Today is the big game, that Super match-up that is considered to be the biggest Bowl game of the year. Pittsburgh is the favorite, and I told a friend when the playoffs began that the Steelers was the team that would be going all the way.
When asked today who I was pulling for, I quickly answered Pittsburgh because of my prediction.
But deep down is that really who I "want" to win?
I am an Oakland Raiders fan, and so typically the Steelers are not a team I tend to like (go back to 70's rivalry between Steelers and Raiders to understand this).
Also, I like Kurt Warner. He is the epitome of a good sport. He is a leader, and may have one more big game win up his sleeve. His devotion to God is commendable as well, and an inspiration to many.
So, though I believe that the Pittsburgh Steelers will win handidly, the Arizona Cardinals is my sentimental favorite. In other words, though I am expecting the Steelers to win, I won't be too upset if Arizona pulls it off.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Obama, The U.N., The World Situation, The Pelosi Economic Disaster Package, Conservative Values, Ledbetter Act, Obama's Lies. . .
I discussed each of those topics (and more) listed above last night on the Political Pistachio Radio Revolution.
But, for the first time since my show began two years ago, I was not on the air live.
My best friend (well, second best friend if you count my wife) threw a surprise party for his wife last night to celebrate her 40th birthday (or as some may say, she reached 20 - the second time). The get-together was held in the VIP room of a restaurant called "Castaway" on a high hill in San Bernardino - and from my vantage point as I was eating dinner it looked like I could see all of Southern California (okay, okay, perhaps that is a little bit of an exagerration). The scenery was great because the skies were clear, and the smog had been blown away by the high winds earlier this week.
Anyhow, the party began at 6:00 pm, and would go on until everyone was too tired to dance, or talk, or so on. Founding Truth (a show I co-host with Loki) runs from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. My show, Political Pistachio Radio, runs from 7:00 pm to 9:00 Saturday Nights (mind you, this is Pacific Time). What to do? The party was at the same time!
I wound up calling into Founding Truth on my cell phone on the way to the restaurant on the hill, and pre-recorded a full two hours of my show (Political Pistachio Radio) in the morning, and then set it to play last night automatically when the show began. (I activated the show by calling in to it with my cell phone, and then leaving the device in my truck as the show progressed - I hope the valet was quiet when he moved my truck to a different spot as the evening progressed).
The whole point of this is that after the show I spoke with Loki who I asked to run my chat room for me, and he said that it was kind of funny because a lot of people were calling in to the show (he saw a number of them pop up on the switchboard as the show progressed) hoping to talk with me on the subject matter I was addressing. So, tonight, the Sunday Evening Political Pistachio Radio Revolution will, along with a few topics for discussion, be all about the callers. Open Line Sunday, I guess we can call it. So, Conservatives and Liberals alike, let's talk politics tonight on Political Pistachio Radio. Show begins live at 7:00 pm Pacific, and the dial-in number is 646-652-2940.
See ya tonight!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Gateway Pundit Nails It With This One:
From Gateway Pundit. . .
It's a Recession... Congress Gives Lawmakers $93,000 More to Spend (Video)
Beautiful. At the same time that President Obama is wagging his finger at Wall Street for their year end bonuses and auto executives are being harassed for flying on private jets, the Democratic-led congress just gave each lawmaker an extra $93,000 in petty cash to spend.
They say they need it to help their constituents and to help the economy.
After all, it takes a lot of money to spend other people's money:
Video from Bulls and Bears.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Related... President Obama wants to spend a trillion dollars on welfare, condoms, international STD prevention, 600,000 new government jobs and handouts for illegal immigrants... But, has issued a demand to the Pentagon to reduce its budget by more than 10%. The dollar figure is $55 billion.
Pro-Obama Vandalism
This morning my wife and I departed on a trip down memory lane. I grew up in the Los Angeles area, and my father owned a fish and tackle shop, a restaurant, and two whale-watch boats at Berth 55 (a.k.a. Queens Wharf). I spent a lot of time at that fish and tackle shop playing the "Chicago" Pin Ball machine, eating a lot of fish and shrimp at the restaurant, and going out on ocean trips as tourists gathered around hoping for a brief glimpse of a whale surfacing near the boats. Sometimes, too, we went out on other boats to go deep sea fishing, more often than not with big names in the sports fishing world.
Now, after 35 years has passed, I decided it would be fun to go back to the old berth and see if the buildings remained intact.
The fish and tackle shop is now divided in half. Half is a smaller fishing shop, and the other half of the building is a fish market. The restaurant has a bar, and is an extension of the fish market where, if you order food at the market, after it is prepared you can take it over to the restaurant to eat it.
It is nothing like the highly efficient, popular night spot that the restaurant was when my father owned the place.
We drove around the piers, checked out Queen Mary Way, and finally made our way back up the freeway, and headed home. On the way home we stopped in the city of Corona, which is where as a kid my folks (mom and step-dad) moved to once they finally decided it was time to get away from the Los Angeles headaches, to pick up some sodas and other items in preparation for tomorrow's big football game. I usually have gatherings of local acquaintances for the big game, and tomorrow will not be much different.
After shopping, as we approached my truck, I immediately noticed that someone (and this isn't the first time) had vandalized the bumpersticker in my back window.
The bumper sticker says "NOBAMA" with the NO in red, the BAMA in white, and a very dark blue background.
Someone had taken a black marker to the bumper sticker and blacked out the N and the slash that crosses the center of the O. Now the sticker simply says OBAMA with a red O.
This vandalism of anything anti-Obama is a common occurrence among those that I have talked to, and I am not just talking about here in Southern California. This is something that is a problem across the nation. However, of my many liberal acquaintances, aside form Ballbuster (of which I don't believe what he says half the time anyway), this is not a common occurrence among those that have pro-Obama signs and stickers.
The same kind of vandalism was happening with anything in support of Proposition 8 (supporting fundamental marriage) I had as well. My "Yes on 8" signs were removed from my yard regularly, more often than not during the light of day. I was assaulted for having a "Yes on 8" sticker on my big rig (assaulted from a distance, anyway - the coward threw something at me and it hit me on the side of the head - called me a f***ing bigot as he drove by).
I am willing to bet the No on 8 crowd didn't have nearly as many instances of this kind of vandalism or attacks.
I am not saying that all people that agree with Conservatism are not capable of these idiotic kinds of actions - I am saying that these kinds of attacks and vandalism are more prevailent among liberals. But then again, what did I expect from a group that proclaims that moral standards are outdated, and that relativism and pluralism is the way to go?
As with what I have said in the past about extreme measures regarding sex appeal, this is a symptom of abandoned morals. I understand these people disagree with me, but does that give them a right to walk up to my personal property and vandalize it? I wouldn't do that to them. My principles and self-respect would never allow it.
And if these are the kind of people that support the president, it gives me large doubts about the stability of our society, and the moral standards (or lack thereof) people practice.
Now, after 35 years has passed, I decided it would be fun to go back to the old berth and see if the buildings remained intact.
The fish and tackle shop is now divided in half. Half is a smaller fishing shop, and the other half of the building is a fish market. The restaurant has a bar, and is an extension of the fish market where, if you order food at the market, after it is prepared you can take it over to the restaurant to eat it.
It is nothing like the highly efficient, popular night spot that the restaurant was when my father owned the place.
We drove around the piers, checked out Queen Mary Way, and finally made our way back up the freeway, and headed home. On the way home we stopped in the city of Corona, which is where as a kid my folks (mom and step-dad) moved to once they finally decided it was time to get away from the Los Angeles headaches, to pick up some sodas and other items in preparation for tomorrow's big football game. I usually have gatherings of local acquaintances for the big game, and tomorrow will not be much different.
After shopping, as we approached my truck, I immediately noticed that someone (and this isn't the first time) had vandalized the bumpersticker in my back window.
The bumper sticker says "NOBAMA" with the NO in red, the BAMA in white, and a very dark blue background.
Someone had taken a black marker to the bumper sticker and blacked out the N and the slash that crosses the center of the O. Now the sticker simply says OBAMA with a red O.
This vandalism of anything anti-Obama is a common occurrence among those that I have talked to, and I am not just talking about here in Southern California. This is something that is a problem across the nation. However, of my many liberal acquaintances, aside form Ballbuster (of which I don't believe what he says half the time anyway), this is not a common occurrence among those that have pro-Obama signs and stickers.
The same kind of vandalism was happening with anything in support of Proposition 8 (supporting fundamental marriage) I had as well. My "Yes on 8" signs were removed from my yard regularly, more often than not during the light of day. I was assaulted for having a "Yes on 8" sticker on my big rig (assaulted from a distance, anyway - the coward threw something at me and it hit me on the side of the head - called me a f***ing bigot as he drove by).
