The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “government”

21 Jul 2012
7 Comments

Owning Guns Is A Constitutional Right. And Now, More Than Ever, It Is Every American Citizens Duty To Own Guns

Can one be a pro-American patriot, but anti-gun?  No.  Or, to put it another way – how can anyone support less personal independence and more government dependence, oversight and control over all Americans and still call themselves a patriot?

For those of us who are American citizens, responsible, law-abiding and of legal age and do not now own a gun – now is the perfect opportunity to go out and buy one.  For those of us who already do own one or more guns – now would be the ideal time to buy another.  Buy guns for yourself, first, and then, in spirit, for your family, your friends, your neighbors; for America; for our American Constitution; for the love of America and for our deep-rooted patriotism in America.

Do this – before sniveling, cowardly, entirely wrongheaded, and dangerously so, liberals, sinister in all things malevolent, begin to sway the ignorant masses of Americans that, sadly, do exist, and are not at all knowledgeable in our Constitution or our history, and through this ignorance are able to brainwash enough Americans into believing that the only way to prevent another Colorado massacre is to tighten gun control and to pass laws than further restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Says the irrational liberal – “How is buying more guns going to help prevent another massacre?”  Says the rational conservative – “How is removing every last gun from every last responsible, law-abiding, American citizen of legal age going to prevent another massacre?”

When anti-American, anti-second Amendments Rights liberals purposely, by law, remove guns from the hands of law-abiding American citizens, or make it much more difficult for us to obtain guns, what they are saying by their actions is that all Americans, regardless of facts, are criminals.  As gun laws become more stringent, making not only owning a gun more arduous, but going through the process of obtaining one, there becomes fewer and fewer gun owners.  Is that a good thing?

Well, as there becomes fewer and fewer responsible American citizens of legal age owning guns, how does that affect the criminal element in America?  The answer?  It doesn’t.  In the sense of obtaining guns, criminals will always have plenty of pathways, avenues and opportunities to illegally obtain weapons and to use those weapons on law-abiding American citizens who are now not armed themselves because, as law-abiding citizens they follow the law, whether they agree with it or not.

Liberals hate the Second Amendment because it provides direct power to the people, rather than to government.  The second Amendment allows every American citizen to take the law into their own hands and to defend themselves, their families, their property, etc, in a legal manner, in the event they are being threatened from someone else who means to do them serious harm.  Liberals, by their very grotesque nature, despise any type of independence among the people, believing instead that people ought to be ruled by government; that when trouble looms, they ought to simply call 911 and wait for government to come to their rescue.

As we, who are true patriots know, this is absolute BS.  Isn’t it ironic – and isn’t it utterly pathetic – that liberals will always use massacres, like the one in Colorado, to push their anti-American, anti-Second Amendment Rights fringe agenda, while at the same time, for all the thousands of murders that occur in our nation every year, committed by ruthless, deviant, evil criminals who have no respect for law or for humanity, this same liberal trash never once demands that guns be removed from their hands, or to make owning or possessing a gun, if one is a criminal, much more difficult, and punishable by steeper fines, etc.?

In fact, whenever a criminal murders someone in cold blood, liberals blame the NRA, conservatives, the Tea Party, Republicans and anyone who supports the Second Amendment.  But liberals never blame the actual criminal.  Nor do liberals blame the criminal for their actions, but rather they blame society at large for somehow having forced or compelled a criminal to use a gun in an irresponsible way that wound up taking the life of another human being in cold blood.

It’s all a charade, however.  Liberals need to get guns out of the hands of every American citizen.  How they accomplish that is irrelevant to them.  If they can succeed by frightening people into believing that guns kills people, and that guns themselves are the issue; that if guns were removed from society, that would end the problem of gun violence in America – if liberals see that angle working, they will continue to run with it.

Again, since we know that is all BS, and since we know that liberals have an agenda, which is not hidden, but which is rife will evil intent, to remove every last gun from the hands of every last responsible, law-abiding America citizen of legal age, we, as pro-Second Amendment Rights, pro-American patriots must have the courage to stand our ground.  We who love our country, our Constitution, our freedom, our way of life (still unique to anywhere else in this world) must hold firm and not allow liberals any ground to trample us or our rights.  Don’t tread on us!  Don’t tread on the U.S.!

The best way to thwart liberals in their anti-Second Amendment Rights agenda, and to prevent more unnecessary cold-blooded murders is to increase the amount of guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding American citizens of legal age.  What are we waiting for?

Related articles
Posted in government, gun control, politics, scams, silly laws and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
28 Jun 2012
1 Comment

Obamacare – Robert Reich Wants SCOTUS To Commit Treason (It’s What He Would Do, Anyway!)

UPDATE:  Supreme Court Commits Treason!!!!

With the United States Supreme Court poised to make their decision on Obamacare just hours away now (if you are reading this on Thursday, June 28 2012) there isn’t a single political pundit who has not yet weighed in with their thoughts on how the court will render its verdict.  Include Robert Reich (or Reichhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh for you Rush-a-bes out there) in that un-chlorinated cesspool of disease and squalor, rabidly infectious with misinformation and lies, called the MSM.  Reich is of the opinion the court will side WITH Obamacare, and he lays out several reasons why, all of which are both bogus and garbage.  But one thought he has laid out is absolutely treasonous, and for that, he ought to be fully excoriated and drummed out of America permanently.

What did Reich say that was treasonous?

Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle.”

Yikes!  Did Reich really say he hopes the Supreme Court will abandon its sworn duty to uphold, even acknowledge, the Constitution and decide in favor of Obamacare anyway (despite the fact that it is un-Constitutional) because if they don’t, the people might look upon them unfavorably?

Indeed, that’s exactly what Reich said.  And, to a degree, we can understand exactly where Reich is coming from – the MSM media, that is, which is more unpopular right now than it has ever been.  Never mind the actual quality of news content, it’s rating, ratings ratings!  So it must be all about ratings with the Supreme Court too, says Reich, and the Constitution be damned.

Reich thinks SCOTUS will be swayed by the few people in America who want Obamacare upheld in its entirety.  That may very well be true will Ginsberg, Kagan and sotomayor, all of whom are very liberal Justices, and judicial activists, and support looking outside the Constitutional, and even looking outside of American law altogether to what other countries are doing.  And while it is un-Constitutional for Supreme Court Judges to do that – that still doesn’t stop them.

The Supreme Court can’t afford to lose public trust. It has no ability to impose its will on the other two branches of government.”

Robert Reich, like everyone else in the lame-stream media wants the Supreme Court to take its marching orders from them, rather than what is actually written in the Constitution with regards to the powers vested to the Supreme Court.  What Reich won’t ever acknowledge, because it goes against liberal ideology and principal, is that the Supreme Court is not set up in the same way as say American Idol, the X factor, America’s Got Talent, etc.,  In other words, the Supreme Court is not a popularity contest, and it is not about acquiring the most, and highest, positive ratings.  The Supreme Court neither makes laws, nor does it decide laws based on how many people’s feelings will be hurt.  The Supreme Court was set up to ensure the Constitution was at all times upheld.  Period!

It doesn’t matter that a significant portion of the public may not like Obamacare. The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation. Indeed, what better way to show the Court’s impartiality than to affirm the constitutionality of legislation that may be unpopular but is within the authority of the other two branches to enact?

Reich is absolutely correct when he says “The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation”.  What is strange and confounding and damning is that the legislation in question is un-Constitutional, and Reich doesn’t seem to give a damn about that.  Or, to put it another way, how is siding with Obamacare, specifically the mandate that every American buy health insurance or face steep fines and penalties, upholding the Constitution?

As conservatives, and as Americans, we fully expect Obamacare to be struck down.  We also expect at least two Supreme Court Justices will side with Obamacare.  And for any Supreme Court Justice to side with a law that is blatantly and patently un-Constituitonal, that is, and must be, an impeachable offense.  It no secret liberals want Scalia thrown out.   Why shouldn’t we, as conservatives, demand tyrants that refuse to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution be dismissed, on their own power or ours?

Obamacare is an absolute mess, filled with new laws and powers bestowed upon government, granting it an extension of authority it was never designed to have, but which will have to be funded either through higher taxes on all of us, or through printing more and more money and tacking that expense onto the national debt .  We probably still don’t know every last disastrous detail.   Remember, we had to sign the bill into law first, before we could read it?  Remember who said that?

Is it really worth committing treason to uphold Obamacare?  We already know the purpose of Obamacare was not to ensure the health of all, or any, Americans.  Obamacare was set up specifically and directly to grow the size, the scope and the power of government, and to force us all to be that much more dependent on government and to become that much less independent for ourselves.  It’s un-Constitutional and its treasonous.  We’ll soon find out how many justices have committed treason shortly.  How stupid do we have to be to not see just how dangerous Obamacare is to America and to all of us?  As stupid as Robert Reich?

Related articles
Posted in government, healthcare, politics, scams, silly laws and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
24 Jun 2012
2 Comments

Unsympathetic Public School Burns Two Girls Alive, Pathetically Hides Behind Liberal-Based Law

There are an infinite number of reasons why, if you have children in public schools, you should immediately remove them from that destructive environment and place them either in a private school setting or home school them.  And even if you don’t have children in public schools, or don’t have children at all – you still need to fight the public school system’s tyrannical, imperial, bureaucratic and liberal hold it has on America’s youth.  Why?

Two young Washington State girls were forced to endure five hours of agonizing hell outside under the sun for their school field day.  The result?  Each came home very badly sunburned because they – by state law – were prohibited from applying sun screen without a doctor’s note giving them permission to do so.  Pure, liberal-based, hyperbolic overreaction which continues to infiltrate the public education system and take control over every single aspect of a child’s life during the hours they are in attendance at any given public school.

When will parents have the courage to stand up and challenge these heartless, thoughtless, unsympathetic thugs and rogues who have long ago usurped power, stolen it away from parents and community, and continue to wield that power to make incredibly devastating, irrational and permanently disfiguring decisions that only benefit them, but do absolutely nothing to educate and to prepare children for their future when they become adults?

More children will continue to suffer needlessly at the hands of public schools so long as they are run by government and not the parents and community at large.  It is entirely inappropriate and un-American for parents not to have more of a direct say, more of a direct control and influence with regards to their own children.  In other words – more government involvement is not the solution to a child’s well-rounded education, more government is the problem to a child’s well-rounded education.

Liberalism is also guilty of crimes against school children.  What conservative, or conservative idealism, provides for such nonsensical, and criminal, rules and stipulations as preventing a child from applying sunscreen to their skin to prevent being burned?  It is liberalism, and liberal ideology, that is the root of this ever-growing, and ever-growing out of control, problem.  Kids can’t play dodge-ball or tag, or anything of a competitive nature in public schools any longer for fear of hurting the feelings of other children who might lose.

Liberalism has outlawed the entire concept of winning altogether over the issue of “hurt feelings”.  And it is liberalism which – although it would seek to allow public schools to take your child to an abortion clinic to have an abortion against your will and without your knowledge; would seek to provide your children with condoms so they might engage is “safe sex” rather than abstain from sex; would teach your children that America  was founded by, and continues to be, a hateful, racist, bigoted, misogynist nation – that same liberalism would prevent your children from taking an aspirin to reduce or end pain; to apply sunscreen protection to their skin to prevent being burnt alive by the intense heat of the sun; or otherwise have a zero tolerance policy towards anything they deem to be a threat to their overall control and manipulation over the students, without exception, regardless of reason or consequence to the students affected.

Don’t misunderstand – public schools are noble and worthy institutions, and they ought to persevere.  However, so long as they are being run, and controlled by, outside influences with ignoble agendas; so long as parents have little or no say, or knowledge about what or how their children are being taught; so long as children are being intentionally inundated with harmful misinformation, that education – that purposeful lack of a quality education – will only prepare them for a life of indentured servitude, enslavement and complete dependence to government and government agencies.

