As usual while the media fuss and frets over this and that I sometimes think it is just a distraction so we are not watching the other hand so to speak.
One such story came to my attention, is that Obama is allowing 80,000 "Muslim refugees" to immigrant into the United States and he is doing it by executive order.
This executive order goes back to at least October of 2010 when reported on by Dr. Paul Williams.
Why has NO ONE heard about this before?
Where is the LAME STREAM MEDIA?
He justifies this by using the "humanitarian concerns" excuse and of course it is in the "national interest" to allow this.
And we all know his record on "humanitarian concerns" as he and his administration have totally MISREAD the so called "Arab Spring"and especially claiming the Muslim Brotherhood was a secular non violent group as well as starting another war in Libya supporting rebels who may be our enemies in other countries were we are fighting terrorism.............PLEASE.
HOW MUCH MORE INCOMPETENT CAN AN ADMINISTRATION AND A PRESIDENT BE?
For a president and his party that continually remind and intimidate Americans about the separation of church and state he sure is pushing or advocating one religious community over all others.
Why is he pushing a certain ethnic preferentially over all other Americans?
Trying to boost his constituency as he is looking more like a "one termer" no doubt.
Typically progressive hypocrisy.
"At this point you have to wonder why Obama is doing this when this move will do absolutely nothing. He is basically further dividing up less and less benefits amongst more and more people. You have to understand the concept of psycho politics. Upon hearing that 80,000 Muslims will be favored over all others, you were fuming mad. That is precisely what Obama wants. He wants America, the America that has been exceptional in the world, to be so angry that one of two things happen. Either you rebel and do something outside the law in which case he is justified in using force to crush you, or the anger gets to such a point that you wear out and give in."
With 49 million people on food stamps, some 52% pay no income tax, some 31 million unemployed, an underemployment rate of 18.5% our economy in the toilet thanks mostly to Obama's failed Keynesian economic policies, excessive over regulation through decree, bad legislation, out right lying, demagoguery, and mountains of class warfare DO WE REALLY NEED 80,000 more citizens and let's face it 80,000 future citizens who come from countries that basically HATE US and OUR WAY of LIFE.
Progressives/liberals are now forced to import voters and pronounce ILLEGALS legal in order to shore up a dwindling base.
Self-described "conservatives" outnumber self-proclaimed "liberals" by nearly 2 to 1 (41% to 21%)
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE
Progressivism is the disease infecting our country - please speak with yours friends and family we need to VOTE this disease OUT of OFFICE.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
NEWS FLASH: Citizens Fleeing Progressivism
Progressivism has utterly failed in Europe, as it crumbles under it's own unsustainable weight and here as well the effects are all to apparent as this administrations Keynesian economic polices are a disaster, unemployment soars, inflation is on the rise from our war on the dollar and an atmosphere of uncertainty drag us down.
But there is HOPE and CHANGE that is really COMING.
From the census data it is clear that millions of people are abandoning big government/progressive states for low-tax red ones.
Americans are voting with there FEET moving from these over taxed, over regulated states to the freedom and liberty of bastions of right wing sentiment.
This is "The Great Political Migration" an article highlighting is trend by Michael Medved in the Daily Beast provides a look at this curious trending.
"Between 2009 and 2010 the five biggest losers in terms of "residents lost to other states" were all prominent redoubts of progressivism: California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey. Meanwhile, the five biggest winners in the relocation sweepstakes are all commonly identified as red states in which Republicans generally dominate local politics: Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia. Expanding the review to a 10 year span, the biggest population gainers (in percentage terms) have been even more conservative than last year's winners: Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Texas, in that order."
The shift in population will have a major effect the playing field for the 2012 elections as states that Obama carried were among the biggest losers with New York and Ohio dropping 2 electoral votes each.
Texas was the big winner by gaining 4 new votes.
But it is certainly interesting to note that for all progressives/liberals big talk of fairness, jobs and "living wages" AND THEIR SUCESESESES then WHY are so many people FLEEING from BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG LABOR utopian states?
So it also stands to reason if uncompromising conservatism is so cruel and fraudulent, why do small-government, pro-business, low-tax, gun toting, god fearing states DRAW SUCH A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF AMERICA'S OWN IMMIGRANTS?
If progressive/liberal policies are really so great why in a single year (2009-2010) did as many as 880,000 residents wave good-bye to Obama's Illinois while as many as 782,000 of those were new arrivals in RICK PERRY"S TEXAS?
I only hope who ever the Republican candidate is will use this as a statement during the campaign.
California lost at least 2 million residents to failure between 2009 and 2010 not to mention a large amount of businesses tried of high taxes, over regulation, corruption, and the bankruptcy of the state's leadership.
Medved writes "California has become a sad symbol of dysfunctional government at its shabbiest, shadiest, most sclerotic, and irresponsible - an exquisitely painful irony for those of us who recall the Golden State's onetime position in the national imagination. Not so long ago, the whole nation (or at least its most enterprising and adventurous elements) seemed to envy the state and to embrace the notion of 'Californian Dreaming'."
"There are no real political refugees within the United States, and few families for the most part move from one state to the other for more congenial political leadership. Climate, family concerns, and job opportunities are all factors. But the contrasting cultures that state politics help to shape make a big difference in determining which parts of the nation seem more or less promising to potential immigrants. With Gallup pol showing self-described "conservatives" outnumbering self-proclaimed "liberals" by nearly 2 to 1 (41 percent to 21 percent) it's is not surprising that states with pro-business, pro-family attitudes draw disproportionate numbers of new arrivals. At the same time, it makes sense that those states with aggressive, intrusive bureaucracies, high taxes, and relentless experiments in multiculturalism will encourage mass departures."
One can easily make the case that if progressivism/liberalism is so great and successful why are the show case five such big disasters even some electing Republican governors?
Progressivism = Totalitarianism
The "ONE" is DONE
The "O" has got to GO
But there is HOPE and CHANGE that is really COMING.
From the census data it is clear that millions of people are abandoning big government/progressive states for low-tax red ones.
Americans are voting with there FEET moving from these over taxed, over regulated states to the freedom and liberty of bastions of right wing sentiment.
This is "The Great Political Migration" an article highlighting is trend by Michael Medved in the Daily Beast provides a look at this curious trending.
"Between 2009 and 2010 the five biggest losers in terms of "residents lost to other states" were all prominent redoubts of progressivism: California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey. Meanwhile, the five biggest winners in the relocation sweepstakes are all commonly identified as red states in which Republicans generally dominate local politics: Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia. Expanding the review to a 10 year span, the biggest population gainers (in percentage terms) have been even more conservative than last year's winners: Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Texas, in that order."
