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."
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
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.
/
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.
/
Monday, March 21, 2016
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...
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...
Sunday, March 13, 2016
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
/.
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
/.
Saturday, March 12, 2016
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
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.
/
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.
/
Saturday, January 16, 2016
The Great Auto Insurance Rip-Off
Maybe you have not noticed, because it is so "standard", and accepted as the norm. But auto insurance is a huge rip-off.
I'm not referring to the fact that, should you file a claim, they raise your rates and get their money back (which means you are not really insured at all). No, I am referring to the theft that insurers participate in when you have more than one vehicle.
You see, they charge you for each vehicle. Sounds reasonable on the surface, but think about it - insurance premiums are for the purpose of covering the insurers risk. Now, if you drive 10,000 miles a year, are 30 years old and have a clean record, that determines "risk" level. Now, if you get a second car, you must pay a second premium - for the same 10,000 miles, because you are still driving 10,000 miles a year, no matter how many vehicles you own. And if you get a third car, you must pay a third premium for that same 10,000 miles.
The risk to the insurer has not increased at all, but they charge you additional premiums none the less.
If insurance companies were honest instead of corrupt, they would insure the DRIVER, based on the driver's level of risk (miles driven, driving record, age etc), and that coverage would cover any vehicle he drives, since changing vehicles does not increase risk to the insurer.
Sure, you can say that each vehicle has a different value, and there is more risk for a Mercedes than a Chevy. But that is easily handled by insuring the driver for his most valuable vehicle.
Of course, you might argue that the driver could stick to owning only one vehicle, but that is not realistic for many drivers. Take myself, for example - I own a car for daily transportation. But I sometimes have to haul materials and supplies, so I also have a truck. And since car shows are a favorite past-time, I also own an antique 1980 Porsche, driven only to shows. And, being an avid biker for over a half century, I have a Harley.
That said, I tend to only drive about 12,000 miles per year. And that mileage does not change, or increase, because of owning additional vehicles, so the risk level for the insurer does not increase. Yet, they certainly increase my premiums! Each vehicle must be insured separately. It's a huge con perpetrated by insurance companies and sponsored by the state legislatures.
Maybe it's time for us to rebel - to notify our legislators that we will no longer allow insurers to rip us off, and tell our state representatives and senators that they should require insurers to insure the driver, not the vehicle. And insurers should be prohibited from padding the premiums to make up for any losses, since they are only losing the money they have been stealing, anyway.
I'm not referring to the fact that, should you file a claim, they raise your rates and get their money back (which means you are not really insured at all). No, I am referring to the theft that insurers participate in when you have more than one vehicle.
You see, they charge you for each vehicle. Sounds reasonable on the surface, but think about it - insurance premiums are for the purpose of covering the insurers risk. Now, if you drive 10,000 miles a year, are 30 years old and have a clean record, that determines "risk" level. Now, if you get a second car, you must pay a second premium - for the same 10,000 miles, because you are still driving 10,000 miles a year, no matter how many vehicles you own. And if you get a third car, you must pay a third premium for that same 10,000 miles.
The risk to the insurer has not increased at all, but they charge you additional premiums none the less.
If insurance companies were honest instead of corrupt, they would insure the DRIVER, based on the driver's level of risk (miles driven, driving record, age etc), and that coverage would cover any vehicle he drives, since changing vehicles does not increase risk to the insurer.
Sure, you can say that each vehicle has a different value, and there is more risk for a Mercedes than a Chevy. But that is easily handled by insuring the driver for his most valuable vehicle.
Of course, you might argue that the driver could stick to owning only one vehicle, but that is not realistic for many drivers. Take myself, for example - I own a car for daily transportation. But I sometimes have to haul materials and supplies, so I also have a truck. And since car shows are a favorite past-time, I also own an antique 1980 Porsche, driven only to shows. And, being an avid biker for over a half century, I have a Harley.
That said, I tend to only drive about 12,000 miles per year. And that mileage does not change, or increase, because of owning additional vehicles, so the risk level for the insurer does not increase. Yet, they certainly increase my premiums! Each vehicle must be insured separately. It's a huge con perpetrated by insurance companies and sponsored by the state legislatures.
Maybe it's time for us to rebel - to notify our legislators that we will no longer allow insurers to rip us off, and tell our state representatives and senators that they should require insurers to insure the driver, not the vehicle. And insurers should be prohibited from padding the premiums to make up for any losses, since they are only losing the money they have been stealing, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)