The real reason why sunscreen is needlessly and heedlessly banned from public schools, like so much else, is not to protect your children from harm, but to protect the control public schools want, and need to have, over your children.  The sunscreen ban is a smokescreen.  In other words – public schools need to have complete dominance over your children without you influencing them.  The only way for schools to do that is to enact inane, head-scratching policies like the banning of aspirin and sunscreen, and the banning of tag and competitive sports, and enacting a zero-tolerance policy that makes absolutely no sense – and that also now includes, and extends to, the feeding of your children in public schools, all of which is engineered and designed to take more control over your children away from you and place that responsibility upon the public school system.  Public schools do not want you to have any say in how your children are educated, or what goes in public schools.  In increments, and over decades, the public school system has managed to become your children’s real parents, mostly due to our own apathy.

Until we become less apathetic, and more hostile (in a constructive manner) with regards to how our children are taught and educated in public schools, and what they are taught, more and more children will continue to be burned (pun intended) by those very public schools.  Either take back control of your public schools, or continue to watch the overall decline of your children’s education and, thus, their lives as they move into adulthood.  Which will it be?  And remember – your decision affects not only your children, but America at large, all of us.  Because children really are the future.

What future will America have, what future does America have, if its youth continues to be brainwashed and manipulated by a liberal-based agenda that ever seeks to dummy down their education rather than build them up and strengthen them, their perspectives, and prepare them for adulthood?  How can any child grow up to be independent when all they know is complete dependence and reliance on government to take care of them?

Related articles
Posted in education, government, politics, public schools, silly laws and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
23 Jun 2012
2 Comments

Nancy Pelosi: The “Mind Numbingly Stupid” Iron-ing Lady, Part 2 (What Does Eric Holder, Voter ID and Racism Have To Do With It?)

Nancy Peloist is “mind numbingly stupid“, and that is putting it mildly.  And Eric Holder has committed grave and serious actions against the best interests of America with regards to Fast and Furious.  For Pelosi to complain that all the attention the GOP is giving Holder, including demanding his resignation (Holder can keep his head, it is worthless to science for study, or any other field), that this ballyhooing among Republicans is nothing more than retribution for Holder’s involvement in the several voter ID lawsuits pending is beyond mind numbingly stupid.  It is yet another act of extreme desperation by Pelosi and the Democrat Party who continue to unravel and expose themselves for the literal know-nothing party they truly are.

Fast and Furious was a gun smuggling operation, coordinated during, and by, the Barack Obama Administration.  George Bush had nothing to do with it – he was well out of office after this monstrous, miscalculated scheme was carried out.  The idea was to sell guns with tracking capability to Mexican drug cartels, thereby learning where these cartels were located.  This plan flopped miserably and as a result, untold thousands of Mexicans have lost their lives in this seemingly endless drug war going on in Mexico, and a border agent, Brian Terry, has lost his life.  And leave it to one indignant Democrat strategist, Tamara Holder (who is white and of no relation to Eric Holder, who is black), to completely forget his name.  Imagine a Republican forgetting the name of Martin Luther King, and calling him “that guy” with the “Dream” speech”.  Yeah, that would go over well.

Eric Holder, again at the boot heel of Barack Obama, is engaged in a war, of sorts, with several states that have passed stringent voter ID laws.  How stringent?  How draconian?  These states, which include Florida and Arizona, have decreed, by law, that when a voter shows up to vote at any given poll they actually present identification before they are given a ballot.  Why?  That is the question Democrats and liberals ask, which is more proof they, and not Republicans and conservatives, are the real threat to American sovereignty.

Why, indeed!  Democrats are doing everything they can to make a mockery of America, American sovereignty and the entire voting process in America by their devil-may-care attitude to ensure, and make sure, anyone can vote (precluding those who are voting are voting Democrat), including enlisting the dead, the family pet, (remember Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler in the Wisconsin recall against Governor Scott Walker?), and in particular illegal aliens who are more apt to vote Democrat because Democrats are so desperately in need of every illegal vote in order to win elections.  And this is the real reason Obama is trying, un-Constitutionally, to usurp power for the express purpose of granting hundreds of thousands of young illegal aliens work permits.

It is also true that a disproportionate number of black Americans still do not have voter ID’s.  Despite the fact that most states offer these cards for free, there is still the contempt emanating from this group, egged on by race hustling garbage like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, about a poll tax, racism and intentional voter suppression.  All of which the Democrat Party, including the Iron-ing Lady herself, Nancy Pelosi, is taking full advantage of.

Says Pelosi, about the GOP’s attack on Holder’s credibility:

“I’m telling you, this is connected,” Pelosi said during a news conference Thursday. “It is no accident. It is a decision and it is as clear as can be. It’s not only to monopolize his time, it’s to undermine his name … as he goes forward to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The “connected” part Pelosi is referring to is the increased criticism coming from the GOP over Holder’s unwarranted involvement in the voter ID lawsuits.  The “protect and defend” part Pelosi alludes to is over Holder’s, Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s willingness to defend and protect their voting blocks, whether those voting blocks are legitimate or not.  There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the right to vote to illegal aliens, or anyone who cannot identify who they are.  It is the right of every state to ensure the voting process is not tainted with corruption.  Democrats, and Pelosi, are standing in the way of justice, both in the Fast and Furious scandal and in every state’s right to enact voter ID laws.  Democrats and liberals seem to be mind numbingly immune to this reality.

With Eric Holder, and his head buried deep in the Fast and Furious scandal, Barack Obama and his head buried deep in fanciful cloud formations high above reality, and Nancy Pelosi with her head buried deep within her own self, (and we can take that to also mean her self-absorbed lifestyle, her haughtiness, and the fact that she seems to have attained some metaphysical high breathing in the rancid and putrid fumes of her own arrogance and conceit for so many years – for that is the fanciful way of putting it), and the fact that regardless of who the Democrat strategist is, they will always take the side of Democrats no matter just how mind numbingly stupid they behave, just what vision does the Democrat Party have in mind for America and the future of America?

Nancy Pelosi’s vision of America, based off the lucid images formed from those same fumes she has been inhaling for so long, is an America that has no border’s, no sovereignty and no voting restrictions, just so long as she, and Democrats in general, keep getting reelected and allowed to make and to pass the laws they need in order to pander to the people they need to, for the votes they need to get reelected, so forth and so on, ad infinitum.

That may indeed be good for Democrats and the preservation of the Democrat Party, but – how exactly does that benefit America, the preservation of America as a sovereign nation; and just how long can Democrats keep this charade up before the entire American Experiment falls apart and one or more rogue nations comes in to claim America for itself?  Or does anyone really think it is the wide expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans that protect America and keep America safe from hostile enemies?  How mind numbingly wrongheaded, and dangerous, is that!

Related articles
Posted in 2012 election, government, Nancy Pelosi, politics, scams, silly laws, Voter ID laws and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
07 Jun 2012
1 Comment

Scott Walker Wins! Democracy Lives In Wisconsin: People 1; Union And Liberal Thugs 0

WOW!  What a day in Wisconsin that was – and one that will live in infamy.  Governor Scott Walker beats his Democrat opposition, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett handily, easily and by a wide margin.  There was nothing close about this race as this map will indicate.  The people of Wisconsin, en masse, reelected Walker despise all the union and liberal thuggery and the negative campaigning against Walker by the liberal press.  It was absolutely amazing that amount of people who came out and voted, the sheer intensity of which was on the side of sanity, of reason and of democracy – yes, democracy.  We had heard that died, but we knew it wasn’t so.  Aren’t liberals just the whiniest bunch of sore losers you’ve ever seen?

Now, on to the big question.  Is this win going to at last settle everyone’s mind to the fact that Wisconsin is not the progressive stronghold liberals thought it was?  No.  Liberals will never be convinced Wisconsin is moving towards conservatism, though it clearly is.  Not as rapidly as we would like, but these steps are encouraging.  What is also encouraging is watching liberals disintegrate and beat their empty heads against each other trying to figure out why and how Walker won.  What marvelous, magnificent, brilliant answer did they arrive at?

Their one and only answer was money.  Scott Walker, it is true, was able to outspend Barrett, but that is hardly the reason why Walker won.  The Democrats could have outspent Walker and still lost.  They could have dug into Obama’s stash – he’s got a billion dollar war chest after-all.  Walker still would have won.  Why?  Because this election was never about money, or how much money each candidate had at his disposal.  Thus reelection, this recall, was about ideas.  Walker has them, Barrett doesn’t.  Walker is leading Wisconsin out of deep hole created by unions, progressives and pensions.  Walker solved that crisis, which is what brought about the recall.  How did things go so terribly wrong for Democrats?

When the people of Wisconsin were able to fully understand that it was their money going to fund pensions, and that all Walker had done was to defray a tiny amount of that cost onto the actual recipients of those pensions – the public union employees themselves – rather than raise taxes even more on the people; and when the people of Wisconsin were able to fully understand the deep-seeded arrogance, the belligerence, the hostility, the ruckus, the outrageous display of indignant tempers these uppity public employees showed, the people of Wisconsin were able to fully understand exactly how selfish and how rotten these public union employees have been, and were being, and how dishonestly unions and the Wisconsin Democrat Party have been towards the facts concerning Walker, the state budget and pension costs.

For all the belly-aching and crying liberals have been doing, in particular those liberal commentators on MSNBC, CNN, the Arianna Nation (HuffPost) and all the liberal MSM outlets, it’s been a complete waste of their time, and a sham.  The people of Wisconsin are turning away from progressivism and liberalism.  Democracy lives, as evidenced by the fact that there was a recall even allowed, and that the people had the opportunity to recast their vote for or against.  The vast majority of Wisconsinites chose to retain Walker – that is democracy.

What is also a sham is the actual amount of people in Wisconsin who support unions, and support their taxes going up to continue funding public pensions, welfare and the nanny-state concept.  The people of Wisconsin are far more wise, much more intelligent, entirely more educated in politics that liberals give them credit.  And let’s not forget that Democrats had to bus in loads of union supporters from other states.  When do you ever see conservatives do that?

And when do you ever see conservatives threaten to kill a sitting politician?  But liberals do.  And while liberals of all stripes are beside themselves, grieving, mourning, rocking themselves gently to sleep, wondering just what has happened to their world – conservatives have never been more upbeat and excited for America, for democracy, for freedom.

Walker’s win by no means was the equivalent of putting a sign out in front of Wisconsin saying, “Unions not allowed in”.  And Walker is not trying to get rid of unions.  But he is trying to make unions own up to their responsibility, their fair share of the pension costs – and for that unions declared war on Walker.  Remember, it was cowardly Democrats who ran away from the fight, rather than stay and duke it out with Walker.  There can be no doubt about just how terrified and scared liberals are of conservatives, which is why they always try to fight their battles in courts of law friendly to liberal persuasions.

What does all this mean for the Presidential election and Romney’s chance of taking Wisconsin away from Obama?  A lot.  Never mind the exit polling you’ve been hearing about from the liberals MSM.  It’s bogus, rigged and phony.  Romney is gaining ground in Wisconsin, and both he and Obama are virtually tied right now.  That bodes well for Romney, not Obama.  If Romney takes Wisconsin, that leaves Obama needed a win in Indiana or Ohio, or some other red state he didn’t win in 2008.  In other words, Obama needs to retain all the blue states he won last time around, but if he loses Wisconsin, where can go to pick up the extra electoral votes he needs?  Because all the red states that McCain won in 2008 will vote for Romney.  But the blue states that Obama carried in 2008, minus Wisconsin, leaves Obama scratching at the dirt looking for where he can pick up those extra votes.

Walker’s win was huge for Wisconsin, and it will be huge for America as well.  The Democrats may not have realized it, but they just gave Republicans and conservatives the strongest indication yet as to how the Presidential election will unfold.  Just think, if this recall never had happened, conservatives would still be worried that Wisconsin was out-of-bounds for them.  But not anymore.  Now, it’s the Democrats who have to worry whether or not they will keep Wisconsin for Obama.  Will Democrats learn anything of value from their historic blunder?  Or do they simply like the taste of their own feet too much to stop shoving them down their throats?