The shift in population will have a major effect the playing field for the 2012 elections as states that Obama carried were among the biggest losers with New York and Ohio dropping 2 electoral votes each.
Texas was the big winner by gaining 4 new votes.
But it is certainly interesting to note that for all progressives/liberals big talk of fairness, jobs and "living wages" AND THEIR SUCESESESES then WHY are so many people FLEEING from BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG LABOR utopian states?
So it also stands to reason if uncompromising conservatism is so cruel and fraudulent, why do small-government, pro-business, low-tax, gun toting, god fearing states DRAW SUCH A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF AMERICA'S OWN IMMIGRANTS?
If progressive/liberal policies are really so great why in a single year (2009-2010) did as many as 880,000 residents wave good-bye to Obama's Illinois while as many as 782,000 of those were new arrivals in RICK PERRY"S TEXAS?
I only hope who ever the Republican candidate is will use this as a statement during the campaign.
California lost at least 2 million residents to failure between 2009 and 2010 not to mention a large amount of businesses tried of high taxes, over regulation, corruption, and the bankruptcy of the state's leadership.
Medved writes "California has become a sad symbol of dysfunctional government at its shabbiest, shadiest, most sclerotic, and irresponsible - an exquisitely painful irony for those of us who recall the Golden State's onetime position in the national imagination. Not so long ago, the whole nation (or at least its most enterprising and adventurous elements) seemed to envy the state and to embrace the notion of 'Californian Dreaming'."
"There are no real political refugees within the United States, and few families for the most part move from one state to the other for more congenial political leadership. Climate, family concerns, and job opportunities are all factors. But the contrasting cultures that state politics help to shape make a big difference in determining which parts of the nation seem more or less promising to potential immigrants. With Gallup pol showing self-described "conservatives" outnumbering self-proclaimed "liberals" by nearly 2 to 1 (41 percent to 21 percent) it's is not surprising that states with pro-business, pro-family attitudes draw disproportionate numbers of new arrivals. At the same time, it makes sense that those states with aggressive, intrusive bureaucracies, high taxes, and relentless experiments in multiculturalism will encourage mass departures."
One can easily make the case that if progressivism/liberalism is so great and successful why are the show case five such big disasters even some electing Republican governors?
Progressivism = Totalitarianism
The "ONE" is DONE
The "O" has got to GO
Monday, August 29, 2011
Please raise my taxes - I may not pay them any way!!!
WARREN BUFFETT you HYPOCRITE.
Today in the news another article which not only confirms the early post but puts a figure on the tax evasion.
“The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government.”
It is no wonder Buffett is shilling for Obama and has his nose so far up his butt - can any one say reduce my tax burden?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/30/warren-raise-my-taxes-buffetts-company-may-owe-irs-1-billion#ixzz1WcpQ0m3u
Seems the oracle of Omaha's Berkshire Hathaway company freely admits it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.
The firm's annual report states "We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service for 2002 through 2004 tax years....within the next 12 months.
It also cites outstanding tax issues for 2005 through 2009.
Come on Warren if you want to shill for Obama at least you should PAY UP on your company taxes without a fuss and even throw in some more?
The federal government only consumes it creates NOTHING not wealth not jobs NOTHING.
If Warren Buffett and his buddies want to raise revenues they should all PONY UP THOSE CHECKS the government takes gifts and LEAVE the REST of those who are hard working contributors to society ALONE.
START by paying your back TAXES first and remove the stain of HYPOCRISY.
Today in the news another article which not only confirms the early post but puts a figure on the tax evasion.
“The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government.”
It is no wonder Buffett is shilling for Obama and has his nose so far up his butt - can any one say reduce my tax burden?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/30/warren-raise-my-taxes-buffetts-company-may-owe-irs-1-billion#ixzz1WcpQ0m3u
Seems the oracle of Omaha's Berkshire Hathaway company freely admits it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.
The firm's annual report states "We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service for 2002 through 2004 tax years....within the next 12 months.
It also cites outstanding tax issues for 2005 through 2009.
Come on Warren if you want to shill for Obama at least you should PAY UP on your company taxes without a fuss and even throw in some more?
The federal government only consumes it creates NOTHING not wealth not jobs NOTHING.
If Warren Buffett and his buddies want to raise revenues they should all PONY UP THOSE CHECKS the government takes gifts and LEAVE the REST of those who are hard working contributors to society ALONE.
START by paying your back TAXES first and remove the stain of HYPOCRISY.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Queen Moochelle
If some reports are true, it would appear, all though not surprising, that our first lady is living the DIVA life style largely at our expense.
The report that the first couple traveled to Martha's Vineyard 4 hours apart on different government jets only further exacerbates the claims of their excesses.
There have been many reports but yesterday quite surprisingly the Daily Mail Online had a story with the headline that read:
"Expensive massages, top shelf vodka and five star hotels: First Lady accused of spending $10m in public money on her vacations"
by Tamara Abraham
"White House sources today claimed the First Lady has spent $10 million of US taxpayers' money on vacation alone in the past year."
The story goes on to brand her "disgusting" and a "vacation junkie" indulging in five star hotels replete with expensive massages and expensive bar bills.
Moochelle has taken 42 days of vacation in the past year, or one out of every nine days, including her much publicized $375,000 break in Spain, and a four day ski trip to Vail spending 2k a night on a suite at the Sebastian hotel, Panama CIty, Fla., Martha's VIneyard, Hawaii, South Africa, Latin America, and Corvallis, Ore.
The website whitehousedossier.com writes "while the president and his wife do pay for some of their personal expenses from their own pocket that amount paid by the couple is dwarfed by the overall cost to the public."
She has been accused of "wild shopping sprees and out of control spending" much to the distress of the president.
You definitely know who WEARS THE PANTS in that relationship.
It is amazing that someone who is not elected or has any job should need a personnel staff of 24 - 26 depending on if you count the personal trainer or the cook at a cost of $1.75 million per year to $2.2 million per year depending on the source.
Laura Bush had a staff of 12 for significantly less salaries and she has still a huge charity that promotes women's rights around the world.
By contrast Eleanor Roosevelt personally paid for her own secretary.
Moochelle just complains about everyone else's diets and then eats what she wants.
They are both incredible HYPOCRITES typical progressives.
She has certainly abandoned her well publicized "working class background".