I am willing to bet the No on 8 crowd didn't have nearly as many instances of this kind of vandalism or attacks.
I am not saying that all people that agree with Conservatism are not capable of these idiotic kinds of actions - I am saying that these kinds of attacks and vandalism are more prevailent among liberals. But then again, what did I expect from a group that proclaims that moral standards are outdated, and that relativism and pluralism is the way to go?
As with what I have said in the past about extreme measures regarding sex appeal, this is a symptom of abandoned morals. I understand these people disagree with me, but does that give them a right to walk up to my personal property and vandalize it? I wouldn't do that to them. My principles and self-respect would never allow it.
And if these are the kind of people that support the president, it gives me large doubts about the stability of our society, and the moral standards (or lack thereof) people practice.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Ledbetter Fairpay Act and the Rules of the Game
The liberal mindset is a fascinating one. Through the e-mails I get, comments, and exposure to there idiocy in the media, the rules of the game of politics are that the left makes the rules, whether you like it or not.
Using their line of thinking, if you argue against environmentalists, then you must not care about the environment. If you are against entitlement programs because you believe that such programs create an environment of dependency on the government, then you must believe that all poor people are lazy. If you believe something may possibly have some validity, such as the Obama Birth Certificate controversy, then that means you are in full agreement with anything and everything anyone says supporting that particular theory. If you claim to be pro-life, then you must believe that any woman that has an abortion should be jailed - and if you think there is anytime at any point before a child is born that justifies terminating a pregnancy, that automatically makes you pro-choice. If you voted against Obama, you are racist. If you support Israel you support the death of children. If you support the war in Iraq you are a baby killer (and you are being called this by people that support abortion all the way up to full term - go figure).
The latest attack, and I received a lot on this one after last night's video of McClintock's argument on the floor of The House, is that if you are against the Fairpay Act (a.k.a. the Ledbetter Act), you are against women being paid equally for equal work.
Like the examples above, this kind of thinking is narrow and idiotic, and is really only an attempt of doing what Liberals do best - try to discredit the Conservative with ridiculous, unresearched, stereotypical assumptions.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a bill that would enable discrimination lawsuits to proceed long after the alleged discrimination took place. In other words, the statute of limitations on these kinds of claims would be eliminated. Though it is assumed it will give women a better opportunity to pursue their cases, such limitations are vital to our justice system functioning properly, and the elimination of such will place our judicial system at a severe disadvantage. Surely, there are cases of merit that never are tried because the statute of limitations was exceeded, but more often than not these cases are the exception, rather than the rule. Limitations, however, are in place for more important reasons, including, but not limited to, stopping suits using evidence that is stale, prevent the destruction of defensive evidence, stop running up damages, and to quickly resolve the claims before the evidence, or memories of those involved, become faded or expired with time. The Ledbetter Act, by eliminating time limitations as this bill suggests, will create more harm than any good.
As we have talked about in the past regarding taxation of businesses, businesses see any costs (or potential costs) as a loss, and make moves to cover such losses. For example, an increase tax is an increased cost, and to compensate the business owner will reduce costs elsewhere to cover for such a cost increase. This may be done by using less expensive ingredients or components in the products, which usually also compromises the quality of the product. Or they will raise the prices of the products. Often, to cover such increases in costs they lay off personnel. Sometimes they even resort to moving their business to a less costly location, and if that means taking their business out of the country, they will do so.
With the Ledbetter Act, lawsuits would become more prevalent. The business will be afraid of doing anything that may be construed as being in violation of the act, so, employers will, as a result, reduce wages, decrease the number of people they employ, and change their business operations in the interest of avoiding lawsuits. In the long run, the very people that this bill is suppose to be helping will be hurt because the businesses will avoid hiring people that may sue them, thus reducing their legal risk - and if doing so means having less employees, they will do so.
I feel for people who believe they receive poor performance evaluations, and/or lower pay because of their gender or race. Bad business practices by employers sometimes surface, and if the motivation was in fact sexism or racism, punitive legal action may be the way to ensure the company, and others like it, don't do such things in the future.
However, like the Affirmative Action laws, mandates like the Ledbetter act cause more harm than good.
Eliminating limitations could have catastrophic results on our judicial system. They are in place to eliminate cases with stale demands in which the details may have been forgotten, or the evidence is out-dated, thus opening the door for assumptions and testimony that may not be fully accurate due to the lapse of time. Over time evidence may be lost or discarded, witnesses may not be available, or may die. Determining the exact intentions, motivations, or other subtleties of the relationships of those involved. After too much time has passed, these situations also places the attempt to get to the truth at a disadvantage. Statutes of limitations enable cases to be heard while the evidence is still fresh, and the defendants still have a fair opportunity to gather all of the evidence they may require in order to mount a legitimate defense. In short, time limitations prevent fraudulent claims and cases with faulty evidence or testimony as a result of too much time passing.
Also, by a case being brought up sooner, rather than later, other persons that may have been wronged by the defendant, by seeing the case while the evidence is still fresh, may have incentive to pursue their own cases, or if they believe the defendant is innocent, document and challenge the case in a timely fashion.
Limiting the time with statutes of limitations also protect defendants from long thought out strategies by the plaintiff. An example of this would be plaintiffs waiting for evidence to disappear, or memories to fade, before pursuing the case, so that they have a better advantage.
By not allowing cases to come to court after too long of a time period to pass the courts are essentially ensuring that the cases have more certainty and stability. Time limitations, in the long run, protect both the plaintiff and the defendant, and help maintain credibility in the system.
Because some cases of merit are not heard because of the expiration of the statute of limitations, it does not create the necessity to change the operation of law, and open Pandora's Box for greater injustices.
The Ledbetter Act is not about equal pay for women, it is about putting business at a disadvantage. After all, isn't that what we always hear from the left? Businesses are the enemy?
This is not to say that all businesses are innocent, or do not participate in gender-based discrimination. Pay discrimination is wrong if the motive is in fact based on factors beyond an individuals ability to perform their duties. But because a few businesses find a way to get away with it, we should not open the flood gates and allow employees to sue at any time after the supposed discrimination occurred. Such an action opens the door for fraud and injustice. Then, as the cases continue to increase, as stated earlier, employers will change their hiring and wage practices to protect themselves - and the very people the law is designed to protect will be hurt because the opportunities for employment will dry up.
But the rules of the game with liberals is not to take any of the legal ramifications into consideration. By being against the Ledbetter Act, in their eyes, you are against fair pay for women.
Using their line of thinking, if you argue against environmentalists, then you must not care about the environment. If you are against entitlement programs because you believe that such programs create an environment of dependency on the government, then you must believe that all poor people are lazy. If you believe something may possibly have some validity, such as the Obama Birth Certificate controversy, then that means you are in full agreement with anything and everything anyone says supporting that particular theory. If you claim to be pro-life, then you must believe that any woman that has an abortion should be jailed - and if you think there is anytime at any point before a child is born that justifies terminating a pregnancy, that automatically makes you pro-choice. If you voted against Obama, you are racist. If you support Israel you support the death of children. If you support the war in Iraq you are a baby killer (and you are being called this by people that support abortion all the way up to full term - go figure).
The latest attack, and I received a lot on this one after last night's video of McClintock's argument on the floor of The House, is that if you are against the Fairpay Act (a.k.a. the Ledbetter Act), you are against women being paid equally for equal work.
Like the examples above, this kind of thinking is narrow and idiotic, and is really only an attempt of doing what Liberals do best - try to discredit the Conservative with ridiculous, unresearched, stereotypical assumptions.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a bill that would enable discrimination lawsuits to proceed long after the alleged discrimination took place. In other words, the statute of limitations on these kinds of claims would be eliminated. Though it is assumed it will give women a better opportunity to pursue their cases, such limitations are vital to our justice system functioning properly, and the elimination of such will place our judicial system at a severe disadvantage. Surely, there are cases of merit that never are tried because the statute of limitations was exceeded, but more often than not these cases are the exception, rather than the rule. Limitations, however, are in place for more important reasons, including, but not limited to, stopping suits using evidence that is stale, prevent the destruction of defensive evidence, stop running up damages, and to quickly resolve the claims before the evidence, or memories of those involved, become faded or expired with time. The Ledbetter Act, by eliminating time limitations as this bill suggests, will create more harm than any good.
