEDS the foreign aid, desperately, because their government is corrupt, keeping their population in poverty. They will find a way to pay for the wall, or we will pay for it from the foreign aid we withhold.

Simple. Cheap. Gets it done.

As a side note, I think both countries should equally share the cost.

/

Will the GOP Destroy More Than The Party?

Mark my words - if the GOP tries for a contested convention, and nominates anyone who does not have the most delegates, the GOP will effectively, and with that single stroke, accomplish what liberals have been trying to do for a hundred years - destroy America. And this is not an idle statement.

If the GOP nominates someone other than the winner of the primaries, millions of Republicans will, out of disgust and anger, stay home in November. Their votes will already have been disregarded, so why bother? And that would easily hand the White House over to Hillary Clinton. But that is not the worst part...

During her tenure as POTUS, she will be able to nominate between one and three justices to the Supreme Court, and while all would be liberal, her first nominee would be the most liberal - and dangerous - ideologue of all: Barak Obama.

Out goes the right to bear arms. Out goes religious liberty. Out goes any constraints on the power and growth of the government. In other words, out goes the American way of life, liberty and independence.

Mark my words...

Believe it or Not, the Zombie Apocalyse is Here

Liberals - and especially Bernie Sanders - are trying to sell socialism to the American people, and most particularly to our youth - those who know nothing about the consequences of socialism. Ask anyone who has ever lived under socialism and they will tell you it is the pits.

In a capitalist society, there are winners and losers. Some will grow very rich by creating Apple, or Microsoft. And others will end up in poverty, with the majority somewhere in between. This is simply because there is no meaningful innovation (like Apple) if there is no reason to create it - if the creator is not going to get rich, there is no point in investing your life and resources into the gamble. Because all innovation is a gamble - maybe it will sell (Apple), and maybe it won't (choose any bankrupt business attempt). Income inequality is normal and necessary in a capitalist society, because innovation creates both winners and losers.

In a socialist society, no one is a winner. Everyone make the same money, has the same everything. No trophies for any superior effort. No wealth for those who work harder and smarter. The incentive to try harder, or invent something is missing. If you cannot win, even if you come in first, what is the point in running the race? Ergo, under socialism, if there are no winners, that makes everyone a loser. Mediocrity for all. And without innovation, that mediocrity will grow weaker and weaker until society crumbles, because no one is pushing society forward with innovation. Want an example? Look at North Korea, or the now defunct USSR. Look at a night shot from space of North and South Korea - the south is all lit up. The north is dark - only the elitists in PyongYang have electricity.

Our youth, for the most part, do not understand that, because the liberal school system, liberal college professors and liberal media do not teach these things. They only teach one side - "income inequality", for example. They prey on the ignorance they have created in our children in order to push their liberal agenda. As Saul Alinski stated in "Rules for Radicals", these people are nothing more than "useful pawns" that help the powerful to achieve greater power.

By allowing our educational system and the media to be hijacked by far-left liberals, we have created the monster that can - and likely will - destroy America. They are intentionally breeding mindless zombies who will help the elitists push forth their evil - yes, EVIL - agenda. Make no mistake - the "Zombie Apocalypse" is upon us

/.

The Dirty Little Secret Behind "Free" Tuition

There is a dirty little secret about "free college tuition" that liberals like Hillary and socialists like Bernie are hiding.

Here is the scenario:

John  Doe wants a college education so he can get a good job making big money. He wants free tuition, naturally, so he votes for someone like Hillary or Bernie. What he does not understand is that nothing can truly be "free" - someone, somewhere is going to pay, by way of ever increasing taxes, and it will be the people who have money who will pay - the kind of people John Doe is going to college to become.

John succeeds, and becomes a CEO making good money. But it does him no good, because the policies that gave him a free education are the same policies that will now take his money from him, in high taxes, so liberals like Hillary can give free college, free health care and free whatever to the NEXT young person.

People need to understand - there is no such thing as a free lunch. You are going to pay, one way or another, sooner or later, for everything you get.

But the worst part is this - there is only just so much room at the top. Over 90% of those who get a college education will never end up at the top. They get their "free education" only to end up none the better off for it. With free college, even MORE people will go, and even more college grads will end up flipping burgers. Because there is just so much room at the top.

If you do get free tuition, you will eventually become the one that liberals steal from in order to "pay it forward" to the next guy. You WILL pay, many times over.

Of course, none of the liberals will tell you this - they just offer "free" stuff in order to extort votes from people under false pretenses.

The NH Primary is NOT the NH Primary

With the New Hampshire primary less than a week away, it's importance is the latest entree for the news media. But what the media overlooks (because they are ignorant of it) is that the New Hampshire primary is NOT the New Hampshire primary - it is the Massachusetts primary, held early.

I was raised in New Hampshire and spent over 50 years in that beautiful, rugged state. And up until recently (the last 25 years), New Hampshire was populated by rugged, individualist Yankee conservatives. But as happens with all good things, people who covet what you have will come and take it from you.

The people of Massachusetts - particularly Lowell, Lawrence and Methuen - who had already ruined their own state with their liberal policies and politics, saw and envied the freedoms and lifestyle of New Hampshire. They wanted that for themselves, as they grew sick of the results of their own liberalism. So, they began emigrating into the cities of southern New Hampshire - first Nashua, then on to Manchester.

That, in and of itself, is not bad, but for the fact they brought with them those same liberal values that they were running from. Flooding the New Hampshire cities and becoming the vocal majority  (conservatives tend to actually BE conservative and are seldom vocal), these liberal emigrants soon elected liberal politicians, resulting in the same policies that caused the rot in Massachusetts.

And because liberals tend to be pushier, louder and more prone to bullying than conservatives, it did not take long to turn "red" New Hampshire into a "blue" mini-Massachusetts.

This same scenario occurred in Vermont. A peaceful, quiet farming state, where cows outnumbered people until the 1960's, the liberals of New York saw it as a better place for raising children, and living peacefully. Many emigrated to the cities of Vermont, wresting control from the quiet conservatives. And now, Vermont has become so liberal that they elect socialists like Bernie Sanders into office.

When I first visited Jackson Hole, Wyoming, it was little more than an intersection in a beautiful landscape, in the foothills of the Rockies. It was TOO beautiful, because as others discovered it, many moved there to partake of its beauty every day. In fact, so many moved there that it has become a roiling, busy city. The backdrop of the Rockies is still there, but the simple, quiet beauty of Jackson Hole is long gone.

People ruin what they treasure most. It's a lot like the old saying, "You always hurt the one you love".

So, for the sakes of those quiet, rugged individualists who have managed to survive the liberal onslaught from Massachusetts, I want you to know I empathize with you, recognize you, and sorely wish we could return New Hampshire to its roots and the values that made it so attractive in the first place. Perhaps conservatives should make a stab at being more vocal, pushier, and not quietly sit back and let others take what we treasure.

/