For her that wide load sign is not far off.
From the official White House list at www.whitehouse.govblog/Annual-Report-to-Congress-on-White-House-Staff-2009/
$172,000 - Sher, Susan : Chief of Staff
$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. : Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy and Projects for
the First Lady
$113,000 - Rodgers, Desiree G. : Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary
$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. : Special Assiatant to the President and Director of Communications for
the First Lady
$102,000 - Winter, Melissa E. : Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff to the First
Lady
$90,000 - Medina, David S. : Deputy Chief of Staff to the First Lady
$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catrherine M. : Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady
$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. : Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady
$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper : Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady
$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. : Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary
$65,000 - Rienstein, Joesph B. : Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary
$62,000 - Goodman, Jenifer R. : Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator
$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. : Deputy of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady
$60,000 - Lewis, Dana M. : Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady
$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. : Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to the First Lady
$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. : Special Assiatant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to the First Lady
$45,000 - Lehtenberg, Tyler A. : Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady
$45,000 - Tubman, Samantha : Deputy Associate Director, Social Office
$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. : Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the First Lady
$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally, M. : Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary
$36,000 - Bookey, Natalie : Staff Assistant
$36,000 - Jackson, Della A. : Deputy Assistant Director of Correspondence for the First Lady
???????? - Grimes-Miles, Ingrid : Make-up Artist
???????? - Wright, Johnny : First Hairstylist
In 1993 she voluntarily surrendered her law license which means she was accused of something and instead of facing the charge surrendered her license a minute before the State would have suspended her.
Funny that as legal council at the University of Chicago Hospital you would think you would need a license?
Besides the license affair her job there cursorily gave her a HUGE raise after her husband became a State Senator.
There is some dispute over facts and figures but as usual something stinks because he delivered pork money for new pavilion at the hospital.
She also worked in the corrupt Daley administration in the mayors office so she was involved in Chicago politics.
I could go on but for a sanitized version see wikipedia for more details.
Let me close with a fact about our beloved president.
He too surrendered his law license in 2008 to escape claims that he LIED on his bar application.
How is it possible that guy can become president?
We know that if this had been a republican for example Bush the media machine would not have rested until they drummed him out of politics yet Obama gets a free pass on this and other aggress
activities in his past and his radical friends.
I have read that if he had applied for a security clearance as part of a normal job he would have been declined.
We need to VOTE THIS FAKE out of OFFICE
The report that the first couple traveled to Martha's Vineyard 4 hours apart on different government jets only further exacerbates the claims of their excesses.
There have been many reports but yesterday quite surprisingly the Daily Mail Online had a story with the headline that read:
"Expensive massages, top shelf vodka and five star hotels: First Lady accused of spending $10m in public money on her vacations"
by Tamara Abraham
"White House sources today claimed the First Lady has spent $10 million of US taxpayers' money on vacation alone in the past year."
The story goes on to brand her "disgusting" and a "vacation junkie" indulging in five star hotels replete with expensive massages and expensive bar bills.
Moochelle has taken 42 days of vacation in the past year, or one out of every nine days, including her much publicized $375,000 break in Spain, and a four day ski trip to Vail spending 2k a night on a suite at the Sebastian hotel, Panama CIty, Fla., Martha's VIneyard, Hawaii, South Africa, Latin America, and Corvallis, Ore.
The website whitehousedossier.com writes "while the president and his wife do pay for some of their personal expenses from their own pocket that amount paid by the couple is dwarfed by the overall cost to the public."
She has been accused of "wild shopping sprees and out of control spending" much to the distress of the president.
You definitely know who WEARS THE PANTS in that relationship.
It is amazing that someone who is not elected or has any job should need a personnel staff of 24 - 26 depending on if you count the personal trainer or the cook at a cost of $1.75 million per year to $2.2 million per year depending on the source.
Laura Bush had a staff of 12 for significantly less salaries and she has still a huge charity that promotes women's rights around the world.
By contrast Eleanor Roosevelt personally paid for her own secretary.
Moochelle just complains about everyone else's diets and then eats what she wants.
They are both incredible HYPOCRITES typical progressives.
She has certainly abandoned her well publicized "working class background".
For her that wide load sign is not far off.
From the official White House list at www.whitehouse.govblog/Annual-Report-to-Congress-on-White-House-Staff-2009/
$172,000 - Sher, Susan : Chief of Staff
$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. : Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy and Projects for
the First Lady
$113,000 - Rodgers, Desiree G. : Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary
$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. : Special Assiatant to the President and Director of Communications for
the First Lady
$102,000 - Winter, Melissa E. : Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff to the First
Lady
$90,000 - Medina, David S. : Deputy Chief of Staff to the First Lady
$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catrherine M. : Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady
$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. : Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady
$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper : Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady
$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. : Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary
$65,000 - Rienstein, Joesph B. : Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary
$62,000 - Goodman, Jenifer R. : Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator
$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. : Deputy of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady
$60,000 - Lewis, Dana M. : Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady
$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. : Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to the First Lady
$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. : Special Assiatant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to the First Lady
$45,000 - Lehtenberg, Tyler A. : Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady
$45,000 - Tubman, Samantha : Deputy Associate Director, Social Office
$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. : Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the First Lady
$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally, M. : Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary
$36,000 - Bookey, Natalie : Staff Assistant
$36,000 - Jackson, Della A. : Deputy Assistant Director of Correspondence for the First Lady
???????? - Grimes-Miles, Ingrid : Make-up Artist
???????? - Wright, Johnny : First Hairstylist
In 1993 she voluntarily surrendered her law license which means she was accused of something and instead of facing the charge surrendered her license a minute before the State would have suspended her.
Funny that as legal council at the University of Chicago Hospital you would think you would need a license?
Besides the license affair her job there cursorily gave her a HUGE raise after her husband became a State Senator.
There is some dispute over facts and figures but as usual something stinks because he delivered pork money for new pavilion at the hospital.
She also worked in the corrupt Daley administration in the mayors office so she was involved in Chicago politics.
I could go on but for a sanitized version see wikipedia for more details.
Let me close with a fact about our beloved president.
He too surrendered his law license in 2008 to escape claims that he LIED on his bar application.
How is it possible that guy can become president?
We know that if this had been a republican for example Bush the media machine would not have rested until they drummed him out of politics yet Obama gets a free pass on this and other aggress
activities in his past and his radical friends.
I have read that if he had applied for a security clearance as part of a normal job he would have been declined.