Related articles
Posted in government, politics, unions and tagged , , , , , , ,
17 May 2012
3 Comments

How Republicans Can Use Schumer’s, Dems “Ex-Pat” Tax Scheme To Benefit All Americans

Chuck Schumer, (D -NY), and Bob Casey, (D-Pa) are unveiling a new tax scheme, the “Ex-PATRIOT Act” or Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy Act.  But before Republicans roll their eyes and hammer their fists in anger, they would do well to take a moment and reflect at what a golden opportunity this “tax hike” could be for Republicans and how it could actually reduce the tax burden if Republicans are smart enough to use the Dems tax scheme to a new advantage.  How would they do that?

The Ex-Pat Act is in direct response to those Americans who have renounced their American citizenship, specifically to keep from having to pay the exorbitant taxes Americans are forced to pay under our draconian tax system.  The Act would impose a 30% tax “on the capital gains of anybody who renounces their U.S. citizenship.”  The reason why Schumer, and other Dems, are proposing this, new tax, besides the obvious reason – their Democrats, and Democrats never met a tax hike they didn’t like – is to make certain that people who do renounce their American citizenship, like Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who did renounce his American citizenship before taking Facebook public, would still be required to pay the tens of millions in taxes on his stock purchases he would otherwise owe as an American citizen, some 67 million dollars.

But – why should Republicans go along with this scheme, and how can Republicans use it to their advantage, and to ultimately reduce the tax burden?

Before Republicans throw the Ex-Pat Act into the Boston Harbor, they ought to sit down with Democrats and make a deal that would benefit all Americans and American business; and, while it would impose a hefty fine on American tax “traitors” (which we ought not be too concerned with, yet) the benefits of this tax could have dramatic implications if Republicans play their cards right.  But, of course, if Democrats balk, or refuse to compromise, then by all means we ought to support, with a certain amount of understanding and sympathy, those Americans entrepreneurs and business risk takers that flee American and America’s outrageous and crippling tax system.

Behind those proverbial “closed” doors” Republicans ought to demand, in exchange for going along with the Ex-Pat Act, that both capital gains and corporate taxes be put in limbo (a moratorium) for a period of five years, after which both those taxes would come back at a competitive 9%, respectively.  Ideally both those taxes would be abolished all together, along with a host of other non-essential taxes (of which most taxes are).  However, until Republicans control all three Houses, and in particular, fiscal conservative Republicans who are determined to shrink the size of government, that is unlikely to occur.  But we can get the ball moving in the right direction.

One of the most important things we can accomplish in regaining control of our economy, and growing that economy, and in creating a plethora of new jobs, and new tax revenue, is to reduce the risk involved in owning and operating a business, investing in that business and profiting from that business.  It makes absolutely no common sense, or smart business sense, to have among the highest corporate and capital gains taxes in the world.  The more we can reduce these taxes, make them more competitive, more attractive for American businesses who have already fled to other nations to return to America, and even for foreign business to relocate to America, the more we can reverse our stagnant economy, which is, in essence in a coma and on life support right now.

Obviously there are other business taxes associated, and we will need to deal with those too, as well as the entire tax system.  But if we can do this one thing, put that five-year moratorium on capital gains and corporate taxes, in that five-year period we will see our economy rebound and grow with dramatic results.  New businesses will be created; current businesses will expand; all of which will need new workers to meet demands.  Millions of real jobs, with competitive wages and salaries will be created, putting millions of Americans back to work, and dropping to unemployment rate well below 5%.

We know exactly what Schumer and the Democrats are up to with their Ex-Pat Act, but before we pooh-pooh it, let’s use it to our advantage for real and meaningful tax change in our country.  Of course, the Democrats might just walk away from the table and scrap their tax scheme altogether.  That is a possibility.

So what?

Republicans are in a good position to retain the House, pick up more seats in the Senate (if not take that too) and Romney is looking pretty good in the polls right now against Obama.  This may be the Democrats one and only opportunity to increase taxes before the election, and, if Romney’s wins, the last opportunity for a very long time.  Would Schumer and the Democrat Party risk blowing such an opportunity?  Just how badly do they want to “sock it to ‘em” – those Americans who renounce their citizenship in order to avoid, and to evade paying taxes?  Are we willing to find that out, or will we arrogantly squander a precious opportunity to cut taxes?

Related articles
Posted in 2012 election, capitalism, economy, government, politics, scams, silly laws, taxes and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
27 Apr 2012
1 Comment

Treat Captured Terrorists Like Terrorists – Not Like A New Born Baby Or The Family Pet

Now might be the best opportunity available to become an anti-American terrorist, if you listen to anything the Arianna Nation (HuffPost) has to say on the matter of prisoner “torture” and enhanced interrogation techniques, which include water-boarding and sleep deprivation.  And on that note, just how many anti-American terrorists does the Arianna Nation continuously give aid and comfort to by writing anti-American trash every day?

The point of the so-called “torture” techniques is obvious to anyone with a drop of American blood in them: to extrapolate vital and timely information from captured combatants (terrorists) and use that information to save many more lives, as many as possible, from being murdered.  For any hot-blooded, anti-American, anti-Western terrorist wanna-be, the chance to kill American soldiers is hard to pass up.  If we (America) were actually to give up on these techniques, which are used selectively and deliberately on very specific individuals, and used very rarely anyway, wouldn’t that do more to embolden terrorists?  In other words, if a terrorist knew, in the back of his head, that all the while he was killing Americans he was not the least bit worried about being captured because if he was, there would be a nice, comfortable, cushy bed in a big room waiting for him; a nice hot meal, three times a day; a shower and a toilet; a lawyer, paid for by American taxpayers; even a Qur’an and a prayer carpet (for the Muslim terrorist).

There is a difference between a captured terrorist who we are holding, and a captured prisoner of war.  An enormous and fundamental difference that the Arianna Nation, and liberals in general, do not seem, or want to seem, to see or understand or differentiate between.  Terrorists are not fighting for a country but for an idea.  Terrorists are not wearing their country’s military uniform or waving their country’s flag or banner.  They are wearing whatever garb they happen to have in their personal wardrobe, and ideally clothing that can easily conceal explosives.  Terrorists are not operating on direct orders from a legally recognized national leader, President, dictator, etc.  Rather, terrorists are taking their orders from another terrorist higher up, who, in turn is taking their orders from another terrorist higher up the ladder, and so on until it reaches the top terrorist.

Conversely, a prisoner of war is understood, by definition, to describe a soldier apprehended who is wearing their country’s military uniform, who is fighting for, and on behalf, and sanctioned through, their country’s government; and who is fighting on direct orders from their country’s top leader, whether that be its President, dictator, or whoever is legally recognized to be running the country.  And we do have rules on how to treat those prisoners, and valid reasons as to why we treat prisoners of war with less hostility and more respect than we do with terrorists, even though in both cases, whether it be the terrorist or prisoner of war, they are both trying to kill American soldiers.

The Arianna Nation has described the enhanced interrogation techniques as “worthless” because:

A nearly three-year-long investigation by Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats is expected to find there is little evidence the harsh “enhanced interrogation techniques” the CIA used on high-value prisoners produced counter-terrorism breakthroughs.”

This, despise the fact that there is not only even less information to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that treating terrorists with human compassion and a deep and abiding respect actually deters others from becoming terrorists, but that in doing so – that is, in treating terrorists more humanely, more kindly and considerately, more pleasantly, tenderly and lovingly, we are actually encouraging more people to become terrorists because, and it all goes back to this – for any hot-blooded, anti-American, anti-Western terrorist wanna-be, the chance to kill American soldiers is already too irresistible and hard to pass up, even knowing that being captured may very well include “torture” techniques being used on you to extract vital information we think you may know (whether you do or not) about your band of terrorists, their whereabouts, their activities and what they have planned next and where they will carry out their next terrorist attack.  How, and why, in the hell is a terrorist expected to give up this information if, instead of throwing a towel over their head and submerging them in cold water, we place a three coarse meal in front of them and provide them with legal counsel at our own expense?

Liberals are sympathetic to terrorists, especially those terrorists that are anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, anti-democracy.  The only real difference between a liberal and a terrorist is that terrorists carry out what liberals only dream and fantasize about carrying out.  Not convinced?  Look at the “Occupy” movement.  They are planning some rather impressively radical activities which are coming closer and closer to being defined as terrorism.  So, in a sense, liberals are beginning to move from the “dream” stage to the reality stage of terrorism and actually becoming terrorists.

We have to do something with the terrorists we capture.  And we have to make every attempt possible to extract whatever information these terrorists might know about their band, and about any upcoming attacks.  Why does doing this incense liberals and make them uncomfortable, and uncomfortable to be Americans?

It may be true that you can “catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”.  And it may also be true that “one hand helps another”.  It may also be true that “one act of kindness comes back to you threefold”.  However, we are dealing with terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up, and as many innocent women and children and elderly as they can for what they believe in.  And what they believe in all pertains to the after-life, not life on this planet.

But, when we are able to capture one of them, put a towel over their head and submerge them in cold water; when they feel death gripping them, and earthly life slipping away, slowly, agonizingly, under that duress they begin to appreciate this life all the more, and are not so eager to join their fellow comrades who have already made it to the after-life.  It is at that moment where our military has the best opportunity available to gain valuable information and prevent another terrorist attack from occurring, and save lives.  Why would we squander that opportunity because it makes pathetic, worthless liberals, like those affiliated with the Arianna Nation, uncomfortable and sad to be Americans?

Until the day comes when our military abandons the “take no prisoner” mentality, literally, we will continue to take prisoners.  When we are at war with terrorists, who are not fighting on orders from their government, who are, for the most part, operating in small tight-knit bands, who do not recognize, accept or even acknowledge the Geneva convention rules for engaging in war, why in the hell should America or our allies extend to them (the terrorists) the benefits, perks, the courtesy and privilege, all at the expense of the American taxpayer, of being a prisoner of war?  How does providing more safety and security to the terrorist benefit America more, and provide more safety and security to America, than it does the terrorist?

Related articles
Posted in government, politics, U.S. Military, War On Terror and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
16 Apr 2012
1 Comment

Are You Getting, Or Hoping For, A Tax Refund? Why That Is Such A Terrible, Terrible Thought…

Everybody hates to pay taxes.  We curse, we scream, we yell, we rant, we put it off until the last-minute.  And then we do our taxes, crunch all the numbers, add up all the deductions, breaks and credits, and breathe a sigh of relief, let out a little laugh, a snide chuckle as it were, and smile when we see that we have a chunk of money that the federal/state government owes us.  Finally – our government is giving something back to us.  A few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars, on average.  What sweet satisfaction that is.  What sweet revenge on a government which has taken so much from us in that fiscal tax year.  What a – terrible, terrible place for any American taxpayer to find themselves in.  WTF!

You had such great plans for that tax refund, didn’t you?  You were going to pay off bills; take a vacation; buy a new car, a new computer,  a new something – but you were going to spend that money, splurge and go crazy on yourself, for yourself and have some fun.  You’ve been told for years, and perhaps for decades you’ve been under the tax refund delusion, that getting a tax refund is a positive, joyful, gratifying experience.  Now you are being told that is all a lie, a sham, a scam created by government itself no doubt.  You might be crestfallen, heartbroken, shattered.  And if you are receiving a refund this year, because you paid too much in taxes, all you can do now is suck it in, accept it, and rush to amend your filing status so that next year you OWE taxes to the government.  Wait, what?  Who is this crank?

Is this not making any sense at all to you.  Are you confused beyond belief?  Are you sitting there stumped, dumbfounded and seething with indignant rage because someone is telling you what a terrible, terrible mistake you are making in setting up your tax return in such a way as to OWE money, rather than receive a refund?  You still don’t understand how any of this all adds together, do you?