As we have talked about in the past regarding taxation of businesses, businesses see any costs (or potential costs) as a loss, and make moves to cover such losses. For example, an increase tax is an increased cost, and to compensate the business owner will reduce costs elsewhere to cover for such a cost increase. This may be done by using less expensive ingredients or components in the products, which usually also compromises the quality of the product. Or they will raise the prices of the products. Often, to cover such increases in costs they lay off personnel. Sometimes they even resort to moving their business to a less costly location, and if that means taking their business out of the country, they will do so.
With the Ledbetter Act, lawsuits would become more prevalent. The business will be afraid of doing anything that may be construed as being in violation of the act, so, employers will, as a result, reduce wages, decrease the number of people they employ, and change their business operations in the interest of avoiding lawsuits. In the long run, the very people that this bill is suppose to be helping will be hurt because the businesses will avoid hiring people that may sue them, thus reducing their legal risk - and if doing so means having less employees, they will do so.
I feel for people who believe they receive poor performance evaluations, and/or lower pay because of their gender or race. Bad business practices by employers sometimes surface, and if the motivation was in fact sexism or racism, punitive legal action may be the way to ensure the company, and others like it, don't do such things in the future.
However, like the Affirmative Action laws, mandates like the Ledbetter act cause more harm than good.
Eliminating limitations could have catastrophic results on our judicial system. They are in place to eliminate cases with stale demands in which the details may have been forgotten, or the evidence is out-dated, thus opening the door for assumptions and testimony that may not be fully accurate due to the lapse of time. Over time evidence may be lost or discarded, witnesses may not be available, or may die. Determining the exact intentions, motivations, or other subtleties of the relationships of those involved. After too much time has passed, these situations also places the attempt to get to the truth at a disadvantage. Statutes of limitations enable cases to be heard while the evidence is still fresh, and the defendants still have a fair opportunity to gather all of the evidence they may require in order to mount a legitimate defense. In short, time limitations prevent fraudulent claims and cases with faulty evidence or testimony as a result of too much time passing.
Also, by a case being brought up sooner, rather than later, other persons that may have been wronged by the defendant, by seeing the case while the evidence is still fresh, may have incentive to pursue their own cases, or if they believe the defendant is innocent, document and challenge the case in a timely fashion.
Limiting the time with statutes of limitations also protect defendants from long thought out strategies by the plaintiff. An example of this would be plaintiffs waiting for evidence to disappear, or memories to fade, before pursuing the case, so that they have a better advantage.
By not allowing cases to come to court after too long of a time period to pass the courts are essentially ensuring that the cases have more certainty and stability. Time limitations, in the long run, protect both the plaintiff and the defendant, and help maintain credibility in the system.
Because some cases of merit are not heard because of the expiration of the statute of limitations, it does not create the necessity to change the operation of law, and open Pandora's Box for greater injustices.
The Ledbetter Act is not about equal pay for women, it is about putting business at a disadvantage. After all, isn't that what we always hear from the left? Businesses are the enemy?
This is not to say that all businesses are innocent, or do not participate in gender-based discrimination. Pay discrimination is wrong if the motive is in fact based on factors beyond an individuals ability to perform their duties. But because a few businesses find a way to get away with it, we should not open the flood gates and allow employees to sue at any time after the supposed discrimination occurred. Such an action opens the door for fraud and injustice. Then, as the cases continue to increase, as stated earlier, employers will change their hiring and wage practices to protect themselves - and the very people the law is designed to protect will be hurt because the opportunities for employment will dry up.
But the rules of the game with liberals is not to take any of the legal ramifications into consideration. By being against the Ledbetter Act, in their eyes, you are against fair pay for women.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Newt Gingrich: The economic stimulus bill harms young Americans, harms America
And McClintock's Opinion regarding S.181 - Lilly Ledbetter Salary Act:
And Glenn Beck asks, How Much Money Are We Printing?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Obama, Lies, and Hypocrisy - Both Ways Barack
Three weeks ago Barack Obama proclaimed that America's economic ills can only be fixed by government. Government must act. Government is the only answer.
Today, however, suddenly Obama changed his tune. In fact, he sounded Reaganesque. He stood at a podium with two CEOs (Honeywell and IBM) present, and proclaimed: "The answer to our economic troubles rests less in my hands or on the hands of our legislators than it does the workers and the businesses that employ them."
Wait a second. I thought three weeks ago he said only government can save us. Suddenly, when it looks like his plan may not be adored by all, and in front of a couple CEOs, he suddenly sounds like a conservative? Suddenly government is not the answer?
Believe me, it is a dog and pony show. Obama is a radical, far left socialist, and his big government plans came out of his mouth three weeks ago - but he likes to try to make everyone like him, so he plays word games in his three ring circus of lies. He's not contradicting himself when he said he thought our economic troubles were out of his and the legislators hands. He was straight out lying.
Hold on to your wallets because not only was he lying, but if you take a close look at his stimulus plan, it is chock full of pork (ooops, wasn't this the guy that said he would not allow pork?). More lies. More hypocrisy.
Yeah, he's giving us change, all right. He has changed politics from being mostly lies and hypocrisy to complete lies and hypocrisy.
Hey, liberals, are you still hoping for his kind of change? Don't worry, the lies will keep coming, and the taxes for all of you will eventually rise - he only proclaimed tax cuts to get elected because he knows conservative ideas win elections (besides, they aren't really tax cuts - how can they be when most of the tax cuts are checks to people that don't even pay taxes in the first place?). Big government will crush this economy, and it will take fiscal conservatism to pull us out of this mess that Obama is exacerbating with his idiotic socialistic programs and plans - not to mention the ballooning national debt, and the out of control pork spending we will see over the next four years.
Today, however, suddenly Obama changed his tune. In fact, he sounded Reaganesque. He stood at a podium with two CEOs (Honeywell and IBM) present, and proclaimed: "The answer to our economic troubles rests less in my hands or on the hands of our legislators than it does the workers and the businesses that employ them."
Wait a second. I thought three weeks ago he said only government can save us. Suddenly, when it looks like his plan may not be adored by all, and in front of a couple CEOs, he suddenly sounds like a conservative? Suddenly government is not the answer?
Believe me, it is a dog and pony show. Obama is a radical, far left socialist, and his big government plans came out of his mouth three weeks ago - but he likes to try to make everyone like him, so he plays word games in his three ring circus of lies. He's not contradicting himself when he said he thought our economic troubles were out of his and the legislators hands. He was straight out lying.
Hold on to your wallets because not only was he lying, but if you take a close look at his stimulus plan, it is chock full of pork (ooops, wasn't this the guy that said he would not allow pork?). More lies. More hypocrisy.
Yeah, he's giving us change, all right. He has changed politics from being mostly lies and hypocrisy to complete lies and hypocrisy.
Hey, liberals, are you still hoping for his kind of change? Don't worry, the lies will keep coming, and the taxes for all of you will eventually rise - he only proclaimed tax cuts to get elected because he knows conservative ideas win elections (besides, they aren't really tax cuts - how can they be when most of the tax cuts are checks to people that don't even pay taxes in the first place?). Big government will crush this economy, and it will take fiscal conservatism to pull us out of this mess that Obama is exacerbating with his idiotic socialistic programs and plans - not to mention the ballooning national debt, and the out of control pork spending we will see over the next four years.
Love or Hate? The burning house of the gay behavioral fetish.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day on the road while driving my big rig on the Southern California freeways, and it read, "Stop The Hate, Repeal 8." The bumper sticker was referencing Proposition 8, which, Constitutionally defines marriage as between a man and a woman in California. In plain language, what it was saying is that anyone that believes the definition of marriage should be between a man and a woman is guilty of "hate." Specifically, it is somehow "hate" against people who exhibit the homosexual behavioral fetish whenever anyone has an opinion and disagrees with that lifestyle.
That's not hate. Where these people get "hate" from, out of that, I don't know.
Well, actually, I think I do know where they get it from, but convincing someone that what they are doing is wrong, in this case, to them, is "hate."
For those that believe that the gay lifestyle is immoral behavior, in the eyes of the gay agenda, are wrong for believing that homosexuality is wrong. The gays, in the hopes of justifying their fetish, are trying to convince everyone that their behavior is a genetically affected behavior, and that it is somehow normal for them to feel the way they do. They are trying to equate this with someone having red hair, or being born with freckles, or with being of a particular race, or what not.
When it comes to "hate," "hate" is a very strong word. It is being thrown around loosely, like many other words, in the hopes of getting enough people so afraid of being accused of being haters that they just say, "ah, okay, you can have your queer intrusion on the sanctity of marriage." But really, the meaning of the word "hate" is being diluted.
Also, I don't see how warning someone that they are participating in a dangerous behavior is "hate." In reality, I see that as "love."