We need to VOTE THIS FAKE out of OFFICE
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Liberals "can't get no Satisfaction"
Liberals "can't get no Satisfaction"
In my continuing efforts to clarify fact from fiction of some common social misnomers or in many cases outright lies, I found a slue of articles and studies done on happiness, contentment, satisfaction in life which I think is worth reposting at this time especially with the demoRats/liberals/progressives turning up the hate rhetoric as they know Obama's presidency is a failure and his chances of reelection are dwindling if not GONE.
This all fits with their all to often suffering from "pathological altruism" and victimhood which allows them to say or do anything because the ends always justify the means while projecting their own thoughts and actions on the opposition.
HYPOCRITES one and all.
It would appear that low and behold self proclaimed liberals have a very different life view than do self proclaimed conservatives.
Some of the people I have discussed these ideas with insist these are just labels or generalities.
Yes they are but the point is "SELF PROCLAIMED" whereby people interviewed or who took part in a study identified themselves.
They were not assigned anything.
This is not a generality it is a belief expressed by someone in response to questions.
I know liberals refuse to believe any of this because of the negative reaction I get while discussing these ideas with liberal friends.
For the group who is supposed to be so open-minded they exhibit quite the opposite when confronted with this information.
In reviewing the message of my last post the Generosity of Americans part 2 " you can not legislate charity it is a personal act."
Self proclaimed liberals seem to think charity is political and self proclaimed conservatives see it as a personal act.
It is a different mind set.
So while sp conservatives on par donate alot more money and time than sp liberals it only follows that there is also a difference in life view.
by George F Will
Thursday February 23, 2006
Smile if (and Only if) You're Conservative
You can look up the entire article so I will only quote some of the more interesting paragraphs.
I also want to include several others.
"A survey by the Pew Research Center shows conservatives are happier than liberals - in all income groups.
While 34% of all Americans call themselves "very happy" only 28% of liberal Democrats (and 31% of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47% of conservative Republicans.
This finding is nifitly self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals."
"Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since this survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole."
It would seem that there is a paradox among conservatives which accounts for their overall happiness.
"Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile - touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there too. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones"
In the face of things this would seem to be rather pessimistic or is it really an expression of pragmatism of I believe living more in the moment.
Being centered where you are - not where you were - or where you want to go - but in the here and NOW.
Another component of this I believe is contentment or satisfaction.
Part of being in the now is contentment with ones self not fretting how unfair everything is.
"Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways.
First, they are rarely surprised - they are right more often than not about the course of events.
Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so.
Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes - government - they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself.
They believe that happiness is an activity - it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness."
"The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect.
Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver."
That statement alone blows me away in that Roosevelt's intentions were and went far beyond the depression.
This probably accounts for present pervasive attitude of entitlement everyone seems to have in this country just because they are here????
Prime example of how liberalism could not account for this unfortunate unintended social consequence.
Other interesting articles - there are many more too.
The Economist
March 27, 2008
The joys of parenthood
Why conservatives are happier than liberals.
PottsMerc.com
August 7, 2008
The difference between conservative and liberals
by Tony Phyrillas, tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Scientific American
June 24, 2008
Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?
Conservatives have a greater subjective life satisfaction than liberals, according to a Pew Research Center survey. Two New York University researchers performed three studies to find out why.
Christie Nicholson reports.
LiveScience.com
May 7, 2008
by Jeanna Bryer, Senior Writer
Conservatives Happier Than LIberals
Us News & World Report
May 5,2008
by Bret Schulte
Why Conservatives Say They Are Happier Than Liberals
Q&A with Arthur Brooks, whose new book says the liberal agenda takes a personal toll.
This is worth quoting some of because Brooks' book is very interesting.
"What's the key to happiness? Liberals might tell you a hot latte, vivid expressions od diversity, and a copy of the New York Times. That doesn't sound bad, but in data mined for his new book, Gross National Happiness, by Arthur Brooks a professor of business and government at Syracuse University, finds that conservatives are twice as likely as liberals to say they are happy.
That's not necessarily because of politics but because they are statistically more likely to be married, go to church, and be optimistic about their future - boosting personal happiness.
For liberals, the rates are lower. The author suggests that while liberal equity agenda may be honorable, it exacts a personal toll. Indeed happiness is full of surprises: Political ideologues are positively joyful - by making others miserable. Brooks explains to US News the quirks and politics of happiness."
Why are liberals so bummed out?
"Liberals are more likely to feel like victims and feel that collective action is the best way to make things happen. That might be right, but it's a frustrating way to live. The Democratic Party is a coalition of oppressed groups. These are legitimate grivances in a lot of cases, but that does not make for a happy party."
And the interview goes on and Mr Brooks holds his own with a skeptical interviewer.
And finally from the:
Examiner.com
June 2, 2008
by Peter Schweizer
Conservatives more honest than liberals?
This is good.
Very explosive question for an election year.
But you will not hear about this in the main stream "LIBERAL" media.
"There is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty."
"Consider the results."
"Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57% of those who described themselves as "very Liberal" said yes in response to the World Value Survey, compared with only 20% of those who are "very conservative."
When Pew Research asked whether it was "morally wrong" to cheat Uncle Sam, 86% of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68% of liberals."
"The World Value Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy stolen goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it is OK to drink a can of soda in the store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car."
And the examples go on and on right into the attitude of college students beliefs in ethics, or lack there of; cheating in school;etc.
"Liberals were more willing to "let others take the blame" for their own ethical lapses, "copy a published article" and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of "cheating on an exam" according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics."
Witness Barack Obama and Joe Biden who think nothing of ripping off other peoples speeches as their own "LIARS"
"Now, I"m not suggesting that all conservatives are honest and all liberals are untrustworthy. But clearly a gap exists in the data. Why? The quick answer might be that liberals are simply more honest about their dishonesty."
"However attractive this explaination might be for some, there is simply no basis for accepting this explanation. Validation studies, which attempt to figure out who misreports on academic surveys and why, has found no evidence that conservatives are less honest. Indeed, validation research indicates that Democrats tend to be LESS forthcoming than other groups."
Here is the crux of the matter.
"The honesty gap is also not a result of "bad people" becoming liberals and "good people" becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with the idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective."
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.- George Orwell
This all fits with their all to often suffering from "pathological altruism" and victimhood which allows them to say or do anything because the ends always justify the means while projecting their own thoughts and actions on the opposition.
HYPOCRITES one and all.
It would appear that low and behold self proclaimed liberals have a very different life view than do self proclaimed conservatives.