It’s elementary, really.  The tax refund you are hoping for, and hoping to be HUGE, is money that is sitting somewhere in a government fund, collecting interest for government, benefiting government, being used by government for whatever purpose government sees fit to use it.  That’s your money.  Why isn’t your money sitting in your bank account?  You have bills, debt to pay, and the refund you are hoping for, you are delaying paying off your debt on until you get that refund.  But you claimed ZERO, or ONE on your tax return, which means you are paying more in taxes to the government than if you claimed TWO or even THREE.  And if you had claimed a higher number, you would have paid less in taxes.  And if you were paying less in taxes, you could have paid off some or all of your debt before you filed your taxes, and certainly before the government got around to returning your money it owed you.  How much interest on that debt could you have avoided by doing it that way?  How much extra money, on the interest, could you have saved, if you could have had that extra money each month to pay down your debt and get it paid off sooner rather than later?

Maybe you don’t have debt.  (???? – Is anyone in that “predicament” these days?)  Well, you still wanted to buy that new car, new computer, new something – right?  You still wanted to take that vacation – right?  You still wanted to do something fun and exciting with all that money – right?  You still wanted to treat yourself, pamper yourself, indulge yourself, in yourself, for yourself – right?

Well – why the hell do you think you can’t do that unless you are OWED a refund?  In other words, by setting up your tax return so you keep more of your money, and in essence flip the finger to government, you could be setting aside your money each month and building up a nice pile for yourself, for when you do want to do that special thing for yourself, whatever that might be.  And – because it’s already in your bank account, and not sitting somewhere in a government account, you don’t have to wait for government to get around, which they are always sluggish about doing anyway, to returning your money to you.  Turn the tables on government and make government wait for the little bit you end up owing come tax time, just like they make you wait, and wait, and wait…

The dirty little secret, ladies and gentlemen, is that there is absolutely no reason for any taxpayer to hope for, or expect, or want a tax refund from the government.  It’s all been propaganda, a scheme, and a scam, devised and disseminated in such ways as to deceive you into believing you are better off with a refund rather than with another bill to pay.  As a taxpayer you actually want to OWE some money to government, not the other way around.  And until the federal income tax is abolished, (we can only hope) most of us who earn money from a job will have to pay a portion of those earnings to government.

How does it make sense to pay more up front and wait to get your money back on the government’s time (on government’s and your dime) when you could keep that money, your money, and make the government wait for the little bit you will end up owing it?  You’re not hurting government (you’re certainly not hurting its feelings) by paying less up front, and the rest at tax time.  You’re not hurting yourself by paying less up front.  You will not be penalized by government, or hunted down by a government official by not paying more up front.  So – why do it?

And, if you have always done it, hoping, expecting a refund, doing it for the refund, now that you know how futile, how fruitless, how non-beneficial to you that really is, will you still arrange your tax return for next year, and the years to follow so that you continue to pay more in taxes just to get a refund, when you now know how silly that is?  Why!

Related articles
Posted in government, politics, scams, silly laws, taxes and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
16 Apr 2012
1 Comment

Of Course Liberals Will Welcome Any Call For Reparations For Trayvon Martin (As Long As There’s Lots Of Money In It)

An “ambulance chasing” civil rights group in Florida is overjoyed and elated to hear that at least one member of the United Nations, Navi Pillay, is calling for reparations for Trayvon Martin.  It is presumed that the “reparations” is monetary in nature, and that it would go to Martin’s family.  How much actual money it would amount to, or from whom (George Zimmerman?) it would come was not stipulated.  This is wise because it gives people enough time to look into Zimmerman’s finances and make certain he has enough money to be a worthwhile target for reparations.  After-all, it is only important that Zimmerman be a chump, not his change.

Of course, reparations could come from the state of Florida.  But, if from the state of Florida, where oh where does Florida (this is a tough one) get the, ahem, money it needs to, ahem, cough up to the, ahem, “victims”?  Ahem!  Yes, there certainly is a lot of sticky, gooey phlegm built up in this United Nations-civil rights partnership.  It’s awful sick, at any rate.  We all ought to wash our hands of it, with lots of anti-bacterial disinfectant.  But, you know –  once you get the United Nations on your hands, it’s almost impossible to get off of your hands.  (You thought Pontious Pilate had a tough time washing his hands.)  In fact it is almost as hard getting the United Nations off of your hands as it is in getting the United Nations off of American soil.  Yes, the United Nations is one of those stubborn stains on world history, and on American soil, that will not so easily disappear.  Or, to put it another way, the United Nations is a lot like mother-in laws.  (It’s just too bad this isn’t the 1970’s – that statement would have  been so much more relevant /or funny).

Said Pillay:  (Who, by the way, you will be happy to know has made her remarks about reparations for Trayvon Martin while on “a visit” to Barbados.  Oh?  That doesn’t make you happy to know that?  Well, forget about it, then.  Pretend she instead made her remarks from a cold, dank prison cell where we hope all United Nations members will ultimately be interred.  But, still – Barbados?  What do we have to do to get a trip to Barbados?  Oh, right – be in the United Nations.)

“Justice must be done for the victim.  It’s not just this individual case, it calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this.  In this particular case it was the family itself, their distress that became known to the general public – once again people pressure that has drawn attention to this case.  It shouldn’t be so.  The law should operate equally in respect of all violations.  So, like every other situation such as this, we will be urging an investigation, and prosecution and trial – and of course reparation for the victims concerned.”

“And of course reparation for the victims”?  This is the United Nations.  These people have their heads up their asses – and they still can’t find their asses.  (At least now we know what we have to do to get a trip to Barbados – walk around with our head up our ass, if you couldn’t figure out where that was leading.)

By what right, what authority, has the United Nations in butting into American law like it butts into its own, well, never mind…

Barack Obama?  Their ego may be as inflated as Obama’s, and it is a wonder with all that helium filling Obama’s and the United Nations empty skulls why neither have not floated off into space.  For Obama, could it be the weight of the national debt that is keeping him grounded?  He ought to be grounded for all the trouble he has caused America, American business, American taxpayers, American citizens and especially American Idol.  The United Nations ought to be grounded too.  In fact, it ought to be underground – deep underground, like in China!

In the meantime, J. Willie David, President of the Florida Civil Rights Association (that’s the “ambulance chasing” civil right group aforementioned ) issued a statement:

“We believe that the United Nations involvement can help prevent another Trayvon Martin situation in other counties across the world.  The shooting death of Trayvon Martin and Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law have created a worldwide movement that calls into question how justice is delivered to victims of color.”

Has there ever been a time when the United Nations butted into anything where that interference actually helped?  Where is the United nations in Egypt?  In Iran?  In Syria?  In North Korea?  In Afghanistan?  In Obama’s campaign for reelection?   Or, perhaps they are already there, and that is the reason for all the upheaval, chaos, panic, disorganization and name calling.  (The upheaval, chaos, panic, disorganization and name calling was more for Obama’s campaign than it was for the countries listed.)  If David thinks having the United Nations in his corner is a benefit, he ought to take a look at what the United Nations has done to all the other corners.  Like this corner, for example.

If the United Nations really wanted to help out somewhere, and do some good, it ought to butt into the one place in all the world that truly needs all the help it can get – namely the United Nations itself.  And since we know where the United Nations is not in, we rightfully ask where the United Nations is in.  But that just brings us back to the United Nations having its head up its ass, and we already covered that.

Yes, by all means, just throw money at the Trayvon Martin incident and see how many “victims of color” do not become “victims”, as if one life will be saved by this.  And since the United Nations thinks it has jurisdiction over the United States, and American citizens, and since thinking is all the United Nations does (it is not very good at it, by the way), the Florida Civil Rights Association (the “ambulance-chasers”) can at least be comforted knowing the United Nations is thinking about justice for “victims of color”.  Because there will be no actual reparations.  That is as much a scam as is the United Nations itself.

And while the United Nations, and the Florida Civil Rights Association think about reparations for Trayvon Martin, how much actual thought is being put into preventing another Trayvon Martin incident from happening?  How many murders have there been of  “victims of color” in the past few minutes?  Does that answer that question?

Related articles
Posted in George Zimmerman, government, politics, scams, Trayvon Martin and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
11 Apr 2012

Obama Administarion Allows Scummy Warren Buffett To Keep One Billion Dollars In Taxes

I'm Warren Buffett, And I'm Too Rich, Too Arrogant, Too Important To Pay Taxes - But That Doesn't Mean The Rest Of You Shouldn't. You See, There Are Two Kinds Of "Rules" My Friends - Those "Rules" For Peasants Like You Who Must Pay Their Fair Share In Taxes, And Those "Rules" For People, Like Myself, That Have Connections In High Places And Are Not Really Expected To Pay Their Fair Share, Or Any Share, Of Taxes. (And, Unlike The Rest Of You - I, Warren Buffett, Won't Go To Jail.) I'm Warren Buffett - Thank You For Letting Me Con You Into Believing I Really Give A Damn About You. It's Truly Been A Pleasure...

To date, Warren Buffett still owes the federal government over one billion dollars in back taxes, from his Berkshire Hathaway company going back to 2002, and Buffett is hell bent and determined not to pay it back.  This, at the same time he is promoting the his “Buffett Rule”, a scam which would raise taxes on millionaires up to 30%.  While Barack Obama supports this tax, and praises Buffett for his “generosity” and “humanitarianism”, Obama has not demanded Buffett pay back the one billions dollars.  Hmm…

Warren Buffett is one on the richest people in the world; one of the “evil” rich “one-percenters”.  Well, he is rich, and he certainly is evil.  But despise the fact that he owes so much money in back taxes, Obama will not push Buffet to pay it.  Instead, he will go after the rest of us who are not as influential, as important, as connected.

Warren Buffett is a con-artist.  What else do you call a man who, on the one hand owes so much in taxes and refuses to pay it, and on the other hand is cheer-leading for a new tax that would force millionaires (undoubtedly other than himself) to pay more in taxes?

What else is strange is that Buffett’s tax evasion is out in the open.  Buffett is not trying to hide the fact that he owes over one billions dollars.  What that ought to tell you is that Buffett is so arrogant, so conceited, so confident that he is, and will remain, protected and sheltered by Obama and his administration, he can have the audacity to publicly demand rich people, including himself, pay more in taxes, at the same time he refuses to pay his own taxes.  What happens if the “Buffett Rule” becomes law?  Is Buffett going to pay that tax?  Or will he find a way to “creatively” move around his money like so many rich people are able to do?

The “Buffett Rule” need to be rejected and Buffett’s “Rule” (his reign) needs to come to an end.  He is scum, a pretender, a faker, and represents true evil.  He is using his wealth, which he able to shelter in ways the rest of us cannot do, his prestige and notoriety, his influences and contacts to ensure that he will ultimately pay less in taxes than the rest of us, including his own secretary.  Nobody wants to pay taxes.  But most of us understand we need to pay a reasonable and fair portion.  Warren Buffett, as greedy and as unscrupulous as he is, did not get to where he is, did not acquire as much wealth as he has, by playing by the rules the rest of us must abide by.  What makes anyone believe he would play by his own “Buffett Rule”?  What makes anyone believe he would  – pay it?

Related articles
Posted in government, politics, scams, silly laws, taxes and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
10 Apr 2012

Americans – Get Off Your Lazy Butts And Get Back To Work!

Are you one of the millions of Americans sitting on your couch in your underwear channel surfing, thumbing through old books, glancing up every now and then to see if the mailman has brought your welfare/unemployment check?  Governor Chris Christie has offered up some advice for Americans like you who are still out of work – and still not looking for a job in this, our “paternalistic entitlement society”.

“Government’s telling them stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you.  We’re turning into a paternalistic entitlement society.  That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally.  We’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check”.