If I had a friend, or family member, that was a drug addict, for example, and I produced a warning that essentially said, "Your behavior is dangerous to yourself, to those around you, and to society as a whole," I am not "hating" that person. I am warning them out of love. I am letting them know from my heart.
Now we have people who engage in dangerous sexual behavior, and lifestyles, who are saying that by you warning them about their behavior, by you telling them that the death rate among homosexuals is higher than that of the death rate of heterosexuals, by you saying that the likelihood that they will attract sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDS, rises due to their behavior, by your claim that the damage to their body due to their behavior increases, by you telling them that their lifestyle in reality is counter-productive to society, and sends a bad signal to our children, especially for those of us that disagree with that lifestyle, and would like, instead, to teach our children that homosexuality is an unsafe lifestyle, not even to mention how this deteriorates the standards of right and wrong, which is now beginning to affect morality all across the spectrum - they are saying that you are putting out hate. That is not hate. That is love.
I don't wish that homosexuals should die. I don't wish that they should have a separation from God. But I do recognize that their activities and behavioral fetish will do exactly those things, and more.
They are essentially in a burning house, I am trying to warn them that their house is burning to the ground, and they need to take action to escape the burning house and save themselves, and they are calling me a "hater" as I run to get the hose to help them extinguish the flames.
I have never understood that mentality, and in my love, I am sorry to see that it is that way.
That's not hate. Where these people get "hate" from, out of that, I don't know.
Well, actually, I think I do know where they get it from, but convincing someone that what they are doing is wrong, in this case, to them, is "hate."
For those that believe that the gay lifestyle is immoral behavior, in the eyes of the gay agenda, are wrong for believing that homosexuality is wrong. The gays, in the hopes of justifying their fetish, are trying to convince everyone that their behavior is a genetically affected behavior, and that it is somehow normal for them to feel the way they do. They are trying to equate this with someone having red hair, or being born with freckles, or with being of a particular race, or what not.
When it comes to "hate," "hate" is a very strong word. It is being thrown around loosely, like many other words, in the hopes of getting enough people so afraid of being accused of being haters that they just say, "ah, okay, you can have your queer intrusion on the sanctity of marriage." But really, the meaning of the word "hate" is being diluted.
Also, I don't see how warning someone that they are participating in a dangerous behavior is "hate." In reality, I see that as "love."
If I had a friend, or family member, that was a drug addict, for example, and I produced a warning that essentially said, "Your behavior is dangerous to yourself, to those around you, and to society as a whole," I am not "hating" that person. I am warning them out of love. I am letting them know from my heart.
Now we have people who engage in dangerous sexual behavior, and lifestyles, who are saying that by you warning them about their behavior, by you telling them that the death rate among homosexuals is higher than that of the death rate of heterosexuals, by you saying that the likelihood that they will attract sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDS, rises due to their behavior, by your claim that the damage to their body due to their behavior increases, by you telling them that their lifestyle in reality is counter-productive to society, and sends a bad signal to our children, especially for those of us that disagree with that lifestyle, and would like, instead, to teach our children that homosexuality is an unsafe lifestyle, not even to mention how this deteriorates the standards of right and wrong, which is now beginning to affect morality all across the spectrum - they are saying that you are putting out hate. That is not hate. That is love.
I don't wish that homosexuals should die. I don't wish that they should have a separation from God. But I do recognize that their activities and behavioral fetish will do exactly those things, and more.
They are essentially in a burning house, I am trying to warn them that their house is burning to the ground, and they need to take action to escape the burning house and save themselves, and they are calling me a "hater" as I run to get the hose to help them extinguish the flames.
I have never understood that mentality, and in my love, I am sorry to see that it is that way.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Fallacy of Building The Economy From The Bottom Up
During his presidential campaign Obama stated that he wants to build the economy from the bottom up. Provide money to the poorest, I suppose, so that they can spend the money, and then as they buy goods it will somehow encourage businesses to produce more goods, and so on and so forth.
Since when does the bottom create jobs and produce goods?
Simple fact is that the creation of jobs and products comes from businesses, not from the bottom income earners. And the people who own businesses are in business to make a profit. That's the whole point of having a business, isn't it?
Profit increases with the success of a business, so business owners, in search of increased profit, will do what they can to ensure their business is successful. After all, the whole point of getting the better jobs, or having a business, is to live better, and living more comfortably goes hand in hand with an increased profit margin.
Obama wishes to deter our business owners from that kind of success. He wishes to hammer success more heavily with taxes - taxes that he will then use to try to pay for his expanding government programs, and from which he will dribble some change down to the people at the bottom hoping that it will grow the economy from the bottom up.
During the immaculate campaign, Obama promised tax cuts for the middle class, and everyone with income levels lower than the middle class as well (most of whom, when it comes to the lower end of the spectrum, don't even pay taxes - so really, for them it is not a tax cut, but another government check to go along with their welfare checks). But why does he want those folks to have that money? Why does he want to issue a check to people who don't even pay taxes? How is that a tax cut, and what does he think those people will do with those funds that he gave to them freely by taking it from the higher earners, and stupidly printing more money?
The theory is that they will buy products, which will then theoretically put people to work to produce more products, and so forth.
People, however, don't live like that. They live to their means. They buy everything on credit, sort of like the government does. So I am willing to bet you that what is going to happen when everyone receives their Obama Stimulus Checks from the IRS is that they are not going to go running down to their local Wal-Mart, or their local electronics store, and start gleefully buying things they had no interest in buying in the first place. They are going to apply those funds to their credit cards to pay down the balances, or they are going to pay down their furniture loan, or pay down their car loan, or pay down their mortgage line of credit, or they may just simply stick the extra money underneath their mattress and save it for a rainy day.
You don't create jobs from the bottom up. You create jobs by encouraging the people who create jobs to do so. And you don't encourage them with a whopping $3,000 rebate, either. Creating a job costs a lot more than that, and is not worth doing for a measly few thousand government bucks.
To create a job the employer must see it as something that will enable them to make more profit. Creating a position for an employee is an expense, and a very hefty one, at that. There are social security taxes, unemployment taxes, worker's compensation insurance payments, disability tax, health care costs, the cost of wages, the cost of the station this person will work at, and the cost of the equipment the person is going to use. A twenty or thirty thousand dollars a year employee is going to cost the company something more like $75,000 a year. So there has to be a profit incentive - and the profit incentive must be large enough to make creating the position worth it. One of the factors that will create a profit incentive is a movement of products that increases to the point that the employer must increase manpower to keep pace. But how do the products start moving?
The company is not going to just suddenly decide to start moving products without the promise of increased profits. A demand for the products must take place, and a bunch of people at the bottom paying their credit down and stuffing their money in mattresses, and not willing to buy products they cannot normally afford anyway, is not going to create that kind of demand. There has to be money freed up across the board to do this. The companies have to be willing to increase supply in the hopes people will buy, and they will need additional funds to produce more products. Then, when the supply goes up, the price will come down, which will entice more people to buy the products being offered.
But how will the buyers (from all income levels) be willing to buy more products, and what will free up more money for businesses so that they have the increased funds to produce more goods?
Tax breaks in the form of true tax cuts. If an owner has a tax cut they are going to reinvest it into their business with the hopes of increasing profit. Profits increase, remember, when their businesses grow. And if you raise their taxes, and increase regulations, as Obama is proposing, the opposite is true. They will see it as an increase in overhead, and they've got to cover for it, so they will increase the price of the products, use cheaper materials which comprises the quality of the product, and they lay off employees. And if the government intrusions become too steep, as the taxes and fees become too harsh and more burdensome, the business owners will just pack up and take their businesses out of the country where they feel they can make more profit.
That is what is going to happen if Obama's plans come into play, and that is dangerous for our economy.
And there is one more thing to think about. Do you think that Obama has taken into consideration the onslaught of bankruptcies that are lingering on the horizon as a result of the failed mortgages and increase of unemployment? Or do you think he will still continue to hammer those that produce jobs and products while redistributing the money to people who will do nothing with it but store it like a squirrel hording nuts?
Since when does the bottom create jobs and produce goods?
Simple fact is that the creation of jobs and products comes from businesses, not from the bottom income earners. And the people who own businesses are in business to make a profit. That's the whole point of having a business, isn't it?
Profit increases with the success of a business, so business owners, in search of increased profit, will do what they can to ensure their business is successful. After all, the whole point of getting the better jobs, or having a business, is to live better, and living more comfortably goes hand in hand with an increased profit margin.