Some of the people I have discussed these ideas with insist these are just labels or generalities.
Yes they are but the point is "SELF PROCLAIMED" whereby people interviewed or who took part in a study identified themselves.
They were not assigned anything.
This is not a generality it is a belief expressed by someone in response to questions.
I know liberals refuse to believe any of this because of the negative reaction I get while discussing these ideas with liberal friends.
For the group who is supposed to be so open-minded they exhibit quite the opposite when confronted with this information.
In reviewing the message of my last post the Generosity of Americans part 2 " you can not legislate charity it is a personal act."
Self proclaimed liberals seem to think charity is political and self proclaimed conservatives see it as a personal act.
It is a different mind set.
So while sp conservatives on par donate alot more money and time than sp liberals it only follows that there is also a difference in life view.
Washington Post.com
by George F Will
Thursday February 23, 2006
Smile if (and Only if) You're Conservative
You can look up the entire article so I will only quote some of the more interesting paragraphs.
I also want to include several others.
"A survey by the Pew Research Center shows conservatives are happier than liberals - in all income groups.
While 34% of all Americans call themselves "very happy" only 28% of liberal Democrats (and 31% of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47% of conservative Republicans.
This finding is nifitly self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals."
"Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since this survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole."
It would seem that there is a paradox among conservatives which accounts for their overall happiness.
"Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile - touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there too. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones"
In the face of things this would seem to be rather pessimistic or is it really an expression of pragmatism of I believe living more in the moment.
Being centered where you are - not where you were - or where you want to go - but in the here and NOW.
Another component of this I believe is contentment or satisfaction.
Part of being in the now is contentment with ones self not fretting how unfair everything is.
"Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways.
First, they are rarely surprised - they are right more often than not about the course of events.
Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so.
Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes - government - they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself.
They believe that happiness is an activity - it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness."
"The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect.
Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver."
That statement alone blows me away in that Roosevelt's intentions were and went far beyond the depression.
This probably accounts for present pervasive attitude of entitlement everyone seems to have in this country just because they are here????
Prime example of how liberalism could not account for this unfortunate unintended social consequence.
Other interesting articles - there are many more too.
The Economist
March 27, 2008
The joys of parenthood
Why conservatives are happier than liberals.
PottsMerc.com
August 7, 2008
The difference between conservative and liberals
by Tony Phyrillas, tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Scientific American
June 24, 2008
Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?
Conservatives have a greater subjective life satisfaction than liberals, according to a Pew Research Center survey. Two New York University researchers performed three studies to find out why.
Christie Nicholson reports.
LiveScience.com
May 7, 2008
by Jeanna Bryer, Senior Writer
Conservatives Happier Than LIberals
Us News & World Report
May 5,2008
by Bret Schulte
Why Conservatives Say They Are Happier Than Liberals
Q&A with Arthur Brooks, whose new book says the liberal agenda takes a personal toll.
This is worth quoting some of because Brooks' book is very interesting.
"What's the key to happiness? Liberals might tell you a hot latte, vivid expressions od diversity, and a copy of the New York Times. That doesn't sound bad, but in data mined for his new book, Gross National Happiness, by Arthur Brooks a professor of business and government at Syracuse University, finds that conservatives are twice as likely as liberals to say they are happy.
That's not necessarily because of politics but because they are statistically more likely to be married, go to church, and be optimistic about their future - boosting personal happiness.
For liberals, the rates are lower. The author suggests that while liberal equity agenda may be honorable, it exacts a personal toll. Indeed happiness is full of surprises: Political ideologues are positively joyful - by making others miserable. Brooks explains to US News the quirks and politics of happiness."
Why are liberals so bummed out?
"Liberals are more likely to feel like victims and feel that collective action is the best way to make things happen. That might be right, but it's a frustrating way to live. The Democratic Party is a coalition of oppressed groups. These are legitimate grivances in a lot of cases, but that does not make for a happy party."
And the interview goes on and Mr Brooks holds his own with a skeptical interviewer.
And finally from the:
Examiner.com
June 2, 2008
by Peter Schweizer
Conservatives more honest than liberals?
This is good.
Very explosive question for an election year.
But you will not hear about this in the main stream "LIBERAL" media.
"There is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty."
"Consider the results."
"Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57% of those who described themselves as "very Liberal" said yes in response to the World Value Survey, compared with only 20% of those who are "very conservative."
When Pew Research asked whether it was "morally wrong" to cheat Uncle Sam, 86% of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68% of liberals."
"The World Value Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy stolen goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it is OK to drink a can of soda in the store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car."
And the examples go on and on right into the attitude of college students beliefs in ethics, or lack there of; cheating in school;etc.
"Liberals were more willing to "let others take the blame" for their own ethical lapses, "copy a published article" and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of "cheating on an exam" according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics."
Witness Barack Obama and Joe Biden who think nothing of ripping off other peoples speeches as their own "LIARS"
"Now, I"m not suggesting that all conservatives are honest and all liberals are untrustworthy. But clearly a gap exists in the data. Why? The quick answer might be that liberals are simply more honest about their dishonesty."
"However attractive this explaination might be for some, there is simply no basis for accepting this explanation. Validation studies, which attempt to figure out who misreports on academic surveys and why, has found no evidence that conservatives are less honest. Indeed, validation research indicates that Democrats tend to be LESS forthcoming than other groups."
Here is the crux of the matter.
"The honesty gap is also not a result of "bad people" becoming liberals and "good people" becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with the idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective."
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.- George Orwell
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Could it be the final death of the "global warming" hoax or is it only a change in the weather
With the constant drone from the technocrats, bureaucrats, politicians and especially our desperate president his DEMAGOGUERY, his out right LIES, the obvious CLASS WARFARE this week I reached my limit and decided to focus on another of my pet peeves "the climate debate."
In the last couple of weeks 3 very interesting articles have come out regarding this issue which further validate that "the science is NOT SETTLED" and of course Al Gore aka "the sex crazed poodle" ranted and boldly proclaimed "BULLSHIT" to everything us deniers site.
"Report on Dead Polar Bears Gets Biologists Suspended" by Felicity Barringer in the NY Times
"Arctic "tipping point" may not be reached" by Matt McGrath in the BBC News Science & Environment
"New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" by James Taylor for Forbes
I remember in the 70's I believe it was Time magazine's cover of "the coming ICE AGE" then we moved to "global warming" and the alarmism surrounding it which developed into a new religion for secular among us, after that failed now we have "climate change" the latest attempt to fear monger because the only certainty is that the weather will change and tomorrow it may rain or the sun might shine.