The problem we face in America right now, and will continue to face so long as Obama remains President, is that the opportunity for full-time employment is extremely low.  Businesses are being pinched, over taxed and over regulated by Obama’s government and to an extent their own state and local governments.  Knowing and understanding this is fundamental because too many Americans still feel that so long as the welfare/unemployment checks keep coming in, there is no urgency for finding a full-time job.  Does anyone believe that even a slight majority of people collecting a check in some form from government is actively searching for a job – any job – whether it is full time or not?  In other words, if one can get by on government assistance, what incentive is there for independence, as opposed to government dependence?

Now that the federal extension for unemployment insurance is being reduced from 99 weeks to 73 weeks over the remaining year, 2012, more people will be looking for jobs, but the amount of jobs available will either be the same or lower.  In other words, because the full-time jobs are not there, and because more Americans will be thrown into a market that works much like musical chairs, this will leave millions of Americans both without jobs and without government assistance to get them through another month.  Action by Democrats and liberals only revolves around adding more weeks of unemployment insurance benefits.  But how many more weeks can government add before the time comes when jobless Americans will see their children pass through elementary school, Jr. High and high school, all while they are at home collecting a check?  Billions of dollars are being squandered, and while there are millions of Americans who genuinely need short-term assistance, are we supposed to overlook and ignore the many millions of Americans who are intentionally abusing and taking advantage of the system and taxpayers?

If enough full-time jobs are not available right now for every American who wants one, is there an alternative to get them, and those of us who also want and need to work full-time, through until those full-time jobs are available?

Of course.  The solution is to simply take on two or three very part-time jobs.  Those types of jobs are plentiful, and while they don’t pay as much as full-time, and don’t offer insurance or other benefits of full-time employment – they still offer a paycheck.  And paychecks, for people who need an income right now, are, and ought to be, more important in the short-term, while still looking for full-time employment.  It makes no sense to sit on the couch, collecting welfare/unemployment waiting, expecting – demanding – full-time employment, and refusing to leave that couch until someone comes along and offers you a that job.  It doesn’t work that way in America, in Europe, or anywhere in the real world.  Try living like that in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China or any socialist “paradise” and “utopia”.  Mm, maybe France.

Why should Americans not be willing to “suck it in” so to speak (their pride, that is) and be willing to take these lesser paying jobs until the economy improves and business start offering more full-time jobs?  Virtually every single small business in America  that is still afloat, that is still fighting for life, is looking for extra help, even for a few hours a day or week.  We have been put in a situation, in America, primarily caused by Obama and the Democrat Party, that has seen businesses close their doors to new full-time hires, or close its door permanently, thereby laying off all its employees.  Our economy is very sensitive.  It does not react well to high taxes, high regulations, high inflation – and threat of even higher taxes, regulation and inflation.  Obama promises more of this, so why would any savvy business owners take on full-time employees during a time they know their cash flow is going to be further depleted?

Our best bet is to get off the couch, brush away the crumbs, grow some courage and take that part-time job across the street.  Get a few hours there, and go into the business next door as see what they have.  Doing this will put millions – tens of millions – of Americans back to work.  It will help an already fledgling small business sector, which account for about 75% off all business in America, get back on its own feet and pull our economy out of this hole.  The success of small businesses will cross over to medium and large businesses who rely and depend upon small business for myriad services.  And if/when big business is helped by small business, that extra help will transfer into the need, and urgency, for more full-time jobs.

If we have to work three or four, or five jobs, why should that be more insulting, more degrading, more indignant and more “work” than going to the mail box, collecting the welfare/unemployment check and taking it to the bank to cash it?

Related articles
Posted in capitalism, economy, government, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
30 Mar 2012

Preschool Is An Over Rated, Over Glorified Baby Sitting Service – Abolish It!

Liberals are up in arms with the The Ryan plan, which passed the House yesterday, but will probably die in the Senate.  One of the provisions in the plan that so irks liberals is, in attempting to reduce overall spending by eliminating unnecessary budget items and government programs, it appears that preschool funding is, in part, on the “hit list”.

The House is preparing to pass a Republican budget that would slash funding for Head Start, a federally funded program that provides a wide range of services to a million young children living in poverty and their families.  The House Budget Committee, would eliminate slots for about 200,000 children in 2014, according to an analysis by the National Education Association. Over the next decade, the NEA estimates, more than two million children would lose opportunities to attend Head Start centers as a result of the cuts.

Regardless of ones income, preschool teaches children absolutely nothing that they can’t learn at home from their parents.  All preschool is, is a babysitting service which taxpayers, through government takeover of education, flip the bill for.   There are no complex learning skills being taught to three and four-year olds.  Only the alphabet, reading and writing skills, coloring, playtime, nap time, potty training skills, the “love your neighbor” concept without the religious additive, etc.  Nothing these small children learn in preschool cannot also be learned at home, where, if preschool is not mandated by local or state law already, parents can save a lot of money that goes into preschool funding and school their own children so they are ready for grade school.

But that is the point of preschool, and why states take a keen interest in getting their political arms around it.  It’s all about the extra money they get from forcing parents to enroll their children in unnecessary schooling, like preschool.  Now, in an effort to defeat the Ryan budget, and to boost more federal spending for preschool, the MSM, is pushing the idea that low-income families will be harmed if the Ryan plan passes because the cuts made will eliminate “slots” the federal government creates for children of low-income families to enroll in preschool through Head Start and other taxpayer subsidized programs.

Of Head Start, Yasmina Vinci, who heads the National Head Start Association says:

“It’s good not just for kids, it’s good for the whole community.”

Not only do we know this to be absolute nonsense and BS, but the article goes on to prove our case in the next paragraph.

But despite the enthusiasm for Head Start, recent audits have shown the system is far from flawless. A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that half of all workers in the field of children’s services and a fifth of preschool teachers lacked high-school diplomas, for example. The survey counted workers for Head Start programs.

So not only is this another worthless government mandated program, but parents who send their children off to preschool to be taught their “ABC’s” and how to color and stay within the lines, but there is more than a fifty percent chance your children are being taught by someone who never graduated high school and probably not only has a hard time reciting their own “ABC’s” but probably cannot color within the lines themselves.

Whether or not parents wants to send their children off to preschool ought to be the parents decision, not government’s.  If parents find “value” in preschool – and the only real value preschool has is that it takes the kids off the hands of the parents for a few hours – if that is indeed your idea of “value”, that ought to be up to parents not government.  Maybe it’s good for families where both parents must work, but not so good for the children who are now being raised by teachers instead of their parents, which might just be the effect liberals in government had in mind from the beginning.

But unless these kids are learning trigonometry, Constitutional law, or something of a complex nature their own parents could not teach them, that only well-trained and professional educators could teach them (which takes more than the high school diploma more than half of these preschool teachers lack), it is a complete and absolute waste of tax dollars to be sending three and four-year old children to school where they learn nothing of any particular beneficial value, but do learn how bad and how evil our holidays are, like Valentine’s Day – which in some schools is known as “Caring and Kindness Day”, and St. Patrick’s Day, which in some schools is now known as “O’ Green Day”, (this is become of the religious nature of “saint” in both holidays) and other politically correct garbage as they are being baby-sat by people who haven’t a wit’s idea as to what they are doing.  Is it any wonder why nap time is such an integral part of preschool.  It’s not for the kids – it’s for the teachers.

No child ought to grow up in poverty.  But sending kids from low-income families off to preschool, instead of staying with their parents is the wrong approach.  It’s the wrong approach regardless of income.  Kids will do much better in grade school, and throughout their educational lives, and the rest of their lives, the more interaction they have with their parents early on in their lives, rather than being dumped into a government baby sitting program.

And if preschool was a private endeavor, instead of a public on, if government wasn’t seeing  penny of the money being made off these baby sitting services, is there any doubt they would find as many ways as they could to condemn them and shut them down?

Related articles
Posted in education, government, politics, public schools, scams, silly laws and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
29 Mar 2012
22 Comments

American Liberalism Is Dying, Though Its Last Gasps Are Louder Than Its Voice Ever Was

While it’s sad, but true, that the MSM (Main Stream Media), which is, and has always been, very liberal, is still the predominate vehicle through which most Americans receive their news, this phenomenon is slowly but steadily crumbling.  Unless you are a conservative, and looking from the outside in, it will be hard to tell, and certainly harder to tell if you are a liberal, and one who is already entrenched the in Leftist camp.  Nonetheless, as the latest gallop Poll shows, more American consider themselves conservatives than liberal or independent.  That is not a new trend, by the way.  Conservatives have always outnumbered liberals, and conservatives, by the percentages, have been rising throughout the decades.  So – how long before conservatives reach fifty percent?

That may be sooner than anyone ever thought, and thanks, large in part, to that group of Americans who nobody thought might help push conservative numbers and percentages higher and higher, into that coveted majority standing.  That group?  Liberals, naturally.  And it is through their lack of any real insight, intellectual capability, provocative debating skills, and the fact that they argue more through substantive emotions, rather than through rationality, that is, and will continue to be, their undoing.  Obviously, they won’t see it.  They will, of course dent it.  And all of that is just fine with conservatives.

We clearly see the Left’s infantile, its child-like and most juvenile nature everyday, in every liberal media outlet – CNN, MSNBC, NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC.  All these markets are declining in viewership.  Where are all the former viewers going to get their news?  Newspapers have been on the decline for years, and because most people can get their news online, conveniently, and for the most part, free, newspapers will continue to decline as more and more opt to use the internet to market their brand rather than the old-fashioned paper.  Good for us, but probably bad for the paperboy.

Again, if all we ever read or listen to is the Arianna Nation, The Daily Kos, The View, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz, John Stewart, Steve Colbert, etc., then it will be very difficult to grasp just was is actually happening out in the real world.  And too many, in fact an uncomfortable and disturbing level of young adults, college aged, are still either listening to or reading liberal-based media or not interested in news at all, having consumed and wrapped themselves up in their own little fantasy worlds.  Luckily, most of them will grow out of it by the time they reach their mid thirties, which is exactly why conservatives outnumber liberals, and why that trend will continue, and why the percentages will long remain in conservatism’s favor – and why, by 2020, conservatives will be somewhere around the 45% mark, whereas liberals will be below 20%.  The reason?  Moderates/Independents, who make up 35% of Americans will, for the most part remain unchanged.  But any shift will see this group move to the conservative side rather than the liberal.

America is returning to its conservative roots and heritage.  Again, it’s near impossible to see this living in a liberal state, city or part of America that is a stronghold for liberalism and liberal values.  And we recognize that it will take much longer to break the grips of leftist propaganda in these areas, which are tightening and bearing down on the communities where they still have a hold.  That also is fine.  Conservatism is on the march, and we have yet to be stopped.  Portraying conservatives as the bullies and aggressors has done nothing to thwart our resolve, slow or progress or shut us up.

What happens to liberalism when Obamacare is overturned?  What happens to liberalism when Obama loses his reelection bid to, it is presumed, Mitt Romney?  What happens to liberalism when a republican controlled congress begins to repeal some of the Democrat legislation that has crippled our nation, incurred trillions of dollars of debt and kept us in a perpetual recession?  What happens to liberalism when taxes are substantially cut?  When the Keystone XL pipeline is passed and when more and more drilling permits are accepted?  What happens to liberalism when all of this comes to pass, and the nation finally realizes that smaller government, lower taxes and more personal freedom is not the “evil” liberals paint it to be?

Liberalism flounders and chokes on its own acidic vomit.  Not convinced?  That isn’t really important to us – right now.

Related articles
Posted in 2012 election, conservatism, government, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
27 Mar 2012
4 Comments

Healthcare Insurance Ought To Include Pre-Existing Conditions; Government Ought To Butt In, Then Butt Out – And Stay Out!

The cost of treating someone with an advanced illness is a tremendous burden on one’s family as well as on one’s finances.  Compounding the problem, most Americans cannot afford to buy their own health insurance, and that needs to change.  No American ought to be forced to go without healthcare because they legitimately cannot afford it.  And no American ought to be forced to endure the pain associating with illness that goes untreated because they have been denied health insurance due either to an inability to pay for it, or because of a pre-existing condition – or both.