Obama wishes to deter our business owners from that kind of success. He wishes to hammer success more heavily with taxes - taxes that he will then use to try to pay for his expanding government programs, and from which he will dribble some change down to the people at the bottom hoping that it will grow the economy from the bottom up.
During the immaculate campaign, Obama promised tax cuts for the middle class, and everyone with income levels lower than the middle class as well (most of whom, when it comes to the lower end of the spectrum, don't even pay taxes - so really, for them it is not a tax cut, but another government check to go along with their welfare checks). But why does he want those folks to have that money? Why does he want to issue a check to people who don't even pay taxes? How is that a tax cut, and what does he think those people will do with those funds that he gave to them freely by taking it from the higher earners, and stupidly printing more money?
The theory is that they will buy products, which will then theoretically put people to work to produce more products, and so forth.
People, however, don't live like that. They live to their means. They buy everything on credit, sort of like the government does. So I am willing to bet you that what is going to happen when everyone receives their Obama Stimulus Checks from the IRS is that they are not going to go running down to their local Wal-Mart, or their local electronics store, and start gleefully buying things they had no interest in buying in the first place. They are going to apply those funds to their credit cards to pay down the balances, or they are going to pay down their furniture loan, or pay down their car loan, or pay down their mortgage line of credit, or they may just simply stick the extra money underneath their mattress and save it for a rainy day.
You don't create jobs from the bottom up. You create jobs by encouraging the people who create jobs to do so. And you don't encourage them with a whopping $3,000 rebate, either. Creating a job costs a lot more than that, and is not worth doing for a measly few thousand government bucks.
To create a job the employer must see it as something that will enable them to make more profit. Creating a position for an employee is an expense, and a very hefty one, at that. There are social security taxes, unemployment taxes, worker's compensation insurance payments, disability tax, health care costs, the cost of wages, the cost of the station this person will work at, and the cost of the equipment the person is going to use. A twenty or thirty thousand dollars a year employee is going to cost the company something more like $75,000 a year. So there has to be a profit incentive - and the profit incentive must be large enough to make creating the position worth it. One of the factors that will create a profit incentive is a movement of products that increases to the point that the employer must increase manpower to keep pace. But how do the products start moving?
The company is not going to just suddenly decide to start moving products without the promise of increased profits. A demand for the products must take place, and a bunch of people at the bottom paying their credit down and stuffing their money in mattresses, and not willing to buy products they cannot normally afford anyway, is not going to create that kind of demand. There has to be money freed up across the board to do this. The companies have to be willing to increase supply in the hopes people will buy, and they will need additional funds to produce more products. Then, when the supply goes up, the price will come down, which will entice more people to buy the products being offered.
But how will the buyers (from all income levels) be willing to buy more products, and what will free up more money for businesses so that they have the increased funds to produce more goods?
Tax breaks in the form of true tax cuts. If an owner has a tax cut they are going to reinvest it into their business with the hopes of increasing profit. Profits increase, remember, when their businesses grow. And if you raise their taxes, and increase regulations, as Obama is proposing, the opposite is true. They will see it as an increase in overhead, and they've got to cover for it, so they will increase the price of the products, use cheaper materials which comprises the quality of the product, and they lay off employees. And if the government intrusions become too steep, as the taxes and fees become too harsh and more burdensome, the business owners will just pack up and take their businesses out of the country where they feel they can make more profit.
That is what is going to happen if Obama's plans come into play, and that is dangerous for our economy.
And there is one more thing to think about. Do you think that Obama has taken into consideration the onslaught of bankruptcies that are lingering on the horizon as a result of the failed mortgages and increase of unemployment? Or do you think he will still continue to hammer those that produce jobs and products while redistributing the money to people who will do nothing with it but store it like a squirrel hording nuts?
Monday, January 26, 2009
Obama, and his friends, not doing so well - Bad President, bad bad prez. . .
Timothy F. Geithner has been confirmed as Treasury Secretary - hmmm, just the guy we need to run the IRS. . . a guy known to run from the IRS, not pay his taxes, and then say, "Oops, my bad." Wow, Obama, you can sure pick 'em.
In typical, arrogant, liberal fashion, Blagojevich can't be bothered by a pesky impeachment trial - he's hitting the television interview circuit instead.
Obama's approval rating is at 68% after only a week in office. But wait, wasn't his approval rating 83% before he took office, while he was doing absolutely nothing? Heck, that is a 15% drop in only a week. He is only in office one week and the messiah's approval rating is plummeting! Just wait until his presidency really gets into swing, his new programs take hold of our economy, and everything goes to hell! Question is, when Obama starts screwing up the nation, will the media report it?
And speaking of arrogance, while bickering with a few Republicans, Obama reminded them, "I won." Yes, Obama, you did. I know that it is so unbelievable that the American people fell for your crap that even you don't believe it, but are you so entranced with yourself that you have to tell everyone you won? Or was it a statement of arrogance that was basically uttered as if to say, "Shut up, you lost, you're screwed, I'm gonna run this country into the ground if I like."
Finally, Obama seems to think that man-made Global Warming is real, despite the fact that the evidence concludes otherwise, as we experience one of the coldest winters on record, and after 650 scientists descended on the Poland Climate Change talks with the message that man-made Global Warming is a hoax. Do you think Obama will ever admit he's wrong? Of course not. Arrogant bastards like him just find a way to blame someone else. So reach deep in your pocket as his eco-plans move into play. And if the news that man-made Global Warming is a sham finally reaches Obama? Hey, Bush, guess what else is your fault!
Oh, and Mr. Obama, since you are placing so much importance on Global Warming, I thought you might want to know that it is last on the list of priorities according to the people.
In typical, arrogant, liberal fashion, Blagojevich can't be bothered by a pesky impeachment trial - he's hitting the television interview circuit instead.
Obama's approval rating is at 68% after only a week in office. But wait, wasn't his approval rating 83% before he took office, while he was doing absolutely nothing? Heck, that is a 15% drop in only a week. He is only in office one week and the messiah's approval rating is plummeting! Just wait until his presidency really gets into swing, his new programs take hold of our economy, and everything goes to hell! Question is, when Obama starts screwing up the nation, will the media report it?
And speaking of arrogance, while bickering with a few Republicans, Obama reminded them, "I won." Yes, Obama, you did. I know that it is so unbelievable that the American people fell for your crap that even you don't believe it, but are you so entranced with yourself that you have to tell everyone you won? Or was it a statement of arrogance that was basically uttered as if to say, "Shut up, you lost, you're screwed, I'm gonna run this country into the ground if I like."
Finally, Obama seems to think that man-made Global Warming is real, despite the fact that the evidence concludes otherwise, as we experience one of the coldest winters on record, and after 650 scientists descended on the Poland Climate Change talks with the message that man-made Global Warming is a hoax. Do you think Obama will ever admit he's wrong? Of course not. Arrogant bastards like him just find a way to blame someone else. So reach deep in your pocket as his eco-plans move into play. And if the news that man-made Global Warming is a sham finally reaches Obama? Hey, Bush, guess what else is your fault!
Oh, and Mr. Obama, since you are placing so much importance on Global Warming, I thought you might want to know that it is last on the list of priorities according to the people.
In Search of . . . Hope and Change
Humans have the fundamental desire to search for hope and change. We always hope for a better life, a few more dollars, and a little more time. We hope our children’s lives will be a change for the better in comparison to our own. We pray that even in death our lives will continue on, but hope that our bodies and surroundings are a change from what we experience in the mortal world. We always hope for a change for the better.
People realize that humanity is a flawed animal. To achieve better lives, unfortunately, we are willing to do things at the expense of others. When we reach prosperity we feel guilty for the ones we bypassed on the way up. Our hope allowed for a change in our lives that others were unable to attain. So, burdened by our guilt, sometimes, we give to charities and organizations in the hopes that our guilt will somehow be lessened. But not all people agree that this is the way to give back, or that giving back is even necessary. Disagreements arise, and a degree of hysteria is born. “How dare those others blessed with exceptional circumstances reject giving back to the poor,” some may say. “How dare they not recognize, and try to somehow ease, their guilty consciences.”
The guilt and desire to ensure that everyone participates in creating a utopian system where nobody can possibly be left behind serves as a unifying concept. These groups demand that retribution be paid, that somehow their guilt be eased by government intervention. The law, at that point, ceases to apply. The intentions of doing what is good outweighs doing what is right. Well intentioned legislation, no matter how damaging to freedom and economies they may be, are enacted. The liberal-minded, at this point, hope for change that will enable everyone to be taken care of by the governmental body, no matter how many liberties they must forfeit.
Read the rest at American Daily Review. . .
People realize that humanity is a flawed animal. To achieve better lives, unfortunately, we are willing to do things at the expense of others. When we reach prosperity we feel guilty for the ones we bypassed on the way up. Our hope allowed for a change in our lives that others were unable to attain. So, burdened by our guilt, sometimes, we give to charities and organizations in the hopes that our guilt will somehow be lessened. But not all people agree that this is the way to give back, or that giving back is even necessary. Disagreements arise, and a degree of hysteria is born. “How dare those others blessed with exceptional circumstances reject giving back to the poor,” some may say. “How dare they not recognize, and try to somehow ease, their guilty consciences.”
The guilt and desire to ensure that everyone participates in creating a utopian system where nobody can possibly be left behind serves as a unifying concept. These groups demand that retribution be paid, that somehow their guilt be eased by government intervention. The law, at that point, ceases to apply. The intentions of doing what is good outweighs doing what is right. Well intentioned legislation, no matter how damaging to freedom and economies they may be, are enacted. The liberal-minded, at this point, hope for change that will enable everyone to be taken care of by the governmental body, no matter how many liberties they must forfeit.
Read the rest at American Daily Review. . .
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
In addition to the damning evidence against the Democrats in the video above, we must also remember that George W. Bush also saw this economic downturn coming. The Bush administration warned in the budget it issued in April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged. Their eventual failure "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity" well beyond housing.
The housing bubble, that was doomed to eventually burst, was also partly created because of the Community Reinvestment Act, which had a partial hand in what transpired as well. The CRA demanded that banks make loans they would not normally have made otherwise, due to the risk factors of the borrowers. Of course, to argue that the CRA is the "complete" cause of the problem is irresponsible too. Many factors played a part in this debacle. But to claim the CRA had nothing to do with it is ignorant as well. Regardless of how much of a hand the CRA had in creating this crisis, no matter how you slice it, the CRA was definitely one of the hands in the cookie jar.
Unfortunately for him, President George W. Bush was in office when the crap hit the fan, so naturally the folks that listen to the agenda driven talking heads of the alpha-bet networks believe it is all Bush's fault - the Liberal Left has done a fine job pointing the evidence away from them - but the evidence is all around us, and with Obama, they plan to worsen the economic situation with their moronic liberal tactics.
It was liberal agendas and government intrusion that created this growing economic situation that is quickly moving towards a catastrophic recessionary period, and their answer is to inject more liberal philosophy and government manipulation into the crisis. That, my friends, is hardly hope and change. . . it is nothing more than the same old liberal idiocy damaging our economy and our political system.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Illegal Aliens Getting The Breaks over Americans at Universities
I recently drove by a Home Depot in L.A. and you have never seen so many illegal aliens, err, um, I mean undocumented workers, in your life standing along the sidewalk hoping for somebody to pick them up for some side job. As I drove my big rig by the sea of people I thought to myself, "Wow, and I thought there was a lot of them that hung out around the fuel stop in the Inland Empire, or on the corner near the Lowes in Southwest Riverside County near where I live."
The scene in Los Angeles brought to mind something I heard on, I think, The Mike Gallagher Show, talking about how illegal aliens get a bigger break, and lower tuition, along with more (and easier to obtain) loans, to attend a university, than does an American. Specifically, out of state Americans. Like, if say a person from Kentucky wanted to attend UCLA and an undocumented alien (can't say illegal, I might be called a racist or something), or their kids, the little aliens, let's say originally from Mexico (since the Mexican illegal alien is the most common we'll use them in this illustration) desires to go to UCLA as well, the tuition is going to be lower, and the loans are going to be easier to obtain for the Illegal Alien. After all, the person Kentucky will be penalized for being an out-of-state student (but out of country with no legal papers is fine?).
Now, why is it that someone who doesn't belong in this country in the first place has more opportunity than someone who is a citizen (in other words, someone who belongs here)?
What amazes me is the liberal left is supposed to be all about what is "fair." So tell me, liberal lefties, how is that disproportionate leanings toward illegals are fair? How is that appropriate to the American Citizen? How is that beneficial to a person born and raised here in the U.S.? What is the benefit of having a birthright? How is that fair to the American as compared to the illegal who lied and cheated to come into this country? The Illegal Alien is receiving a fairer shake to get into an American learning institution. I challenge any liberal to explain to me how that is the right thing to do.
Of course as liberal as the Universities are, perhaps they are doing this so that they can properly train these new, potential voters, in the way of the dark side . . . err, uh, I mean liberal left philosophies.
The scene in Los Angeles brought to mind something I heard on, I think, The Mike Gallagher Show, talking about how illegal aliens get a bigger break, and lower tuition, along with more (and easier to obtain) loans, to attend a university, than does an American. Specifically, out of state Americans. Like, if say a person from Kentucky wanted to attend UCLA and an undocumented alien (can't say illegal, I might be called a racist or something), or their kids, the little aliens, let's say originally from Mexico (since the Mexican illegal alien is the most common we'll use them in this illustration) desires to go to UCLA as well, the tuition is going to be lower, and the loans are going to be easier to obtain for the Illegal Alien. After all, the person Kentucky will be penalized for being an out-of-state student (but out of country with no legal papers is fine?).
Now, why is it that someone who doesn't belong in this country in the first place has more opportunity than someone who is a citizen (in other words, someone who belongs here)?
What amazes me is the liberal left is supposed to be all about what is "fair." So tell me, liberal lefties, how is that disproportionate leanings toward illegals are fair? How is that appropriate to the American Citizen? How is that beneficial to a person born and raised here in the U.S.? What is the benefit of having a birthright? How is that fair to the American as compared to the illegal who lied and cheated to come into this country? The Illegal Alien is receiving a fairer shake to get into an American learning institution. I challenge any liberal to explain to me how that is the right thing to do.
Of course as liberal as the Universities are, perhaps they are doing this so that they can properly train these new, potential voters, in the way of the dark side . . . err, uh, I mean liberal left philosophies.
Democrats Push Tax Cuts Through Congress (or: when is a duck not a duck)
If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, has webbed feet like a duck, and has a bill like a duck, it must be a duck. . . right?
President Obama's Stimulus Package, promising massive tax cuts, is being pushed through Congress despite heavy opposition by the Republicans.
Okay, let me get this straight. Democrats are desiring tax cuts, and Republicans are fighting against them? Am I in the Twilight Zone?
In all, Obama's Economic Measure costs $825 billion, which will no doubt grow to over a trillion buckaroos before it gets through Congress with this added, and that added, and pork galore at the buffet table.
$500 for workers, $1,000 for couples - refunded to you - even if you don't pay taxes.
Where I come from, that is not a tax cut. How can you cut the taxes of people that don't pay taxes? And if they are getting money back for taxes they didn't pay, then where is this money coming from? The wealthier Americans, of course. The plan is to soak the rich while handing out free money to the poor. Sounds more like an extension to Welfare, to me.
And if they hammer the rich and hand it out to everyone else, isn't that a redistribution of wealth? And that is supposed to create jobs? Last time I checked the folks receiving government checks each month with a dozen kids in a two bedroom house were not the ones creating jobs - it tends to be businesses that do that. You know, those enterprises that contribute to the Free Market owned by (uhem) wealthy folks?
Of course, the Democrats argue that the Republican proposals favor higher income individuals and couples who have benefited way too much from their tax cuts passed during the administration of President George W. Bush. We must stop them from making so much money, or at least keeping much of it, right? The American Dream must be punished - how dare those rick folks do so well - we'll teach them!
Yeah, paying over 90% of the overall taxes of this nation is way too unfair - let's soak them for 95% of the total taxes. That way, they are hit so hard by taxes they will lay off workers, cut production, and perhaps take their businesses out of the country to make up for the loss!
I hear moving businesses in South America, India, or China is lovely this time of year.
It is bad enough that entitlement program usage rises during economic downturns as it is, but now, it seems, the Obama Administration (and the happy, dancing, liberal Democrats) wish that everyone should wind up on these programs. Heck, soak the rich enough and even they may need food stamps too! Then the government can take over all of their wretched, American Dream building businesses, and wealth will no longer be determined by money, but by the size of the apartment the government assigns to you. Let's make everything fair by downsizing the wealthy and making them like everyone else - equally miserable!
Sound familiar? Can anyone say, The Soviet States of America?
They (The Libtarded Dems) call what is coming "Tax Breaks," but these so-called tax breaks are simply government checks being issued to people who will become even more dependent upon the government, and most of whom didn't pay what they are being refunded in the first place. And what is even more interesting, is suddenly deficit spending is a good thing, according to the Democrats. Talk about a duck not being a duck!
Weren't the Democrats the ones complaining about the National Debt over the last thirty years or so?
Yep, they accused Bush of being a big spender, and accused him of creating a bigger National Debt. But in the first 100 days of the Obama Presidency, BHO will prove to be a much bigger spender, and we will by then be deep into a recession that will worsen with each government program the Democrats pass.
And somehow, they will still blame it all on Bush.
President Obama's Stimulus Package, promising massive tax cuts, is being pushed through Congress despite heavy opposition by the Republicans.
Okay, let me get this straight. Democrats are desiring tax cuts, and Republicans are fighting against them? Am I in the Twilight Zone?
In all, Obama's Economic Measure costs $825 billion, which will no doubt grow to over a trillion buckaroos before it gets through Congress with this added, and that added, and pork galore at the buffet table.
$500 for workers, $1,000 for couples - refunded to you - even if you don't pay taxes.
Where I come from, that is not a tax cut. How can you cut the taxes of people that don't pay taxes? And if they are getting money back for taxes they didn't pay, then where is this money coming from? The wealthier Americans, of course. The plan is to soak the rich while handing out free money to the poor. Sounds more like an extension to Welfare, to me.
And if they hammer the rich and hand it out to everyone else, isn't that a redistribution of wealth? And that is supposed to create jobs? Last time I checked the folks receiving government checks each month with a dozen kids in a two bedroom house were not the ones creating jobs - it tends to be businesses that do that. You know, those enterprises that contribute to the Free Market owned by (uhem) wealthy folks?
Of course, the Democrats argue that the Republican proposals favor higher income individuals and couples who have benefited way too much from their tax cuts passed during the administration of President George W. Bush. We must stop them from making so much money, or at least keeping much of it, right? The American Dream must be punished - how dare those rick folks do so well - we'll teach them!
Yeah, paying over 90% of the overall taxes of this nation is way too unfair - let's soak them for 95% of the total taxes. That way, they are hit so hard by taxes they will lay off workers, cut production, and perhaps take their businesses out of the country to make up for the loss!
I hear moving businesses in South America, India, or China is lovely this time of year.
It is bad enough that entitlement program usage rises during economic downturns as it is, but now, it seems, the Obama Administration (and the happy, dancing, liberal Democrats) wish that everyone should wind up on these programs. Heck, soak the rich enough and even they may need food stamps too! Then the government can take over all of their wretched, American Dream building businesses, and wealth will no longer be determined by money, but by the size of the apartment the government assigns to you. Let's make everything fair by downsizing the wealthy and making them like everyone else - equally miserable!
Sound familiar? Can anyone say, The Soviet States of America?
They (The Libtarded Dems) call what is coming "Tax Breaks," but these so-called tax breaks are simply government checks being issued to people who will become even more dependent upon the government, and most of whom didn't pay what they are being refunded in the first place. And what is even more interesting, is suddenly deficit spending is a good thing, according to the Democrats. Talk about a duck not being a duck!
Weren't the Democrats the ones complaining about the National Debt over the last thirty years or so?
Yep, they accused Bush of being a big spender, and accused him of creating a bigger National Debt. But in the first 100 days of the Obama Presidency, BHO will prove to be a much bigger spender, and we will by then be deep into a recession that will worsen with each government program the Democrats pass.
And somehow, they will still blame it all on Bush.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
President Obama, Guantanamo Bay, Trials for Terrorists, and the Ultimate Shut Down
Under-Qualified President Obama made a campaign promise to have trials for the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, for much of the glee to the Democrats, and shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In addition to that, they have proclaimed that all torture will cease, for America must be an example and not torture anyone. We have a very large reputation as a good nation to keep up. And President Barack Hussein Obama, in his first official act as president of the United States of America, after the Democrats worked so hard to grant trials to the terrorists through our federal court system, signed an executive order to suspend all trials against those poor people being held at that horrible terrorist detention center on Cuba.
Suspend? I wonder how his Democratic friends are reacting to this.
Apparently, the Democrats plan to introduce these terrorists into the American federal court system, extend Constitutional protections to these folks that are non-citizens (therefore the Constitution does not apply to them), and eventually enable them to be free so that they can return to their terrorist ways and kill more innocent people, most probably Jews and Americans.
But Obama suspended this action.
Oh, and all you liberals out there screaming Geneva Convention, as usual, are wrong again. The Geneva Convention applies to combatants wearing uniforms, serving the cause of a nation, and complying with the so-called rules of war - none of which these terrorists captured on the battlefield in the act of committing terror fall under.
And your precious savior, Barack Hussein Obama, suspended the trials you worked so hard for.
And think of this: Where are we going to put these prisoners should Gitmo Bay be closed? In the general population with American prisoners near neighborhoods? At military bases where their function is to train men and women, not to detain prisoners?
Oh, and don't get me wrong, Obama has every intention to enable the trials to ensue in the future. His hope is to bring these terrorists into the federal court system, but for some reason he wants time to think upon it. Perhaps he plans a big speech with a slow teleprompter that will be filled with so much B.S. rhetoric that even the folks that didn't vote for him will be glad to allow the trials.
The trials, or course, would be extremely dangerous for us as a nation because not only would they be essentially changing the acts of war by these enemy combatants to simply a criminal actions (talk about Change you can believe in), but it opens the door for the enemy to "play court" with our captured American military personnel in kangaroo courts that will be, of course, determined to make a mockery of the Americans in the public view.
As for the "torture" question? The Democrats proclaim that we must stop the torture at Gitmo. . . what torture? These detainees are living better than they did in their God-forsaken countries with plenty of food, clean water, and a place to sleep. The so-called torture of Water Boarding was used on three hardened al-Qaeda terrorists, and the information received from them probably saved thousands of lives. . . and Water Boarding is a method that simulates drowning, but never puts the prisoner in any real danger. However, the Islamic Jihadists don't use methods that "simulate" cutting off limbs or heads - they really do it, and in the most gruesome way. If you, the liberal nutcase, desire to yell at someone for being ridiculously insane, join us in our fight against the Islamic Terrorists. Don't get all excited about freeing them to kill again by closing the facility in Cuba so that they can find a way to return to terrorism.
Closing Guantanamo Bay and granting trials for the terrorists, caught in the act of terror on the battlefield, is stupid, and dangerous. When these people wind up killing Americans again, the blood will be on Obama's (and the rest of the idiot Democrat's) hands.
And these kinds of actions also send a message to the enemy that our new President is weak and willing to bend over backwards to make the enemy happy - because that is how they think.
We suffered no terrorist attacks after 9/11 during Bush's Presidency. If we suffer one under Obama, it will speak volumes.
Suspend? I wonder how his Democratic friends are reacting to this.
Apparently, the Democrats plan to introduce these terrorists into the American federal court system, extend Constitutional protections to these folks that are non-citizens (therefore the Constitution does not apply to them), and eventually enable them to be free so that they can return to their terrorist ways and kill more innocent people, most probably Jews and Americans.
But Obama suspended this action.
Oh, and all you liberals out there screaming Geneva Convention, as usual, are wrong again. The Geneva Convention applies to combatants wearing uniforms, serving the cause of a nation, and complying with the so-called rules of war - none of which these terrorists captured on the battlefield in the act of committing terror fall under.
And your precious savior, Barack Hussein Obama, suspended the trials you worked so hard for.
And think of this: Where are we going to put these prisoners should Gitmo Bay be closed? In the general population with American prisoners near neighborhoods? At military bases where their function is to train men and women, not to detain prisoners?
Oh, and don't get me wrong, Obama has every intention to enable the trials to ensue in the future. His hope is to bring these terrorists into the federal court system, but for some reason he wants time to think upon it. Perhaps he plans a big speech with a slow teleprompter that will be filled with so much B.S. rhetoric that even the folks that didn't vote for him will be glad to allow the trials.
The trials, or course, would be extremely dangerous for us as a nation because not only would they be essentially changing the acts of war by these enemy combatants to simply a criminal actions (talk about Change you can believe in), but it opens the door for the enemy to "play court" with our captured American military personnel in kangaroo courts that will be, of course, determined to make a mockery of the Americans in the public view.
As for the "torture" question? The Democrats proclaim that we must stop the torture at Gitmo. . . what torture? These detainees are living better than they did in their God-forsaken countries with plenty of food, clean water, and a place to sleep. The so-called torture of Water Boarding was used on three hardened al-Qaeda terrorists, and the information received from them probably saved thousands of lives. . . and Water Boarding is a method that simulates drowning, but never puts the prisoner in any real danger. However, the Islamic Jihadists don't use methods that "simulate" cutting off limbs or heads - they really do it, and in the most gruesome way. If you, the liberal nutcase, desire to yell at someone for being ridiculously insane, join us in our fight against the Islamic Terrorists. Don't get all excited about freeing them to kill again by closing the facility in Cuba so that they can find a way to return to terrorism.
Closing Guantanamo Bay and granting trials for the terrorists, caught in the act of terror on the battlefield, is stupid, and dangerous. When these people wind up killing Americans again, the blood will be on Obama's (and the rest of the idiot Democrat's) hands.
And these kinds of actions also send a message to the enemy that our new President is weak and willing to bend over backwards to make the enemy happy - because that is how they think.
We suffered no terrorist attacks after 9/11 during Bush's Presidency. If we suffer one under Obama, it will speak volumes.
Obama, Bush, and the Washington Cockroaches
I am not a Daily Show fan. Jon Stewart, the MTV refugee, landed this gig after Greg what's-his-name tried to hit it big on a bigger network with a late late late late show sometime after Dave and others, I think it was. But, every once in a while something funny, and essentially good, comes out of the bowels of the pit that is the Daily Show, and this is one of those moments:
Obama and the Democrats. . . Where is all that money for your plans and programs coming from?
Capital South has an idea. . .
(Click on the cartoon for the answer. . .
(1).jpg)
(Click on the cartoon for the answer. . .
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Beautiful People
Whenever I perform work in the towns around Los Angeles, like North Hollywood, the land of the beautiful people never ceases to amaze me. I am an observant person, and I have to admit that the women in those upscale neighborhoods around L.A. are more often than not thin to the point that it looks sickly. They are like under-nourished waifs.
Now, I am not saying that a thin woman is a bad thing, or that people have to fit my perceived ideal body type. I am saying that a woman that is so thin that she looks malnourished can be a bad thing, and possibly even medically damaging.
I agree that it is their business. But when that many of them in these neighborhoods, and I mean a very large percentage of them, are that thin, it makes you wonder what the underlying cause may be.
Sometimes I wonder how they are even able to keep their pants up.
I am simply observing the world around me, and you can't miss the ridiculous standard our women seem to think they must maintain by being stick figures. It amazes me because that sickly look has become what the image of beauty is in certain circles.
The message to our children, of course, is a dangerous one. And why women in our society feel the need to be so thin in order to be "acceptable" in an age where the underlying attitude has been one of pluralism and "who cares what people think" poses a contradiction that boggles the mind.
Is it a symptom of scrambled standards and lost principles? Has the onslaught against values brought us to this? Could it be that the people in our society have become so narcissistic that they are willing to endanger themselves with unhealthy behaviors to accomplish whatever it is they think they must accomplish?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama Inauguration in the Classroom
I shuddered when I heard that the nutcakes were making a fuss over Obama's Swearing-in. Psychiatrists would be kept busy for years with these people.
No, I am not talking about the people that began singing, "Na na na na, na na na na, na na na, good-bye," to George W. Bush as his term approached its end at the beginning of the ceremony. Yes, that was extremely disrespectful and foolish, but we have come to expect such idiocy from the heartless beings that populate the liberal left.
And no, I am not referring to the racist remarks that come out of the mouths of people who suddenly find themselves in front of a camera, or call into talk shows, that claim any white person that did not vote for Obama made that decision because of the color of his skin (like callers on 97.1 FM Los Angeles) - although I do believe a significant number of people "did" vote for him for that very reason.
And no, I am not referring to Lowery's benediction that proclaimed "when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right," as if being white means you don't do what' right, and we are somehow still in the 1960's when blacks rode the back of the bus.
I am referring to the moronic right-wing parents that kept their kids out of school, or were upset, because the public schools were showing the inauguration on television, and didn't even send home a parent's notification slip.
Yes, I am a conservative angry at members of The Right.
The argument regarding the schools showing Obama's Inauguration in the classroom erupted on local Los Angeles Radio stations, like John and Ken on KFI. Most of the argument stemmed around not wanting their children exposed to the "Obamagasm" going on, or the leftist activities in the audience.
I do agree that the media is biased, the schools are more or less liberal indoctrination centers, and Obama is a frightening far-left prospect for President of the United States. I also believe that the Public Schools have become nearly worthless, a large part because of the teacher's unions, and a large part because of the experimental methods of teaching and curriculum used. My children did much better during their years in private school, than during their years in the public school system.
Shielding children from the world, however, is not always the right answer when it comes to teaching them values and principles. Though I believe children are better off in principled environments, I also believe that when children are exposed to "other" opinions, it is necessary to allow such exposure with a glad heart, and then as a parent to be responsible enough to be involved in their lives, and be there to explain what it is they experienced.
I am sure the rhetoric in the classroom by the teachers was intolerable, and I know that the media coverage was ridiculously on the verge of becoming worship services of Obama. But regardless of all of that, an inaugeration is still a historic event, and as a student of history I believe that children must be exposed to historic events as they happen - and then have the event discussed with them by the parent later.
Those parents upset about the inauguration being shown in the classroom are well intentioned, I am sure, but well informed children (and adults) become well informed by observing the other side as well.
No, I am not talking about the people that began singing, "Na na na na, na na na na, na na na, good-bye," to George W. Bush as his term approached its end at the beginning of the ceremony. Yes, that was extremely disrespectful and foolish, but we have come to expect such idiocy from the heartless beings that populate the liberal left.
And no, I am not referring to the racist remarks that come out of the mouths of people who suddenly find themselves in front of a camera, or call into talk shows, that claim any white person that did not vote for Obama made that decision because of the color of his skin (like callers on 97.1 FM Los Angeles) - although I do believe a significant number of people "did" vote for him for that very reason.
And no, I am not referring to Lowery's benediction that proclaimed "when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right," as if being white means you don't do what' right, and we are somehow still in the 1960's when blacks rode the back of the bus.
I am referring to the moronic right-wing parents that kept their kids out of school, or were upset, because the public schools were showing the inauguration on television, and didn't even send home a parent's notification slip.
Yes, I am a conservative angry at members of The Right.
The argument regarding the schools showing Obama's Inauguration in the classroom erupted on local Los Angeles Radio stations, like John and Ken on KFI. Most of the argument stemmed around not wanting their children exposed to the "Obamagasm" going on, or the leftist activities in the audience.
I do agree that the media is biased, the schools are more or less liberal indoctrination centers, and Obama is a frightening far-left prospect for President of the United States. I also believe that the Public Schools have become nearly worthless, a large part because of the teacher's unions, and a large part because of the experimental methods of teaching and curriculum used. My children did much better during their years in private school, than during their years in the public school system.
Shielding children from the world, however, is not always the right answer when it comes to teaching them values and principles. Though I believe children are better off in principled environments, I also believe that when children are exposed to "other" opinions, it is necessary to allow such exposure with a glad heart, and then as a parent to be responsible enough to be involved in their lives, and be there to explain what it is they experienced.
I am sure the rhetoric in the classroom by the teachers was intolerable, and I know that the media coverage was ridiculously on the verge of becoming worship services of Obama. But regardless of all of that, an inaugeration is still a historic event, and as a student of history I believe that children must be exposed to historic events as they happen - and then have the event discussed with them by the parent later.
Those parents upset about the inauguration being shown in the classroom are well intentioned, I am sure, but well informed children (and adults) become well informed by observing the other side as well.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Bush Commutes Sentences for Ramos and Compean
In his final full day in office George W. Bush commuted the sentences for Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean. As a result, they will be released March 20 of this year. Ramos was originally sentenced to 11 years, and Compean was sentenced to 12 years. Read more at Fox News.
American Daily Review
A new web magazine for the world of politics (and other topics) has emerged, and I have been asked to be one of the deputy editors to the site. So, in addition to my writings here (and my various other sites around the web), you will also be able to read my commentary, and the commentary of other fantastic writers, on American Daily Review. Give it a visit.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Tonight On Political Pistachio Radio: Obama Citizenship and Eligibility Questions Still Rage On, Inaugural Hypocrisy, Christianity Change With Society
Obama Inaugural Hypocrisy, Obama Citizenship Battle Rages, Watered Down Christianity
Date / Time: 1/18/2009 7:00 PM
Category: Politics Conservative
Call-in Number: (646) 652-2940
As the Obama Inauguration approaches, the hypocrisy surrounding the event and his administration is deafening. The Courts, Congress, and Occidental College are being served with a demand to produce records regarding Obama, and his eligibility to be President of the United States. Christianity, in today's society, is experiencing a watering down that has fundamental believers concerned - Are Americans beginning to pick and choose their theological views? Political Pistachio Revolution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)