It is my belief that the whole "green" movement has been hijacked by a number of groups who while preaching different politics all agree that the western way of life and capitalism are BAD.
This group includes the european progressives, socialists, communists, environmental fascists, liberals, and other special interest groups who have chosen this issue to further their ideological and political agendas.
"The one world government" folks just love this issue George Soros especially with his "borderless"progressive lunacy funding these activities as well as the progressive media.
None of these people or groups really cares about the EARTH - REALLY well maybe a little BUT this issue is really about POWER and CONTROL.
It is SOCIAL JUSTICE or ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE because after all life is NOT FAIR BOOHOO.
The realignment and redistribution of OUR WEALTH.
And believe me it will not be raising everyone up to our standards it will be us being torn down to meet who knows what lower standards dare I say third or fourth world standards.
Besides the scientific evidence or lack there of the political implications have been staggering especially in Europe - every country that has embraced "green" technology or "green" jobs has spent and subsidized massive amounts of wealth with little or NO RESULT and many have had to make drastic cuts subsequently.
In Spain for example each "green" job created erased 2.5 jobs from the regular economy.
We heard today that Evergreen Solar, Inc after having received millions ($58mil) in stimulus funds has declared bankruptcy listing $485.6 million in debt and shipped even more jobs over to China who controls the solar panel market.
The president and his minions touted the company and its success the funding the jobs created blah blah blah thanks for wasting 58 million more of the tax payers money - mr president!!!
In the polar bear hysteria it seems that "the federal government has suspended a wildlife biologists whose sightings of dead polar bears in Arctic waters became a rallying point for campaigners seeking to blunt the impact of global warming."
Dr. Charles Monnett was placed on administrative leave pending an internal investigation into "integrity issues," according to a copy of a letter posted online by the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
The long and the short of it is that the typical progressive mindset that THE END ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS allowed this man and his coauthor to BOLD FACE LIE in order to promote their cause and help bolster the argument that the sea ice was melting and threatening the bears very survival there were NO DEAD BEARS.
As the poodle proclaimed "BULLSHIT"
In the Arctic "tipping point" saga scientists now say the disappearance of Arctic sea ice may be misplaced.
Danish researchers analyzed ancient pieces of driftwood in north Greenland found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago.
They argue therefore, that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely.
"The researchers concluded that for about 3,000 years, during a period called the Holocene Climate Optimum, there was more open water and far less ice than today - probably less than 50% of the minimum Arctic sea ice recorded in 2007."
So all our fears of NO MORE SEA ICE are totally unfounded if history is to be believed.
But the "climate change" folks are not believing it.
And NASA who seemed to be blindly backing this hoax "released satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing for more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than the United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less than alarmist have claimed."
The new findings are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and should DRAMATICALLY ALTER the global warming debate.
"In short, the central premise of the alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than alarmist computer models predict."
It was very interesting how the various groups reacted after the "climate-gate" affair happened and the left in general tried to deflect, rationalize, and obfuscate the reality of the scandal.
Especially in Britain politically the progressives/liberals/left who controlled politics from 1997 until recently have so heavily invested in the Hoax that backing out now is difficult to say the least.
Let us not forget the "LIMOUSINE LIBERALS" who want the rest of us to live like "SERFS" while they maintain their lives unchanged because after all the progressives/liberals/demoRats know better they are better educated and can make the decisions we are NOT CAPABLE of making for ourselves.
I ASK YOU IS THE SCIENCE SETTLED - I THINK NOT!!!
In the last couple of weeks 3 very interesting articles have come out regarding this issue which further validate that "the science is NOT SETTLED" and of course Al Gore aka "the sex crazed poodle" ranted and boldly proclaimed "BULLSHIT" to everything us deniers site.
"Report on Dead Polar Bears Gets Biologists Suspended" by Felicity Barringer in the NY Times
"Arctic "tipping point" may not be reached" by Matt McGrath in the BBC News Science & Environment
"New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" by James Taylor for Forbes
I remember in the 70's I believe it was Time magazine's cover of "the coming ICE AGE" then we moved to "global warming" and the alarmism surrounding it which developed into a new religion for secular among us, after that failed now we have "climate change" the latest attempt to fear monger because the only certainty is that the weather will change and tomorrow it may rain or the sun might shine.
It is my belief that the whole "green" movement has been hijacked by a number of groups who while preaching different politics all agree that the western way of life and capitalism are BAD.
This group includes the european progressives, socialists, communists, environmental fascists, liberals, and other special interest groups who have chosen this issue to further their ideological and political agendas.
"The one world government" folks just love this issue George Soros especially with his "borderless"progressive lunacy funding these activities as well as the progressive media.
None of these people or groups really cares about the EARTH - REALLY well maybe a little BUT this issue is really about POWER and CONTROL.
It is SOCIAL JUSTICE or ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE because after all life is NOT FAIR BOOHOO.
The realignment and redistribution of OUR WEALTH.
And believe me it will not be raising everyone up to our standards it will be us being torn down to meet who knows what lower standards dare I say third or fourth world standards.
Besides the scientific evidence or lack there of the political implications have been staggering especially in Europe - every country that has embraced "green" technology or "green" jobs has spent and subsidized massive amounts of wealth with little or NO RESULT and many have had to make drastic cuts subsequently.
In Spain for example each "green" job created erased 2.5 jobs from the regular economy.
We heard today that Evergreen Solar, Inc after having received millions ($58mil) in stimulus funds has declared bankruptcy listing $485.6 million in debt and shipped even more jobs over to China who controls the solar panel market.
The president and his minions touted the company and its success the funding the jobs created blah blah blah thanks for wasting 58 million more of the tax payers money - mr president!!!
In the polar bear hysteria it seems that "the federal government has suspended a wildlife biologists whose sightings of dead polar bears in Arctic waters became a rallying point for campaigners seeking to blunt the impact of global warming."
Dr. Charles Monnett was placed on administrative leave pending an internal investigation into "integrity issues," according to a copy of a letter posted online by the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
The long and the short of it is that the typical progressive mindset that THE END ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS allowed this man and his coauthor to BOLD FACE LIE in order to promote their cause and help bolster the argument that the sea ice was melting and threatening the bears very survival there were NO DEAD BEARS.
As the poodle proclaimed "BULLSHIT"
In the Arctic "tipping point" saga scientists now say the disappearance of Arctic sea ice may be misplaced.