Doesn’t it make more sense to treat an illness as soon as possible, both for the benefit of the individual who needs to be treated, and because the sooner an illness can be treated (which includes bringing a condition under manageable control) the less overall cost there is in treating the illness when it becomes more advanced and needs more specialized medicine, more tests, more doctor and hospital visits?  Why do health insurers discriminate so viciously against Americans with pre-existing conditions and what can government do to reverse that without taking over health insurance altogether, and at the same time lower the cost of healthcare for ALL Americans, including those with pre-existing health conditions?

The United States Supreme Court is in the middle of hearing arguments over The Affordable Care Act – Obamacare, in which the government is arguing it can mandate and force all Americans to buy health insurance.  The Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare on this issue, because it (and we all know it) is unconstitutional for government to force Americans to purchase anything they don’t want to, including health care.  Part of Obamacare also provides that pre-existing conditions must be covered, and that no American can be discriminated against who has a pre-existing health condition.  Once Obamacare is reversed, Americans are back to the drawing board with regards to healthcare, and millions of Americans who now have pre-existing health conditions, who thought they would finally be covered with the health care they needed to help them, will find themselves out of luck.

Health insurance agencies will not cover people with pre-existing conditions because the cost of the premiums would have to be raised in order not to lose money.  Remember, healthcare institutions are FOR PROFIT agencies.  Just as bad is relying on government to provide healthcare to all Americans, including coverage for pre-existing conditions, because in order to do that the cost for such an expensive undertaking would have enormous consequences – very dire, very negative for all Americans.  Government is a NOT FOR PROFIT body, but if it runs health care – it ain’t doing it for free.

1.  Taxes would have to be raised on everyone to pay for government-run healthcare.  So the idea that healthcare would be free flies in the face of reality.  How much taxes would be raised is hard to tell, but as usually happens, it is small at first, and then is progressively raised over time.  In any event, we would all feel it in our wallets and pocketbooks.

2.  Taxing the rich, and rich corporations either exclusively or at a larger rates might sound appealing to Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet, and who would have a harder time with an added healthcare tax.  However, as we all know, when businesses are taxed, regardless of the size of that business, that tax is passed down to the consumer, so Americans still get stuck with paying taxes for healthcare even if government does not directly tax them for it.

3.  However, when government burdens business with taxes, the smaller the business is the more harm there will be, as small businesses cannot stretch their budgets to the same degree bigger businesses can.  This causes small business to lay off employees, creating more unemployment, more overall anxiety, more tension and more call from Americans for government to step in and help even more.

4.  It also creates greater hardships for small businesses who need a certain amount of employees to keep their businesses running, without which they cannot stay in business.  A catch 22 for small business is thus in play, who have tax and debt obligations to pay, or be fined and forced to pay even more.  So, lay off employees to pay the tax and debt, but risk losing their business anyway because with fewer employees, they cannot meet their contractual obligations, resulting in slowing and dramatically decreasing their cash flow, their credit and credibility in the business community.

5.  Now we are back at square one again, and neither have we solved anything, nor have we learned anything from the mistakes we repeatedly make over and over again.  Namely – government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. And the more we grant power to government to resolve our problems, the more problems are created.

6.  In the process of trying to ensure all Americans with health insurance, including those Americans with pre-existing conditions, mandated through government, and paid for by all taxpayers, directly and indirectly, we have caused more businesses to close their door, or lay off more of their employees, stop hiring, stop giving out raises and other bonuses, and we have brought our economy, which is struggling to crawl at the pace of a caterpillar, to a screeching halt.  And those Americans that needed health insurance, especially those Americans with pre-existing conditions, are again thrown under the bus.

The dilemma we are faced with is that ALL Americans need health insurance, and ALL Americans need affordable health insurance, and that includes, and ought to include, those Americans with pre-existing conditions.  How do we get to that point, where ALL Americans are covered with affordable health insurance, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions:

•  without turning healthcare over to government;

•  without government mandating ALL Americans be insured, or face steep fines for not having health insurance;

•  without risking the quality of healthcare because the cost to treat ALL Americans, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions, is now more expensive to health insurers rather than the other way around;

•  without having the cost of healthcare rise dramatically and unexpectedly because the cost to insurers has become too much to bear, returning us back to the drawing board and having to look for more solutions?

It seems as though, if government would just butt in momentarily and remove the vast amount of restrictions, regulations and tax obligations, the bloated bureaucracy and other obstacles on both the healthcare industry itself and on investors and risk takers, all of which combined, are right now preventing them from either investing altogether in the health industry, or as heavily as they otherwise would but for the regulations and taxes, that would go a long way in helping solve the problem of how to attain quality, affordable healthcare for ALL Americans, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions.  And just as quickly as government butts in, it ought to butt back out.

Two things are for certain.  One – Obamacare will be overturned.  Two – ALL Americans still need affordable healthcare insurance, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions.

The only uncertainty is – how will we resolve this problem, how quickly can we resolve this problem, without wasting time about who pays for what, who ought to pay for it, who ought to pay more for it and why, and how to get around the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Obamacare and turn healthcare over to government anyway?

If we are determined to have all Americans insured with quality and affordable healthcare, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions – who ought not be left out of the process – isn’t the main obstacle in making that happen that group of Americans who insist this cannot be done expect by government mandate?

We know government can’t make that happen without raising taxes on every American, and on every American business.  And we know that still won’t be enough money to cover the cost of ALL Americans, including and especially those Americans with pre-existing conditions.  We know government will have to print more money, incur more debt and create higher inflation, thereby weakening the dollar and making the problem of affordable healthcare, and everything else in America, much, much worse.

Isn’t it time we gave capitalism and the free market system a try?  What are we afraid of losing if we do?

Related articles
Posted in government, healthcare, politics, silly laws and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
23 Mar 2012
5 Comments

Why “Affordable” Health Care Is, And Will Continue To Be, So Expensive For Us All

Sandra Fluke is one more reason why we, in America, need more affordable, and better quality, private health insurance, rather than what she, and many others, are advocating, which is public health insurance provided/mandated through a government system which monopolies the industry.  Monopolies, by their structure and their very nature, do not create incentives to better or improve upon anything.  Rather, they allow the few people at the top running the show to set the prices, which always goes up, and to disregard the quality, which inevitably goes down over time.  It also allows for greater corruption and abuse within the system as well as collusion to keep prices higher than they would be under a private system where competition was allowed to flourish.  Without competition, no ideas are offered, no alternatives are expressed, no solutions to current problems are brainstormed.  Why would this not also be true of a government monopoly on health care?

Sandra Fluke welcomes government stepping in and providing her, and everyone else, with health care.  But at what cost?  In other words, whether that cost of health care is low, or “at no cost”, the idea that it is actually free is deceiving.  The case in point is Obamacare, which will force all Americans, and all businesses in America, to buy health care insurance exclusively through the federal government or face steep fines, the amount of which only the 1% can afford to pay.  As damnable as Obamacare is, and as unconstitutional as it is, it would be far more advantageous and beneficial if it was a replacement to Medicare and Medicaid rather than and addition to an already overburdened over stretched health care system the debt and liability of which is scores of trillions of dollars and growing (out of control) at a substantial rate.  And with Obamacare, what is the point of Medicare and Medicaid?

This all begs the question – what does anyone have against private health insurance?  If you answer, “because I cannot afford private health insurance”, then the next logical question is – why?  In other words, what is causing/driving the cost of private health insurance to stagnate in a price range, it is assumed, is higher than most Americans can afford to purchase?  And, for which is why so many millions of Americans support Obamacare, or the idea of some form of government provided, “low-cost” health care insurance that is neither low nor is it the best alternative?  If anything, Obamacare, any type of government provided health insurance acts in the same way a comfort food does.  It satisfies us, but is not really good for us, and ends up costing us down the road in ways we either did not anticipate or want to anticipate.  But the consequences are there, and they will need to be reckoned with.

As for the so-called “benefits” to small business?  The only reason for that is because health care is so expensive small businesses, by virtue of having a limited cash flow to work with, cannot provide most or all of their employees with health insurance, or with the types of insurance coverage big business can afford to contract with insurance providers.  Therefore, small businesses are left at a disadvantage.  However, with affordable, private insurance, that issue is eliminated.  That won’t happen until government gets out of the health care insurance business.  That won’t happen until more Americans become more informed about the advantages to private health care insurance versus the horrors of government-run/mandated heath insurance.  None of that will happen until we change the leadership in Washington.  That will, hopefully, happen in November.

Sandra Fluke has a personal agenda she is setting forth and laying out.  Namely she desires all women have access to health care, including contraception and abortion coverage, and she supports the “Affordable Care Act” which is the initiative that, through government health insurance, would provide her and all women with what she wants.  There are two problems with this that someone as “emotional” as Sandra Fluke is – as opposed to rational – is missing.

First, it is not “affordable”.  Either every American taxpayer is going to see their taxes go up substantially in order to pay for this, or the cost will be tacked onto the trillions of debt we currently owe.  If the latter, then we will see higher inflation, and for a longer period of time, because in order to pay off just the interest on that debt, prices on everything will need to rise.  Government can, and does, create money simply by printing it.  And in order to pay for Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, and all government health care run programs, government will need to continue printing money.  All that ever does is devalue the worth of  money which leads to higher and higher inflation, which leads to higher and higher costs on everything, including health care itself.  But also everything else we buy and need to buy, like food and gas.  So the idea that the “Affordable Care Act’ is “affordable” is ludicrous.  Women may be benefited, perhaps, but as monopolies go, there is no guarantee.  And as monopolies go, that benefit usually declines over time.  And while women are “benefiting” from “affordable” health care, they, along with the rest of us, are paying more for everything we buy in order to pay the cost of their “affordable” health care.

Secondly, if we actually devoted more time to debating the usefulness and advantages of private health insurance, it would do more to lessen and allay the negative stigma and fears so many Americans have about it.  It would also help to inform those people who are against it – because of its high cost – why more private health insurance will bring down that cost to levels that are real, rather than artificially, affordable, and why private health insurance promotes better and higher quality health care than government could ever do.  With private health insurance – and that means, for those who are unsure, health care we pay for ourselves and our family out of our own pocket, not our neighbors or fellow taxpayers – health insurance providers are forced (whether they want to or not) through competition to provide the people they insure with the best, the highest quality and most affordable health care they can offer, or risk losing their clients to another private health provider.  Is that hard to comprehend?

With private health insurance, there is no room for error.  Conversely, with public, government-funded health insurance, there is all kinds of room for error, and no incentive to correct any mistakes because the money being paid for health insurance, for the contracts, the salaries, the bonuses, of everyone involved in a government-run health care system, etc., will always be there, whether it is coming from the taxpayers or being printed out of thin air, to keep the system running.  That does not work in the private industry.  Hence, the money is real, it is worth something to the insurance providers, and worth more to them than money that is created artificially, and thus is worth the time, effort and energy to keep finding solutions to health related problems, finding better ways to provide health care and finding ways to keep the costs down and as low as possible.  Private health insurance encourages its providers to be and remain honest.  Government run heath care only encourages corruption.

Sandra Fluke, because of her advocacy for the “Affordable Care Act” is actually harming women more than she is helping them, and she is actually putting women’s health more in harm way, more at risk, than otherwise.  Whatever the “Affordable Care Act” will ultimately provide and cover will pale in comparison to what could be provided and covered through private health insurance.  Breast exams, cervical cancer exams, pap smears, colorectal exams, childbirth and all health issues related to women could be much cheaper, much less expensive, much more expansive in their service and quality, if private health insurers were better able to compete for new clients.  So long as the government has a monopoly, and a mandate on health insurance, that will not happen.

But if all Sandra is really seeking in the “Affordable Care Act is free contraception (for whatever purpose) and abortion coverage, which may or may not be covered by private insurance – and, in the case of abortion, may not be legal for any health insurer to provide  depending on its reason – then she probably does not care about the overall harm she is going to cause to woman down the road, or to all American.  Nor would she care about the cost, the burden of that cost, the effects of that cost on everyone, or how that cost is going to have to be repaid.