Danish researchers analyzed ancient pieces of driftwood in north Greenland found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago.
They argue therefore, that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely.
"The researchers concluded that for about 3,000 years, during a period called the Holocene Climate Optimum, there was more open water and far less ice than today - probably less than 50% of the minimum Arctic sea ice recorded in 2007."
So all our fears of NO MORE SEA ICE are totally unfounded if history is to be believed.
But the "climate change" folks are not believing it.
And NASA who seemed to be blindly backing this hoax "released satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing for more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than the United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less than alarmist have claimed."
The new findings are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and should DRAMATICALLY ALTER the global warming debate.
"In short, the central premise of the alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than alarmist computer models predict."
It was very interesting how the various groups reacted after the "climate-gate" affair happened and the left in general tried to deflect, rationalize, and obfuscate the reality of the scandal.
Especially in Britain politically the progressives/liberals/left who controlled politics from 1997 until recently have so heavily invested in the Hoax that backing out now is difficult to say the least.
Let us not forget the "LIMOUSINE LIBERALS" who want the rest of us to live like "SERFS" while they maintain their lives unchanged because after all the progressives/liberals/demoRats know better they are better educated and can make the decisions we are NOT CAPABLE of making for ourselves.
I ASK YOU IS THE SCIENCE SETTLED - I THINK NOT!!!
Thursday, August 11, 2011
BOYCOTT SONY
With the news of the last few days that the president and his minions are dealing with Sony pictures to make and release a movie about the Seals mission to eliminate Bin Laden right before the election which will no doubt be an Obama propaganda fest should be answered.
Boycott all SONY products and SONY films.
Let us take a page from the left and show Sony how many of us there are in our nation that if an entertainment company which held fund raisers for Obama wants to suck up to BIG GOVERNMENT they should STAY OUT OF POLITICS.
Boycott all SONY products and SONY films.
SPREAD the word - tell your friends and families.
MOST of ALL get everyone you know out to VOTE!!!
Progressivism = Totalitarianism
Boycott all SONY products and SONY films.
Let us take a page from the left and show Sony how many of us there are in our nation that if an entertainment company which held fund raisers for Obama wants to suck up to BIG GOVERNMENT they should STAY OUT OF POLITICS.
Boycott all SONY products and SONY films.
SPREAD the word - tell your friends and families.
MOST of ALL get everyone you know out to VOTE!!!
Progressivism = Totalitarianism
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Do you ever wonder where that all those tax dollars are going of late?
| Do you ever wonder where all that money is going these days? With our economy on the brink one would think that our president and his administration would be more concerned about the purse strings but obviously that is not the case as witnessed by all the spending and spending they are doing largely to people who HATE us. What is wrong with our government when it feels it can spend BILLIONS on BULLSHIT when that money would be better spent paying off the debt or at least spent in our country. Our politicans lie to us constantly. They are more concerned with the polls and raising money for their next election. Special interests have more say than the average American people. Obama seems more interested in his reelection than fixing any thing except with excuses and blaming Bush or the republicans. He is ripping off the tax payer further by claiming his "bus tour" is political not personal and we let him get away with it? The Political class is out of control there should not even be a political class. We must return to strict term limits for politicans. The founders did not conceive that a job in congress was for life or even a persons mainmeans of employment but a short term duty or service to your country. How many congressmen and senators are millionaires? Half of congress are millionaires. Two thirds of senators are millionaires including our current president. Many have hundreds of millions of dollars. Nancy Pelosi has increased her wealth some 62% since she became a congresswoman. Read some of the links below and as your blood boils and your temperature rises write, email, or call your congress person and senator and complain - demand accountability. Under the circumstances this is JUST OUTRAGEOUS. We do not need a political class but folks who are willing to work to help the country and it's people instead of taking maximum advantage of their position. It is time for ALL citizens to get involved to stop the madness in Washington!!! | ||
| ||
| http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/21/lawmakers-resist-obamas-offer-2b-loan-assistance-egypt/ | ||
| The US Gross National Debt jumped by? $238 billion to $14.580 trillion the day after the debt-ceiling deal was signed! Found in news around the world but, of course, NOT in the major US media. | ||
| ||
| http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/21/lawmakers-resist-obamas-offer-2b-loan-assistance-egypt/ | ||
| ||
| http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/libya-rebels-will-receive-25-million-from-us/ | ||
| ||
| http://usataxpayer.org/htm/vids.asp?A=24442791 | ||
| ||
| http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=6367 | ||
| ||
| http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/libya-owned-arab-banking-corp-drew-at-least-5-billion- from-fed-in-crisis.html | ||
| ||
| http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/10/tax-dollars-to-build-mosques/ | ||
| ||
| http://amerpundit.com/2010/11/10/obama-gives-another-150-million-to-palestine/ | ||
| ||
| http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/world/asia/05kabul.html | ||
| ||
| http://usataxpayer.org/htm/vids.asp?A=91895715 | ||
| ||
| http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2010/08/29/coming-august-31-direct-access-stimulus-grants-for-the-muslim-brotherhood/ | ||
| ||
| http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ken-blackwell/2010/10/13/900-million-for-what/print/ |
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Before we were all "RACISTS" now we are all "TERRORISTS"
According to progressives/liberals/democrats conservatives and especially the Tea Parties are now terrorists waging jihad against their fellow citizens.
So proclaimed Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuckie Schumer, and a whole slew of talking heads from the left, the progressive media and then some in lock step one after the other as though the memo was sent out this is the new talking point to discredit the Tea Parties.
It has been shouted and cried at every turn of the debt negotiations.
One point I find rather amusing and very hypocritical is that these are the very folks who will not publicly call islamic terrorists terrorists (they are misguided or freedom loving) but to DEMAGOGUE republicans and conservatives they go way way out there even going against Obama's plea for civility after the Phoenix shootings.
It is no wonder they have changed tactics because for months and months they have tried to brand the Tea Parties "racists."
It seemed every day every time one of the talking heads blabbed about something the race card was played.
Those nasty Tea Party people are just a bunch of "old white racists" trying to do away with your social justice meaning government give away goodies.
They want to push grandma over the cliff, abandon children, who denies women healthcare, starves seniors, and every other horror one can think of.
So it would seem that the old adage "RACISTS" is now replaced with the new slight or code word "TERRORISTS" since every one got sick and tried of the old baloney and did not believe it any way the left has to come together and find a new way to try and isolate and demean the Tea Parties.
The Tea Parties have garnered a lot of power and support being responsible for republicans sweeping the 2010 elections and regaining the House and this is how the left deals with it's perceived enemies.
ISOLATE and ATTACK - try and sway public opinion.
BTW I think they are still reeling, in denial and desperate after that "SHELLACKING" they took - elections do have consequences as Obummer reminded us so thoughtfully.
This is why 2012 will be so IMPORTANT to continue the removal of the progressives from office.
The reality is that even though the current proposal for raising the debt ceiling SUCKS at least we are having this conversation over our financial future because the socialist-in-chief would have just continued to spend spend spend on his way to fundamentally trying to transform America.
The TEA PARTIES deserve to be THANKED not attacked for their role in the change in Washington how ever small.
After all republicans only control a third of the government.
I find it equally amazing that through all this the compliant lame stream media made nothing of the demoRats defiance and terrorist approach to raising the debt ceiling when Bush raised it in 2006.
As usual it is okay for them to be terrorists but not republicans - Obummer himself at that time opined that "raising the debt ceiling showed lack of leadership blah blah blah."
One aspect which is most disturbing is that Obamacare never came up in the debate as it will be the single largest increase in the debt when fully implemented and 57% of America still wants it repealed and yet we hear nothing more about this terrible law.
In the end the American people are the ones who will get screwed as the corrupt bloated federal government continues to lumber along growing larger every year spending money we do not have.
How could ANYONE be against a balanced budget amendment?
"my reading of history convinces me that most BAD government results from TOO MUCH government" - Thomas Jefferson
But even as the debt goes on and spending has not really been stopped the president still owns the economy and it is not getting any better in fact:
- one in five persons does not have a job or work
- one in seven persons is on food stamps
- the average time an unemployed person remains out of work is now nine months or 36 weeks (pre-Obama average was just three months or 13 weeks
- the price of gas has risen 104% since Obama's inauguration
- unemployment has risen from 7.8% to 9.2% since Obama's inauguration
- black Americans (98% voted for Obama) are suffering the lowest levels of economic prosperity since the 1960's and the black middle class is disappearing (funny I thought it was republicans war against the middle class)
- college graduates are experiencing record unemployment - in 2006 and 2007, 90% of all college graduates found a job - in 2010, just 56% of graduates found a job.
- Obama has ADDED MORE TO THE NATIONAL DEBT than all US presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.
It is not getting BETTER folks and I doubt that by the election on 2012 it will be any better.
Our only HOPE is to see to it that Obama and his minions are VOTED out of office and the republicans take back the Senate too.
Progressives know they are on the ropes having had their agenda rejected once already so you know that 2012 will be a very very NASTY election cycle.
We must stand strong get out the word to friends and family and VOTE!!!!!!
So proclaimed Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuckie Schumer, and a whole slew of talking heads from the left, the progressive media and then some in lock step one after the other as though the memo was sent out this is the new talking point to discredit the Tea Parties.
It has been shouted and cried at every turn of the debt negotiations.
One point I find rather amusing and very hypocritical is that these are the very folks who will not publicly call islamic terrorists terrorists (they are misguided or freedom loving) but to DEMAGOGUE republicans and conservatives they go way way out there even going against Obama's plea for civility after the Phoenix shootings.
It is no wonder they have changed tactics because for months and months they have tried to brand the Tea Parties "racists."
It seemed every day every time one of the talking heads blabbed about something the race card was played.
Those nasty Tea Party people are just a bunch of "old white racists" trying to do away with your social justice meaning government give away goodies.
They want to push grandma over the cliff, abandon children, who denies women healthcare, starves seniors, and every other horror one can think of.
So it would seem that the old adage "RACISTS" is now replaced with the new slight or code word "TERRORISTS" since every one got sick and tried of the old baloney and did not believe it any way the left has to come together and find a new way to try and isolate and demean the Tea Parties.
The Tea Parties have garnered a lot of power and support being responsible for republicans sweeping the 2010 elections and regaining the House and this is how the left deals with it's perceived enemies.
ISOLATE and ATTACK - try and sway public opinion.
BTW I think they are still reeling, in denial and desperate after that "SHELLACKING" they took - elections do have consequences as Obummer reminded us so thoughtfully.
This is why 2012 will be so IMPORTANT to continue the removal of the progressives from office.
The reality is that even though the current proposal for raising the debt ceiling SUCKS at least we are having this conversation over our financial future because the socialist-in-chief would have just continued to spend spend spend on his way to fundamentally trying to transform America.
The TEA PARTIES deserve to be THANKED not attacked for their role in the change in Washington how ever small.
After all republicans only control a third of the government.
I find it equally amazing that through all this the compliant lame stream media made nothing of the demoRats defiance and terrorist approach to raising the debt ceiling when Bush raised it in 2006.
As usual it is okay for them to be terrorists but not republicans - Obummer himself at that time opined that "raising the debt ceiling showed lack of leadership blah blah blah."
One aspect which is most disturbing is that Obamacare never came up in the debate as it will be the single largest increase in the debt when fully implemented and 57% of America still wants it repealed and yet we hear nothing more about this terrible law.
In the end the American people are the ones who will get screwed as the corrupt bloated federal government continues to lumber along growing larger every year spending money we do not have.
How could ANYONE be against a balanced budget amendment?
"my reading of history convinces me that most BAD government results from TOO MUCH government" - Thomas Jefferson
But even as the debt goes on and spending has not really been stopped the president still owns the economy and it is not getting any better in fact:
- one in five persons does not have a job or work
- one in seven persons is on food stamps
- the average time an unemployed person remains out of work is now nine months or 36 weeks (pre-Obama average was just three months or 13 weeks
- the price of gas has risen 104% since Obama's inauguration
- unemployment has risen from 7.8% to 9.2% since Obama's inauguration
- black Americans (98% voted for Obama) are suffering the lowest levels of economic prosperity since the 1960's and the black middle class is disappearing (funny I thought it was republicans war against the middle class)
- college graduates are experiencing record unemployment - in 2006 and 2007, 90% of all college graduates found a job - in 2010, just 56% of graduates found a job.
- Obama has ADDED MORE TO THE NATIONAL DEBT than all US presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.
It is not getting BETTER folks and I doubt that by the election on 2012 it will be any better.
Our only HOPE is to see to it that Obama and his minions are VOTED out of office and the republicans take back the Senate too.
Progressives know they are on the ropes having had their agenda rejected once already so you know that 2012 will be a very very NASTY election cycle.
We must stand strong get out the word to friends and family and VOTE!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)