Sandra may be too emotional to want to listen to rationality and reality.  What about the rest of us?

Related articles
Posted in government, healthcare, politics, Sandra Fluke, scams, silly laws and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
21 Feb 2012
9 Comments

It’s The Econ, Er, Birth Control, Stupid?

At least Democrats, and Barack Obama, are hoping the 2012 election will be more about birth control and contraception, and less about the economy, taxes, higher and higher gas prices, and all the important issues the majority of Americans, men and women, deal with on a daily bases.  Which is why the Left is focusing in on the Right’s “obsession” with matters of life and death – literally.  Indeed, conservatives are very much concerned with life (as in unborn life), and we are very much concerned at how much in peril that unborn life is at every step of its development.  However, are we really trying to ban birth control, and is that our main, our one and only, political issue going into the 2012 election?

Birth control – and it is that particular birth control which is intended to prevent and block a pregnancy from occurring when used correctly, has absolutely never been an issue within conservatism itself.  Perhaps certain circles of religious conservatives, but never, by any stretch of the imagination, a majority of conservatives.  In other words, nobody – and that includes conservatives – is trying to ban and outlaw birth control.  We would support removing the taxpayer obligation for paying the bill on birth control, and any contraception.  Title X is still in effect and that will still remain in effect with either a President Romney or President Santorum.

The reason why the Left continues its barrage of assaults on conservatives with the birth control issue is to deflect the weakness of Barack Obama’s leadership, to distract from his overall disastrous performance as President and his very low popularity numbers with the American people, including those that voted for him in 2008 – many of whom, including black Americans, are very dismayed and feel betrayed by him.  In other words, Democrats are obfuscating reality in the hopes Obama’s supporters will come back to him and his fantasy agenda.

What Romney and Santorum, the clear front-runners, need to do is come out and dismiss these attacks and convey what the real conservative message is with regards to birth control and contraception – without invoking religion, or making it sound like their religion, and their religious beliefs, are the only reasons why they don’t support Barack Obama or the Left’s demands for more access to birth control and contraception.  Something like:

Putting aside my religious beliefs, for a moment, is it right for the government to force any American to pay for someone’s birth control and contraception?  Take religion, and religious constructs, morals and tenets out of the equation.  Is it right for the government to force any institution, religious or otherwise, to provide services which it finds to be against their own beliefs?  Is that the proper role of government?  Is that a proper use of our tax dollars?  Ladies and gentleman – no serious conservative is for banning birth control, and no serious conservative would even make that an issue.  It is Democrats who want taxpayers – you – to pay for birth control and all forms of contraception, including abortion; and they want to force you and I, and all public and private institutions, to provide these services, at our expense.  Billions of dollars, our money.  The real question is – why can’t regular Americans, who engage in activities that require birth control and contraception, pay for it themselves?  Title X is there to provide family planning help for low-income men and women.  That won’t change when I am President.  What will change is the arrogant attitude of Washington style government with regards to the way it sees you and all American citizens – as an ATM machine for its own private use, to plunder at will any time it wants.  Birth control, any form of contraception that prevents a pregnancy from occurring, will not be infringed upon, tampered with or banned when I am president.  Barack Obama’s, and the Democrat party’s, demand for forcing you, the American citizen, and taxpayer, to pay for it, will be. 

Why can’t they say something like that?  Instead, they invoke their religion and their religious beliefs, (and do so in a muddled and incoherent manner which provides more fuel for liberals and Democrats to use to stoke the flames of hatred and mistrust against conservatives and religious Americans) and use religion as the basis for explaining their views on birth control and contraception.  Nobody likes to have religion, and religious beliefs, especially someone else’s, forced on them.  And there are millions of religious Americans who don’t feel comfortable with politicians using religion, even if it is their religion too, as a reason for shaping policy.

Religion absolutely has a right to be infused with politics, and religious politicians absolutely have a right to invoke and talk about their religion and how it has shaped their lives.  However, using religion to shape policy that affects the American people only antagonizes the American people.  The Left has captured that sentiment, albeit they have gone way overboard with it, and they are doing what they do best – disseminating lies and misinformation about religious conservatives and religious conservative politicians, saying they are trying to ban something, the result of which will hurt and harm women and endanger their “health” and their lives.

The lies the Left spreads about the Right are far more extreme than the actual position on birth control and contraception the Right takes.  The problem is that we, as conservatives, have not done as well a job in countering the Left’s nonsense.  And neither have Romney or Santorum.  If either intends to win the Presidency, and deny Obama a second term, they both need to be much clearer in their message and much stronger in the delivery of their message.

Talking about birth control and contraception, even as part of an election cycle, is worth it, because the lives of unborn children are at stake in this issue – and they are worth fighting for.  However, is it worth losing the election to Obama and the Democrat Party, and putting those unborn lives at even greater risk because we could not properly define what is birth control and contraception, and what the government’s, and taxpayers, role is in providing it?

Related articles
Posted in 2012 election, abortion, government, healthcare, politics, religion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
20 Jan 2012
3 Comments

Obvious Guilt: Pleading The Fifth In Fast & Furious

Pleading the fifth has always been  an “out” someone uses to prevent being implicated in a crime any further than they already are.  It is absolutely right, on the other hand, to be suspicious of anyone who does plead the fifth, especially when it is coming from our own Department of Justice, and when it concerns Fast & Furious and one of our border agent’s death’s, not to mention the deaths of countless others in Mexico who were killed by guns allowed into the country via the U.S , with the knowledge of our government – and, it is presumed, Attorney General, Eric Holder.

All pleading the 5th will do here is to delay the knowledge Americans have a right to – that our government, under Barack Obama, allowed guns into Mexico, to be sold to drug dealers, and they bungled it, causing the deaths of scores, if not hundreds of people.  And with the guns still out there, they continue to kill more people.  If this had happened under George W. Bush – would the Democrats be as little concerned, and apathetic, over this incident as they are now?  Want real answers to this nightmare?  Put Republicans back in charge in 2012.  Or risk this issue being ever further buried by a MSM that will not cover this, or any other issues, no matter how corrupt, so long as Obama is in the White House.

Posted in government, politics and tagged , , ,
18 Jan 2012
1 Comment

Clueless Peter Beinart Insults All Americans, Black and White (Mostly Black)

Will we ever reach a point in America where a white conservative, Newt Gingrich, can speak openly and honestly of how poorly black Americans are being treated by the Democrat Party, and of how little understanding a majority of black Americans have in knowing they are being intentionally used to propagate a liberal agenda that can only move forward, that can only survive, when most blacks and other “minorities” are kept in poverty and where their minds are kept darkened and diluted with racist, anti-white propaganda?  Liberals and the Democrat Party take the intelligence of black Americans for granted and, unfortunately, there is still a large portion of black Americans which give legitimate cause for why the Democrat Party can so easily take the intelligence of black Americans for granted.

Peter Beinhart, writing for The Daily Beast, attempts to slam Newt Gingrich because he dared to call President Obama the “food stamp” President, in reference to the fact that 47 million Americans are now on food stamps, and that black Americans ought to demand jobs not welfare checks.  How on earth can anyone find this “insulting” to black Americans, unless black Americans really only want to stay at home collecting welfare checks?  Beinhart calls Gingrich “ignorant”.

Gingrich’s problem isn’t racism; it’s ignorance. Only someone profoundly ignorant of African-American politics would suggest that black Americans have spent the past few decades seeking food stamps, not jobs.

The past few decades are not what is at issue.  The past few years, certainly since Obama took office, have seen an increase in black Americans demanding more free “goodies” from government and from Obama’s “stash”.  Black Americans who voted for Obama did so expecting he would deliver to them these free “goodies” in any number of government provided (but taxpayer funded) programs to assist them.  Black Americans aren’t exclusive to this idea, but more than any other group of Americans, they now feel they have been duped by Obama, and many blacks who once supported Obama are now openly criticizing him for not giving them more than they feel they deserve.

All Democrats, black and white, voted for Obama with the idea in mind that an Obama win would mean they would get something in return for their vote.  Obama never once during his campaign emphasized the importance and value of hard work over government assistance.  Obama has not done that as President.  His policies during his first two years, when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, weakened our economy which in turn forced more businesses to lay off more workers, which in turn created more unemployment and put more people on welfare and government dependence including food stamps.  So Gingrich rightfully labeled Obama the “food stamp” President, much to the astonishment of Beinhart.

But for Gingrich—a veteran politician from the state of Georgia, speaking at a debate in South Carolina on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday—not to understand why calling the first African-American in the Oval Office the “food stamp” president would offend African-Americans is simply amazing. The most plausible explanation is that Gingrich inhabits a cultural and intellectual bubble. A bubble called the Republican Party.

More Americans are falling into poverty, or closer to it, because of the anti-business, anti-capitalist agenda the Democrat Party has put forward since 2006.  These initiatives have grown and bloated the size of government, skyrocketing the cost of paying for the programs Democrats have created and expanded.  The number of Americans who have found themselves being provided government assistance in one or more forms is dramatically increasing.  And every time Republicans fight to halt government expansion they are called racist because Democrats, and liberals like Beinhart, insist a smaller government puts black Americans at a disadvantage.

Is more welfare or more jobs the answer to black poverty?  Because Democrats tout more welfare, whereas Republicans tout more jobs.  And for that, we are called racist, insensitive, bigoted, ignorant.  Beinhart is in his own little bubble, and it isn’t comprised with a shred of intellectuality or common sense.

If increasing the size of government, expanding already existing programs and creating even more programs to provide assistance to an ever larger pool of Americans who are out of work, is the answer to poverty in America, is raising taxes on business in order to pay for larger government and more government programs the solution to poverty in America?

In other words, if raising taxes on business, who in turn will have to pass that cost on to their customers, who in turn will stop purchasing from them, or purchase less, which in turn will slow and lower the profit base, which in turn will cause business owners to stop hiring, and/or lay off employees in order to stay afloat, which in turn creates more unemployment and more Americans on welfare and government assistance, which in turn causes government to expand and Democrats to call for raising taxes even more on business in order to pay for new government expansion – all of which creates this never-ending cycle of liberal madness, how are black Americans, any Americans, “helped” if the only way they can be “helped” is when government is large enough to provide every American with enough assistance to keep them from starving, from being thrown out of their homes, from falling further into poverty and despair – if the only way government can do this is to grow and expand by raising taxes on business which causes more and more businesses to lay off more employees – if business failure is the cause for more Americans forced to seek government dependence because government is ever-increasing their taxes, lowing their profits and making it harder for business owners to keep their employees and stay in business?

That is the very, very long and unnecessary way around the solution to a problem which is best answered by less government and lower taxes and regulation on business.  Do that and businesses will have more money and be more competitive and profitable, which will see fewer business laying off employees and more businesses hiring employees.  The more businesses hiring employees, the fewer people there will be on welfare and food stamps.

The fewer people there are on welfare and food stamps, the less likely Barack Obama will be dubbed the “food stamp” President, and perhaps Peter Beinhart can finally get a good night’s sleep knowing black Americans aren’t being “insulted” by such rhetoric.

I don’t doubt that Newt Gingrich wants to help African-Americans, just like I don’t doubt that George W. Bush wanted to help Iraqis. But in politics, if you want to help people, it’s a good idea to learn something about them first.

On the other hand, for someone, like Beinhart, who thinks Black Americans are too stupid to think for themselves, who wants black Americans to remain too stupid to think for themselves, if more black Americans were employed, making a living, and less dependent on government, wouldn’t they be smart enough to think for themselves – to themselves – and know that welfare and more government was never the solution to their poverty but the problem?

Isn’t it Peter Beinhart, not Newt Gingrich, who is really being “insulting” to black Americans?

Posted in blacks and racism, government, politics, welfare and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
13 Jan 2012
1 Comment

Arianna Nation, Catherine Crier Says To Government, “Stay Barefoot And Pregnant”

Apparently Catherine Crier thinks jobs ought to come from the womb of federal government.  Imagine that picture.  And although the federal government does not create a single job in the private sector, the harmful policies and regulations passed by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have caused the deaths of millions and millions of private sector jobs which has resulted in the collapse of our economy.

Catherine, pregnant with liberal lies and falsehoods, and shilling for the Democrat Party by adding her one and a half cents to the Huffington Post, now known as the Arianna Nation, a soft arm of the Democrat Party, treats the federal government exactly like a fertile womb.  In that sense, government has birthed millions of public sector jobs, millions more than are necessary.  And while it’s time for government to have its tubes tied, that is hard to do.  Democrats want even more “government babies”, millions more.  Democrats essentially want to keep the federal government barefoot and pregnant, cranking out “government baby” after “government baby”, ad infinitum.  The problem is – someone has to pay for all these “government babies”.  That’s us, every single tax payer in America.

Catherine writes:

Yesterday morning, I listened as Romney surrogate Chris Chocola, Club for Growth, repeated the Republican mantra that government doesn’t create a single job.”

This supercilious diatribe, common among Democrats, is consistent with their belief that job creation is the domain of the federal government and we ought to be grateful for all the millions of unnecessary public sector government jobs the Democrats have had a hand in creating.  Indeed, millions of Americans have “benefited” by being hired to do the jobs, at taxpayer expense, which could be done more efficiently within the private sector, which does not cost taxpayers anything. (That is – if these jobs are even necessary, which, in many cases, are merely a waste of taxpayer dollars.  Think of the Education Department.)

Except for the defense of our nation, government does not create a single job, nor is it its responsibility to do so.  Government certainly does not create a single job which drives the engines of our economy.  That is the domain of the private sector, which is being, and has been, ravaged and raped by Catherine’s liberal comrades in the Democrat Party; the same party that wants to annihilate our Defense Department while expanding every other area of our already over-bloated government.  It’s exactly what the Democrat Party, her party, and Barack Obama want to do at the same time Catherine writes:

Try shutting down our national security apparatus — defense, homeland security, intelligence, all the support contractors right down to farmers, uniform suppliers…”

Have Democrats ever supported homeland security?  Considering border security falls under homeland security, as does Gitmo, it can be said there is not much love or respect among Democrats for the defense of our nation.  In fact, the Defense Department is the one and only area of government Democrats would be willing to abolish.  Every other area of government, irrelevant to our nation, is nonetheless vital to the Democrat Party itself.  The billions of dollars Democrats are able to funnel into the Education Department, HUD, Agriculture, the EPA, Energy and others is what has helped the Democrat Party remain as politically powerful and influential as it is.  So it is not shocking that Catherine would defend them.

…We don’t have to argue about all those public employees outside the military-industrial complex that seem to be dispensable these days — the cops, teachers and firefighters, or the scientists and engineers that, thanks to taxpayer R&D, gave us the Internet, GPS and countless life-saving drugs or, gasp, clean air and water.

She has probably already received that email from Al Gore about the internet.  Cops, teachers and firefighters ought not be, if they are, paid by the federal government but by their own states.  Abolishing the Education Department will help to do that.  As for R&D, the billions of dollars government “invests” in new technologies could be better and more wisely invested by private entrepreneurs and investors if government was not so over-taxing, literally.

The same Democrat Party Catherine applauds for do so much for American innovation by taking money away from working Americans, giving it to government, which in turn hands that money over to research and development could be better filtered through the hands of private investors directly.  Doing this will find a cure for cancer much quicker than having to first go through the enormous roadblocks and red tape government has set in place.  That we do not have a cure for cancer, or cures for more types of cancer, now is the direct fault of the Democrat Party interfering in the private sector.  Government, led by the Democrat Party, and with all its multilevel public sector government bureaucrats, has hindered and slowed the  growth of new and improved inventions and technologies – not improved it.  One can only wonder about the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted and forever lost by government in schemes which never came to be.

Catherine is also worried Republicans are tying to shut down all those government “companies making million dollar toilet seats”, and terrified that eliminating any government public sector jobs will result in “global depression”.  But she is not all that worried about tens of thousands of military personnel losing their jobs, nor is she worried about border security agents losing their jobs.  Her priorities with regards to what jobs government creates, and which ones it eliminates, are dangerously askew.

And if there are “companies making those million dollar toilet seats”, is there any doubt these seats were meant to be “graced” by the backsides of Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wassermann Shultz and other Democrats who think they are too good, too important to use a public toilet?  If our government really is spending that much money on toilet seats, which is not that hard to imagine it is, this is an area both Democrats and Republicans can agree needs to be stopped.

Each Republican candidate says they will push through lower taxes and cut regulations — a sure way to unleash the currently oppressed private economy. If this oft-repeated theory of domestic growth is correct, then why were the Bush years, with a Republican Congress cutting taxes and regulations in six of the eight years, such an abysmal time for job creation?

An unexpected attack on our nation, the necessary war which followed, a natural recession in a twenty year cycle (but which the Democrat Party let get out of hand) and still too high taxes and tax rates on business is why job growth, business expansion and our economy stagnated, then tanked.  George Bush, and the Republican Party had an opportunity after the 2004 election victory to correct this.  They failed, for whatever reason.  In that sense, Bush was “at fault” in part for the collapse of our economy.

However, Democrats made it worse in 2006, and after the election of Barack Obama in 2008.  It has only gotten slightly better after the 2010 election and the Republican victory in the House, and the added pick-ups in the Senate which took away the majority 60 votes Democrats needed to override Republican vetoes.  Had the Democrats regained the House and kept at least sixty Senate seats, our economy, our nation would be much worse off than it is now.  We would still continue to be pummeled by the reckless policies and legislation they were able to pass in the first two years of Obama’s Presidency.  Those Bush tax cuts which Democrats hate, but which gave life to our economy would now be abolished, more businesses would have failed, millions more people would be out of work and unemployment percentages would be in the teens.

Cutting taxes and tax rates works.  Getting government the hell out of the private sector allows for job creation, and Catherine is simply lying that we need government to create jobs in America.  The only jobs government creates are those we, the American taxpayer, must foot the bill for.

Catherine is right about one thing she writes:

Whether you’re a liberal or conservative, you should demand honest information before making decisions. Supporting policies based on utter nonsense is insane, period.

And supporting policies which enlarge and expand an already obese government “based on utter nonsense” is also “insane, period”.  But Catherine wants even more “government babies” for fear the sky will fall.  In the meantime, taxpayers are on “diaper duty”, forced to clean up the mess made by the Democrat Party’s insatiable urge for a large “family”.

So, do go ahead and repeat after Catherine:

Government doesn’t create any jobs, tax cuts at the top and corporate deregulation does, and yes, dear, the stork delivers babies.”

This will help you from living the fairy tale Catherine is, sadly, living for herself, and for which she is instilling in her children.

Do you want her teaching this all too scary fairy tale to your children?

Posted in 2012 election, government, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , ,
12 Dec 2011

Just Let The Kids Starve To Death Already

Is there a better way to wipe out hunger in America than using taxpayer funded PBS muppets to brainwash children, scaring them into thinking there is no hope, no solutions, no answers to one of America’s most puzzling and perplexing dilemma’s to be found anywhere but in big, expansive – and ever-expanding – expensive government programs?

Despite the fact that America produces enough food to feed every single American citizen, enough to satisfy fullness and prevent anyone from going to bed, or to school, hungry, including the 11 million or so illegal aliens residing in parts “unknown” throughout the U.S., we are still dealing with the reality that over 46 millions Americans are on food stamps – and that number continues to grow, and about half of all Americans remain on some type of government assistance program – and without doing anything at all, or continuing to do the same thing, relying too heavily on government “handouts”, we can expect that percentage to rise.

We need viable, realistic, cost-effective alternatives!

How did we become a nation founded on “rugged individualism”, and the principle of self-reliance and independence, to a nation of utterly inept citizens, scores of millions of Americans that have gone back to the pacifier and mother’s milk?  If, when one enters adulthood, if becoming, and being, a man, or woman, is marked by leaving the nest, what does that make those of us that revert back to it?  The American Experience was designed in part to end government’s monopoly on our lives.  We are supposed to be in control and in charge of our own destinies.  Not government.

Somehow, over the course of the past 80 years, from FDR’s “War on the Great Depression” to LBJ’s “War on Poverty” government has slowly but surely crept deeper and deeper into our everyday lives.  Since Obama became President, that pace of government expansion, government interference, government dependency has quickened.  We don’t seem to be as alarmed as we ought to be.  And, unfortunately, too many of us are relieved with the increasing relevance of government control, too comfortable passing on our problems to government.  But the quicker we are in letting government solve our problems, the quicker government is to use our problems against us, for their gain.  Don’t we know that by now?

The growing number of Americans, and Americans children in particular, going hungry, is but another example of how government has taken a problem that could have easily been resolved through other means, and turned it into a way for greedy, unscrupulous Washington politicians to enlarge government, create and expand unnecessary government programs, fuel those programs by printing money that does not exist; using deceptive tactics to scare Americans into believing taxes need to be raised to further fund these social government programs which millions of Americans now rely on; and, by using frightening language, spreading fear among these millions of Americans – and their children – they will be forced off these programs without an increase in taxes and made to suffer the devastating consequences.

It is this irrational reliance on the federal government, this unnatural obsession with clinging to government that has produced a bumper crop of hungry, starving Americans.

Federal government has absolutely no business providing breakfast, lunch, dinner, or any type of snacks or food to school children.   How did we allow this mess to be created in the first place?  How did we allow it to escalate?  It is out of control, and the only response from politicians is to expand it.  And with the number of hungry Americans steadily rising, will we ever get a firmer grip on it?  Can we get a firmer grip on it right now?

Absolutely!

Although farm land in America continues to diminish, through advanced technology, farmers are nonetheless able to produce a surplus of crops, enough food that if properly dispensed could feed every single “starving” child and “food insecure” muppet in America.

Yet, Washington politicians continue to play politics with our, and our children’s, stomachs.  In other words, if your children are going to school without first having had breakfast, it is because our own federal government is holding hostage the surplus of food American farmers produce annually.  Their demands for releasing this surplus?  Keep them in power and keep their programs alive and well-funded; keep yourself dependent on government (them), and keep thinking you need government (them) for your every need, your day-to-day survival, and for ensuring you and your children will have food on your plates come tomorrow.  Give in to their demands by forking over the food to them, and they will distribute it throughout all of America’s public schools.

We can do better!

There is a tremendous, untapped opportunity to put an imposing dent in America’s hunger crisis using Not for Profit agencies and organizations that, working together, and in direct conjunction with, local farmers, local governments and local food banks, can ensure no one, no one child, is left hungry and no one is forced to rely on the federal government for food.  The only involvement the federal government ought to have in this is providing substantial tax relief to those farmers that are willing to contribute a portion of their surplus to their local communities.  States can also benefit farmers by providing tax relief to farmers.

The food to feed the hungry is there.  It exists now.  Getting it to the people who need it, and how the food is delivered is what is at issue.  Not for Profits, and the millions of people who volunteer to aid these organizations, can do a better, faster and more cost efficient job at dispensing food than the federal government.

By removing the burden of government, and the taxpayer, from having to subsidize food to the hungry, billions, perhaps hundreds of billions, of dollars overall will be saved; scores of programs that deal with hunger can be eliminated.  Less government bureaucracy, less government red tape, less government dependency means less government.

By taking these steps, we can easily eliminate hunger in America so that no child, or muppet, need go hungry, or rely on government to provide them with their meals.

Millions of Americans are starving for more than food.  We are also starving for creative solutions, outside of government.  Does the federal government, and do politicians, have the courage to allow this to happen?  Do we have the courage to ween ourselves off the government pacifier?

Posted in government, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Post Navigation

← Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: