"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." ~ Will Rogers
Due to illness in the family, I've been too busy to post a new entry lately. I've either been straightening up the house, cooking the family meals, or spending my free time visiting a loved one in the hospital.
Everyone is fine, thank you. Thanks for your thoughts.
I've mentioned in the past that I'm not a news junkie. I will watch almost any other kind of television program before I'll watch news. So, readers will forgive me, I hope, for missing some stories about which other bloggers have already posted and moved on while I have been otherwise engaged in more important pursuits.
While I was thus engaged, I understand Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama (also known as Michelle) giddily announced that she is finally proud to be an American, a comment for which she has been widely criticized. Did she really mean she hadn't been proud to be an American up until that point?
I don't think so. I think it was an unfortunate, though Freudian slip. Maybe I am just giving Mrs. Obama the benefit of the doubt but, in my humble opinion, I see no reason to assume she is any less proud to be an American than any other whiny blame-America-first, bleeding heart Liberal sob sister Democrat.
She is at least as proud as any one of them.
Also, Apparently some of Obama's campaign workers displayed a flag on the wall of their Houston office. It was a flag of Cuba upon which a picture of Cuban mass murderer Che Guevera was superimposed. Does this mean Barack Hussein Obama is a disciple of Che and/or a supporter of anti-American Communist regimes?
I don't think so. Of course, one could argue that if they support both Che and Obama, there must be some significant similarities in the political ideology of the two. But, just because some of Obama's campaign workers are obvious fans of brutal fascist revolutionaries, it doesn't necessarily mean he himself supports anti-American governments above our own.
However, the most anti-American voting record in the Senate might.
By the way, anyone who believes Bill Cunningham isn't intentionally trying to imply Obama is an Islamic Jihadist sympathizer when he continually refers to him by all three names (Barack HUSSEIN Obama) is either stupid, ignorant, or willfully suspending ones own disbelief.
And finally, good news for Republicans. Perennial losing Presidential candidate Ralph Nader has announced his candidacy for President once again. This is good news for Republicans because Nader is a "consumer advocate", which in layman's terms, means he's a environMENTAList wacko. And environMENTAList wackos vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
He, along with Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, who appears to have more respect for flowers and bugs than she does for Capitol Police authority, could actually siphon enough Democrat votes away from Hillary or Obama, that the Republican candidate could very well win the election by default.
It worked for the Republicans when George Wallace ran, and for the Democrats when Ross Perot ran.
Although, come to think of it, Nader didn't garner enough votes to make a difference in his previous attempts, did he?
Then again, the Democratic candidates then had more substance than the two running in this particular campaign. Some Democrats are less than enthusiastic about their choices this time around.
Third parties are often the spoilers.
The Democrats who vote for Nader or McKinney might even offset the percentage of Republican voters who will refuse to vote in protest over the Republicans selecting a Liberal as their candidate in the upcoming general election.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Anonymous Sources Say Hillary Will Have Obama Killed
"The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on." ~ Joseph Heller
The New York Slimes is doing it's Liberal best to smear a Republican candidate. So, what else is new?
They say they have been working on this (non)story for three months. Why?
I don't mean why work on the story for three months. I mean why should it take so long to sit down and write a story filled with so many holes one could drive a semi through? I could sit down and dash a story out with more credibility in about an hour or less.
What's the first sign it isn't factual? The ubiquitous "anonymous sources", of course. Whenever the Slimes or any Liberal news organization wants to do a hatchet job on someone, all they have to do is dredge up a few "anonymous sources", and Voila! They have muck! And they really don't have to dredge them up. All they really have to do is mention anonymous sources. There doesn't have to be any.
Anonymous sources are the perfect source. They don't even have to exist to make a story appear credible.
Ok. Point made.
I've been listening to the talking heads speculate about who the Presidential nominees will choose for their running mates. We hear these rumors every election cycle, and there's nothing wrong with discussing the subject, but I've never seen a Presidential nominee choose a running mate from the pool of Presidential contenders that didn't win.
For instance, Everyone thought Howard Dean would be chosen in 2000, or was it 2004? No matter. It didn't happen. Go down the list of Presidential candidates in the last several elections. None of the candidates from either party ever chose a running mate that experts said they would choose.
Offhand, I can think of Nixon's choice of Spiro Agnew, George W Bush's choice of Dick Cheney, and some one's (I can't remember who) choice of Lloyd Bentzen. These are all Vice Presidential candidates I had never heard of before the nominee chose them.
So, if you're expecting to hear McCain choose Huckabee or Romney as his running mate, it probably won't happen. He would more likely choose Senator Lieberman, but I doubt Lieberman would accept. Who knows, though? Stranger things have happened.
But the one speculation that really amuses me is "Will Obama choose Hillary to be his running mate?" Well, I won't commit myself to saying no, however, in my opinion, he would have to be either fearless, stupid, or crazy to pick her.
The Clinton's have such a lust for power, they have left a long trail of dead bodies strewn behind them (if "anonymous sources" have any credibility to them at all) in their quest for political power. Or to stay in power.
Here is one example from an article (the first one I accessed in a google search of "Clinton's criminal record") entitled "Clinton Lies and Criminal History":
"[C]ritics of the Clintons have made more lurid allegations: that Foster’s death was not a suicide, that it was connected to Whitewater, and that Hillary Clinton was somehow involved by covering up activities together with Foster before his death or in that her relationship with Foster was an intimate one. Other conspiracy theories claimed that she had killed Foster herself or had him killed."
If there is any truth to any of those aforementioned rumors, Obama would be in danger of being assassinated by any of the Clinton's thug pals, or thug pals of their thug pals, if she were placed in the position of "heiress to the throne" so to speak. Anonymous sources speculate she would literally stop at nothing to reach her ultimate goal of attaining the title of "Commissar for life of The Socialist States of America".
Including assassination.
But it doesn't matter. Obama, should he win the Democratic nomination for president, will never choose Hillbillary for his running mate.
You'll see. History will bear me out.
The New York Slimes is doing it's Liberal best to smear a Republican candidate. So, what else is new?
They say they have been working on this (non)story for three months. Why?
I don't mean why work on the story for three months. I mean why should it take so long to sit down and write a story filled with so many holes one could drive a semi through? I could sit down and dash a story out with more credibility in about an hour or less.
What's the first sign it isn't factual? The ubiquitous "anonymous sources", of course. Whenever the Slimes or any Liberal news organization wants to do a hatchet job on someone, all they have to do is dredge up a few "anonymous sources", and Voila! They have muck! And they really don't have to dredge them up. All they really have to do is mention anonymous sources. There doesn't have to be any.
Anonymous sources are the perfect source. They don't even have to exist to make a story appear credible.
Ok. Point made.
I've been listening to the talking heads speculate about who the Presidential nominees will choose for their running mates. We hear these rumors every election cycle, and there's nothing wrong with discussing the subject, but I've never seen a Presidential nominee choose a running mate from the pool of Presidential contenders that didn't win.
For instance, Everyone thought Howard Dean would be chosen in 2000, or was it 2004? No matter. It didn't happen. Go down the list of Presidential candidates in the last several elections. None of the candidates from either party ever chose a running mate that experts said they would choose.
Offhand, I can think of Nixon's choice of Spiro Agnew, George W Bush's choice of Dick Cheney, and some one's (I can't remember who) choice of Lloyd Bentzen. These are all Vice Presidential candidates I had never heard of before the nominee chose them.
So, if you're expecting to hear McCain choose Huckabee or Romney as his running mate, it probably won't happen. He would more likely choose Senator Lieberman, but I doubt Lieberman would accept. Who knows, though? Stranger things have happened.
But the one speculation that really amuses me is "Will Obama choose Hillary to be his running mate?" Well, I won't commit myself to saying no, however, in my opinion, he would have to be either fearless, stupid, or crazy to pick her.
The Clinton's have such a lust for power, they have left a long trail of dead bodies strewn behind them (if "anonymous sources" have any credibility to them at all) in their quest for political power. Or to stay in power.
Here is one example from an article (the first one I accessed in a google search of "Clinton's criminal record") entitled "Clinton Lies and Criminal History":
"[C]ritics of the Clintons have made more lurid allegations: that Foster’s death was not a suicide, that it was connected to Whitewater, and that Hillary Clinton was somehow involved by covering up activities together with Foster before his death or in that her relationship with Foster was an intimate one. Other conspiracy theories claimed that she had killed Foster herself or had him killed."
If there is any truth to any of those aforementioned rumors, Obama would be in danger of being assassinated by any of the Clinton's thug pals, or thug pals of their thug pals, if she were placed in the position of "heiress to the throne" so to speak. Anonymous sources speculate she would literally stop at nothing to reach her ultimate goal of attaining the title of "Commissar for life of The Socialist States of America".
Including assassination.
But it doesn't matter. Obama, should he win the Democratic nomination for president, will never choose Hillbillary for his running mate.
You'll see. History will bear me out.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Altruism or selfishness?
"Once, in a spirit of altruism and generosity, I filled a rental car with gas!" ~ Emo Phillips
Lone Ranger posted a link to this web site a few days ago, and after reading some of the testimonials found there, I was left feeling strangely disturbed. I don't know why I'm disturbed. Maybe it's because I don't see these testimonials as examples of altruism, but rather as examples of a pitiful display of self importance. I've been thinking about this since LR posted it, but so many thoughts have run through my head about it that I have difficulty deciding what I want to say.
Read some of them. Really. Go read some of them, and you'll see what I mean.
The old phrase, "Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back" seems appropriate to me.
It's just that I see, instead of unselfishishness in the testimonials, a lot of pride. I am reminded of Jesus Christ's admonition, "But when you do merciful deeds, don't let your left hand know what your right hand does" found in Matthew 6:3. (That's the World English Bible translation, which is not really my preferred version, but it speaks more directly about acts of kindness rather than simply giving money to the poor) I think this applies to letting other people see what you do as well. At least people other than the ones you help.
A genuine random act of kindness is an act that doesn't come with any kind of reward in mind. Not even the reward of receiving accolades from friends or strangers. Again, the words of Jesus come to mind. "Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." Matthew 6:5
I suppose it's long been a pet peeve of mine when I see people do something nice, and then announce to everyone how wonderfully unselfish they are being. The way I see it, as soon as one tells someone else, ones attempt at generosity becomes disengenous.
I posted something on this subject before. Read it here, if you're so inclined.
It is difficult indeed to do some random act of kindness and then be silent. I have done them, and have, for the most part kept silent, but doesn't even disclosing that much lump me in with those who expect some sort of praise? I don't want to seek praise for whatever acts of kindness I do. But at the same time, I want people to know.
It is a dilemma.
I recently wrote about a time when I took the initiative to bring Thanksgiving dinner to a girls group home simply because my heart went out to the girls. Many of the girl's own families had effectively abandoned them and they faced the prospect of enduring Thanksgiving alone, with only their peers for company.
My reason for recounting that incident wasn't for self aggrandizement, but merely to point out the true meaning of Christian charity. I feel guilty to this day about sharing. I could have easily found other examples, but I wanted to draw an example from my own experience. In retrospect, I suppose using another example not from my experience would have sufficed.
In the comments of that entry, I said, "I have my reward".
Those testimonials that seem to point to a desire for attention are not the only ones that disturb me.
For instance, one entitled "Give it away", recounts a story of the author giving away tickets to a concert because essentially, she had 3 tickets her family couldn't use after she had found better seats. I'm sure the beneficiary of the tickets was grateful, but the offer of tickets in this case seems more about throwing the cast offs to the beggars than genuine kindness to me. Kind of like letting the homeless guy have your last couple of bites from the burger you couldn't finish.
Then there's the one entitled, "Stuck in the snow" that is disturbing in more than one way. Not only did the author of this testimonial admit that he didn't even attempt to help until it became obvious no one else was going to, but then he readily admits he did it in hopes that someday someone would help him in a similar situation.
I get the distinct impression that these people who write these testimonials so rarely do anything altruistic, they feel a need to massage their own egos, probably out of guilt for not doing so more often.
Lone Ranger posted a link to this web site a few days ago, and after reading some of the testimonials found there, I was left feeling strangely disturbed. I don't know why I'm disturbed. Maybe it's because I don't see these testimonials as examples of altruism, but rather as examples of a pitiful display of self importance. I've been thinking about this since LR posted it, but so many thoughts have run through my head about it that I have difficulty deciding what I want to say.
Read some of them. Really. Go read some of them, and you'll see what I mean.
The old phrase, "Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back" seems appropriate to me.
It's just that I see, instead of unselfishishness in the testimonials, a lot of pride. I am reminded of Jesus Christ's admonition, "But when you do merciful deeds, don't let your left hand know what your right hand does" found in Matthew 6:3. (That's the World English Bible translation, which is not really my preferred version, but it speaks more directly about acts of kindness rather than simply giving money to the poor) I think this applies to letting other people see what you do as well. At least people other than the ones you help.
A genuine random act of kindness is an act that doesn't come with any kind of reward in mind. Not even the reward of receiving accolades from friends or strangers. Again, the words of Jesus come to mind. "Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." Matthew 6:5
I suppose it's long been a pet peeve of mine when I see people do something nice, and then announce to everyone how wonderfully unselfish they are being. The way I see it, as soon as one tells someone else, ones attempt at generosity becomes disengenous.
I posted something on this subject before. Read it here, if you're so inclined.
It is difficult indeed to do some random act of kindness and then be silent. I have done them, and have, for the most part kept silent, but doesn't even disclosing that much lump me in with those who expect some sort of praise? I don't want to seek praise for whatever acts of kindness I do. But at the same time, I want people to know.
It is a dilemma.
I recently wrote about a time when I took the initiative to bring Thanksgiving dinner to a girls group home simply because my heart went out to the girls. Many of the girl's own families had effectively abandoned them and they faced the prospect of enduring Thanksgiving alone, with only their peers for company.
My reason for recounting that incident wasn't for self aggrandizement, but merely to point out the true meaning of Christian charity. I feel guilty to this day about sharing. I could have easily found other examples, but I wanted to draw an example from my own experience. In retrospect, I suppose using another example not from my experience would have sufficed.
In the comments of that entry, I said, "I have my reward".
Those testimonials that seem to point to a desire for attention are not the only ones that disturb me.
For instance, one entitled "Give it away", recounts a story of the author giving away tickets to a concert because essentially, she had 3 tickets her family couldn't use after she had found better seats. I'm sure the beneficiary of the tickets was grateful, but the offer of tickets in this case seems more about throwing the cast offs to the beggars than genuine kindness to me. Kind of like letting the homeless guy have your last couple of bites from the burger you couldn't finish.
Then there's the one entitled, "Stuck in the snow" that is disturbing in more than one way. Not only did the author of this testimonial admit that he didn't even attempt to help until it became obvious no one else was going to, but then he readily admits he did it in hopes that someday someone would help him in a similar situation.
I get the distinct impression that these people who write these testimonials so rarely do anything altruistic, they feel a need to massage their own egos, probably out of guilt for not doing so more often.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
A BB In A Boxcar
"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." ~ Albert Einstein
The Virginia Primary is over and John McCain won again. The Liberally biased AP gleefully reports that his lead is now officially insurmountable. Of course, Republicans knew that already.
Although McCain has the nomination all sewn up, I went to vote anyway. I am angry at the Republican party, which is traditionally the standard bearer for Conservatism, so I was hoping the Virginia election commission(or whatever the governmental agency that regulates such things is called) would allow write -in votes, but there was no place for write-ins on the ballot.
Since McCain has already secured the nomination, a vote in the Virginia Primary makes no difference other than as a statement of principle. I wanted to write-in Duncan Hunter in protest against the party that abandoned it's Conservative base.
After I received my Republican ballot, I overheard the election workers discussing the fact that more Democrats were showing up to vote than Republicans, which came as no surprise to me because, as I mentioned, there really is no reason to vote in the Republican primary. I am sure many Republicans didn't bother coming in.
But it was important to me to vote to lodge my personal protest.
A vote for a candidate that has no chance in winning makes a statement with less impact to the Republican party than the sound a BB makes rattling around in a boxcar.
With that realization, as I filled in the dot beside the name of Fred Thompson, I felt a minute sense of satisfaction.
I had cast my vote based on principle.
Apparently I wasn't the only one who voted on principle. McCain's margin of victory over Huckabee was slim. And the other candidates received thousands of votes, too. I am reasonably certain that many Republicans only voted for McCain because he is already the nominee.
Perhaps when he looks at the results and sees how many "protest" votes other candidates received it will send a message to him that the Republican party is not wholly behind him in this race. At least, that's my thinking.
Probably not, though.
When the general election arrives in November, I will vote for the Republican nominee, although it will be McCain. Then I will go home and take a shower.
As I remarked to the people at the polls yesterday, it's a pity there isn't a space on the ballot for "Anyone else."
The Virginia Primary is over and John McCain won again. The Liberally biased AP gleefully reports that his lead is now officially insurmountable. Of course, Republicans knew that already.
Although McCain has the nomination all sewn up, I went to vote anyway. I am angry at the Republican party, which is traditionally the standard bearer for Conservatism, so I was hoping the Virginia election commission(or whatever the governmental agency that regulates such things is called) would allow write -in votes, but there was no place for write-ins on the ballot.
Since McCain has already secured the nomination, a vote in the Virginia Primary makes no difference other than as a statement of principle. I wanted to write-in Duncan Hunter in protest against the party that abandoned it's Conservative base.
After I received my Republican ballot, I overheard the election workers discussing the fact that more Democrats were showing up to vote than Republicans, which came as no surprise to me because, as I mentioned, there really is no reason to vote in the Republican primary. I am sure many Republicans didn't bother coming in.
But it was important to me to vote to lodge my personal protest.
A vote for a candidate that has no chance in winning makes a statement with less impact to the Republican party than the sound a BB makes rattling around in a boxcar.
With that realization, as I filled in the dot beside the name of Fred Thompson, I felt a minute sense of satisfaction.
I had cast my vote based on principle.
Apparently I wasn't the only one who voted on principle. McCain's margin of victory over Huckabee was slim. And the other candidates received thousands of votes, too. I am reasonably certain that many Republicans only voted for McCain because he is already the nominee.
Perhaps when he looks at the results and sees how many "protest" votes other candidates received it will send a message to him that the Republican party is not wholly behind him in this race. At least, that's my thinking.
Probably not, though.
When the general election arrives in November, I will vote for the Republican nominee, although it will be McCain. Then I will go home and take a shower.
As I remarked to the people at the polls yesterday, it's a pity there isn't a space on the ballot for "Anyone else."
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Government By The People
"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." ~ Abraham Lincoln
In October, 2005, President Bush appointed Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States. The outcry of dissent from Conservative Republicans was deafening. The party faithful was not so faithful to the President on this one. Eventually, bowing to the pressure from Conservative Republicans, Harriet Miers took the initiative away from Bush by withdrawing her nomination.
In February 2006 President Bush approved the sale of ports to the United Arab Emigrates. Again, Conservative Republicans let their disapproval be known. The sale was never consummated. Conservatives, by voicing their opinion, cancelled the transaction.
Now, Conservative Republicans are again faced with an unpleasant choice. We may have to vote for Senator John McCain for President in the general election. We can not vote at all, thereby handing the election over to the Democrats. Or we can vote for the Democratic Candidate.
None of those choices are appetizing as far as I'm concerned.
Many are decrying this dipleasing turn of events, and suggesting the Republican party is, for all practical purposes, finished.
But we still have voices, and we still can, by using them, influence Presidential policies, as we have in the past.
Having John McCain as President of the United States is not the end of the world. It is somewhat frightening in many ways, but it will not destroy American Conservatism, especially not if we make ourselves be heard.
We can make a difference.
Remember, ours is a government by the people, as much as of and for the people. A President McCain must abide by the Constitution in all matters of policy. If he doesn't, there are millions of people across this nation that can and will voice their displeasure.
This is an example of what Liberals refer to as "Checks and Balances". Usually they use the term to support legislation by the courts, which is unconstitutional. But in this case, the term applies to public opinion, when a President gets out of line or oversteps his bounds.
We can make McCain change his Liberal leaning policies. If we sound off loud and often enough, we the people can dictate policy.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I appeal to all Conservatives who are threatening to either not vote at all or vote for the Democratic candidate instead of for McCain.
Don't throw away your vote! The alternative is much worse.
There is a greater of two evils and it is any Democratic Presidential candidate. Let's all unite behind our Presidential candidate and get a Republican elected. We can make this work to our benefit.
Trust in God and Conservatism.
In October, 2005, President Bush appointed Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States. The outcry of dissent from Conservative Republicans was deafening. The party faithful was not so faithful to the President on this one. Eventually, bowing to the pressure from Conservative Republicans, Harriet Miers took the initiative away from Bush by withdrawing her nomination.
In February 2006 President Bush approved the sale of ports to the United Arab Emigrates. Again, Conservative Republicans let their disapproval be known. The sale was never consummated. Conservatives, by voicing their opinion, cancelled the transaction.
Now, Conservative Republicans are again faced with an unpleasant choice. We may have to vote for Senator John McCain for President in the general election. We can not vote at all, thereby handing the election over to the Democrats. Or we can vote for the Democratic Candidate.
None of those choices are appetizing as far as I'm concerned.
Many are decrying this dipleasing turn of events, and suggesting the Republican party is, for all practical purposes, finished.
But we still have voices, and we still can, by using them, influence Presidential policies, as we have in the past.
Having John McCain as President of the United States is not the end of the world. It is somewhat frightening in many ways, but it will not destroy American Conservatism, especially not if we make ourselves be heard.
We can make a difference.
Remember, ours is a government by the people, as much as of and for the people. A President McCain must abide by the Constitution in all matters of policy. If he doesn't, there are millions of people across this nation that can and will voice their displeasure.
This is an example of what Liberals refer to as "Checks and Balances". Usually they use the term to support legislation by the courts, which is unconstitutional. But in this case, the term applies to public opinion, when a President gets out of line or oversteps his bounds.
We can make McCain change his Liberal leaning policies. If we sound off loud and often enough, we the people can dictate policy.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I appeal to all Conservatives who are threatening to either not vote at all or vote for the Democratic candidate instead of for McCain.
Don't throw away your vote! The alternative is much worse.
There is a greater of two evils and it is any Democratic Presidential candidate. Let's all unite behind our Presidential candidate and get a Republican elected. We can make this work to our benefit.
Trust in God and Conservatism.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Personal Responsibility
"If you would be wealthy, think of saving as well as getting." ~ Benjamin Franklin
The following is just something I was thinking about yesterday while driving.
(Uh, still no spell check available with Blogger, so bear with any spelling mistakes you see. I accept responsibilty for my mistakes and if you correct me, I will gratefully oblige, and will not place blame on anyone but myself.)
Liberals need to get over the fact that some people have wealth and some people don't. It is a fact of life that some people are just better at making money and keeping it than others. These are people who take advantage of positive opportunities and don't give up when adversities happen.
Then there are those who just don't care. They are the ones who don't accept responsibility for themselves, and expect--nay--demand the Government give them money for free and with no strings attached. This is the result of well-meaning Liberals, who believe they can solve all problems by throwing money at them.
They have, through their misguided sense of altruism, created in many people an entitlement mentality.
Libs assume that we are stupid, and since we are incapable of taking care of ourselves, the elites in Government must take care of us. The inescapable problem with this assumption is this:
The money to pay for these has to come from somewhere. Liberals apparently think that the Goverment coffers are bottomless. Or more accurately, they think the taxpayers (That's us. The working people) pockets are bottomless. They reason, "If we don't have enough money in the budget, all we have to do is raise taxes until we do have enough."
The entitlement mentality will insure that there will never be "enough".
Welfare has been bastardized. It was never intended to be used to support thousands or millions of lazy people who won't accept any responsibility. It was originally intended to help people who genuinely needed help when they find themselves in seemingly hopeless situations.
It was intended to be a hand up, not a hand out.
I believe in personal responsibility. If I make numerous mistakes, and by those mistakes make myself poor, I take responsibility for the consequences of my mistakes. I do not expect, nor do I demand help. From anybody. I will not allow myself to depend on America's taxpayers to bail me out when I do something stupid.
Admittedly, if someone offered to help me when I have problems, I would gratefully accept, and then do everything in my power to repay the debt, even if my benefactor insists I don't have to repay him. I feel small and inadequate if i am unable to take care of myself due to stupid and irresponsibile mistakes or bad decisions that I, personally, have made.
If I succeed, I take the credit. If I fail, I take the blame. That is what personal responsibility means.
The wealthy are generally wealthy because of they work hard, take calculated risks, and make wise decisions. Those few who were born into wealth cannot stay wealthy by being irresponsible and/or lazy. So, even they have some sense of responsibility.
Those who became wealthy by sheer luck and chance--like those who win a lottery-- usually lose everything because they have never learned personal responsibility.
Remember that man in West Virginia? He won the biggest single lottery prize in history and blew it all with horrendous decision making. Instead of investing his winnings wisely he began spending like a drunken sailor. He used his money up on drinking and gambling, etc. He left large bundles of cash in his pick-up truck in the parking lot of the local strip bar, and was surprised to find it gone when he returned. Twice.
I find it disturbing that some people resent those who are wealthier than them simply out of envy. If it upsets you so much that others are wealthy, do something to create your own personal wealth. If you aren't ambitious enough to do what you have to do to make that happen, shut up.
People who resent the wealthy because they themselves feel they were dealt a bad hand are misguided. Wealthy people are to be respected for their ability to create and keep wealth.
People who sit on their duffs and complain that the Government doesn't hand them enough are not to be pitied. They are to be despised.
The following is just something I was thinking about yesterday while driving.
(Uh, still no spell check available with Blogger, so bear with any spelling mistakes you see. I accept responsibilty for my mistakes and if you correct me, I will gratefully oblige, and will not place blame on anyone but myself.)
Liberals need to get over the fact that some people have wealth and some people don't. It is a fact of life that some people are just better at making money and keeping it than others. These are people who take advantage of positive opportunities and don't give up when adversities happen.
Then there are those who just don't care. They are the ones who don't accept responsibility for themselves, and expect--nay--demand the Government give them money for free and with no strings attached. This is the result of well-meaning Liberals, who believe they can solve all problems by throwing money at them.
They have, through their misguided sense of altruism, created in many people an entitlement mentality.
Libs assume that we are stupid, and since we are incapable of taking care of ourselves, the elites in Government must take care of us. The inescapable problem with this assumption is this:
The money to pay for these has to come from somewhere. Liberals apparently think that the Goverment coffers are bottomless. Or more accurately, they think the taxpayers (That's us. The working people) pockets are bottomless. They reason, "If we don't have enough money in the budget, all we have to do is raise taxes until we do have enough."
The entitlement mentality will insure that there will never be "enough".
Welfare has been bastardized. It was never intended to be used to support thousands or millions of lazy people who won't accept any responsibility. It was originally intended to help people who genuinely needed help when they find themselves in seemingly hopeless situations.
It was intended to be a hand up, not a hand out.
I believe in personal responsibility. If I make numerous mistakes, and by those mistakes make myself poor, I take responsibility for the consequences of my mistakes. I do not expect, nor do I demand help. From anybody. I will not allow myself to depend on America's taxpayers to bail me out when I do something stupid.
Admittedly, if someone offered to help me when I have problems, I would gratefully accept, and then do everything in my power to repay the debt, even if my benefactor insists I don't have to repay him. I feel small and inadequate if i am unable to take care of myself due to stupid and irresponsibile mistakes or bad decisions that I, personally, have made.
If I succeed, I take the credit. If I fail, I take the blame. That is what personal responsibility means.
The wealthy are generally wealthy because of they work hard, take calculated risks, and make wise decisions. Those few who were born into wealth cannot stay wealthy by being irresponsible and/or lazy. So, even they have some sense of responsibility.
Those who became wealthy by sheer luck and chance--like those who win a lottery-- usually lose everything because they have never learned personal responsibility.
Remember that man in West Virginia? He won the biggest single lottery prize in history and blew it all with horrendous decision making. Instead of investing his winnings wisely he began spending like a drunken sailor. He used his money up on drinking and gambling, etc. He left large bundles of cash in his pick-up truck in the parking lot of the local strip bar, and was surprised to find it gone when he returned. Twice.
I find it disturbing that some people resent those who are wealthier than them simply out of envy. If it upsets you so much that others are wealthy, do something to create your own personal wealth. If you aren't ambitious enough to do what you have to do to make that happen, shut up.
People who resent the wealthy because they themselves feel they were dealt a bad hand are misguided. Wealthy people are to be respected for their ability to create and keep wealth.
People who sit on their duffs and complain that the Government doesn't hand them enough are not to be pitied. They are to be despised.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
The Bigger Problem With Illegal Immigration
"Salus Populi Suprema Est Lex"
(The welfare of the people is the ultimate law.) ~ Cicero
On a previous post, I copied the results of a quiz that I took which supposedly matches us up with the Presidential candidate's ideology most closely resembling that of our own. I was disconcerted to find the quiz matched my ideology up more with John McCain that any of the others.
Even more disconcerting than that to me was the fact that none (NONE!) of the candidates agreed with me on the subject of illegal immigration.
For those readers who don't know, or have forgotten my solution to illegal immigration, here's a brief summary:
1. I believe we need to first secure the border. Build a fence or a wall, and if necessary, man it with armed guards as needed, air surveillance, radar, and whatever else is necessary to stop anyone from sneaking across the border. We need to implement this as soon as humanly possible.
Start yesterday.
2. Eliminate any incentives for illegals to remain here. That means prevent, by any means necessary, all businesses from hiring anyone who is in this country illegally. Punish the companies with fines or removal of tax benefits, etc, if they refuse to cooperate.
Eliminate welfare and medical benefits for illegals.
Remove the reason for being here and the illegals will leave by themselves. If they can't make money here, they won't stay here.
Start that yesterday, too.
That, of course, only applies to the illegals that are here to make money.
The most difficult solution of all, but one that needs to be accomplished:
3. Round up as many of the illegal aliens as we can find and deport them. Immediately and finally.
I know many say that is impossible, but, as has been pointed out in several e-mails circulating the net, if we can track down one cow in this whole country with mad cow disease, we should be able to find 12 million illegal aliens.
We all know of the serious strain illegal immigration puts on our nation's economy and if that was the only problem caused by allowing illegals to migrate here unchecked, that would be more than enough reason to get a handle on the problem.
I believe the more serious problem here is the threat to our National security.
Think about the millions of illegal aliens that pour across our borders, both northern and southern, each year that go unnoticed and untracked.
Not all are Mexicans.
They come from every country on Earth, many of the inhabitants of those countries are hostile to America, our American values, and our religious beliefs.
I am speaking specifically about terrorists.
Millions of illegal aliens, and it only takes a few to wreak major havoc on our country. It only took 19 to murder almost 3,000 innocents in one day. Think what could have happened if 19 more had participated.
Think what still can happen if we don't stop illegal entry into our country.
Millions of illegal aliens stroll nonchalantly across our borders and any one of them could be carrying a bomb or some other kind of weapon into our country with them. In fact, every one of them could be potentially dangerous to our National Security.
If the candidate for President you support doesn't take this threat seriously, and, if he/she supports any kind of "amnesty for illegal immigrants" policy, he/she probably doesn't, we could be in serious jeopardy.
If John McCain, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama is going to be our next President, it is imperative that we make sure they each hear our voices on this all important issue.
Start yesterday.
(The welfare of the people is the ultimate law.) ~ Cicero
On a previous post, I copied the results of a quiz that I took which supposedly matches us up with the Presidential candidate's ideology most closely resembling that of our own. I was disconcerted to find the quiz matched my ideology up more with John McCain that any of the others.
Even more disconcerting than that to me was the fact that none (NONE!) of the candidates agreed with me on the subject of illegal immigration.
For those readers who don't know, or have forgotten my solution to illegal immigration, here's a brief summary:
1. I believe we need to first secure the border. Build a fence or a wall, and if necessary, man it with armed guards as needed, air surveillance, radar, and whatever else is necessary to stop anyone from sneaking across the border. We need to implement this as soon as humanly possible.
Start yesterday.
2. Eliminate any incentives for illegals to remain here. That means prevent, by any means necessary, all businesses from hiring anyone who is in this country illegally. Punish the companies with fines or removal of tax benefits, etc, if they refuse to cooperate.
Eliminate welfare and medical benefits for illegals.
Remove the reason for being here and the illegals will leave by themselves. If they can't make money here, they won't stay here.
Start that yesterday, too.
That, of course, only applies to the illegals that are here to make money.
The most difficult solution of all, but one that needs to be accomplished:
3. Round up as many of the illegal aliens as we can find and deport them. Immediately and finally.
I know many say that is impossible, but, as has been pointed out in several e-mails circulating the net, if we can track down one cow in this whole country with mad cow disease, we should be able to find 12 million illegal aliens.
We all know of the serious strain illegal immigration puts on our nation's economy and if that was the only problem caused by allowing illegals to migrate here unchecked, that would be more than enough reason to get a handle on the problem.
I believe the more serious problem here is the threat to our National security.
Think about the millions of illegal aliens that pour across our borders, both northern and southern, each year that go unnoticed and untracked.
Not all are Mexicans.
They come from every country on Earth, many of the inhabitants of those countries are hostile to America, our American values, and our religious beliefs.
I am speaking specifically about terrorists.
Millions of illegal aliens, and it only takes a few to wreak major havoc on our country. It only took 19 to murder almost 3,000 innocents in one day. Think what could have happened if 19 more had participated.
Think what still can happen if we don't stop illegal entry into our country.
Millions of illegal aliens stroll nonchalantly across our borders and any one of them could be carrying a bomb or some other kind of weapon into our country with them. In fact, every one of them could be potentially dangerous to our National Security.
If the candidate for President you support doesn't take this threat seriously, and, if he/she supports any kind of "amnesty for illegal immigrants" policy, he/she probably doesn't, we could be in serious jeopardy.
If John McCain, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama is going to be our next President, it is imperative that we make sure they each hear our voices on this all important issue.
Start yesterday.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Black Wednesday
"Look out, ol' Mackie's back!" ~ Bobby Darin
I've asked this before, and I'm still asking. Has the Republican party in this country gone crazy? Is there a worse Republican candidate than McCain? Is he really a Republican? He doesn't bear much resemblance.
Is he some kind of Svengali? Why are so many voters so infactuated with this man?
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing worse than a President McCain is a President Clinton. Any President Clinton. Especially Hillary.
The Virginia state primary is next Tuesday, and although it is probably an exercise in futility, I will cast my vote for Romney.
I think.
At this point, I'm not sure which of the several evils to choose. I really don't trust Romney. Something about him just doesn't seem right to me.
It could be that he managed to get himself elected Governor in a state which is arguably the most Liberal state in the union. There's something wrong with that picture. I figure he must have misrepresented himself to the people of Massachusetts to get their vote.
Is he misrepresenting himself to the Republicans now?
I don't know, and what's more, I think I'm becoming completely disgusted, disgruntled, and apathetic about the whole thing.
I suspect many Republicans feel the same way. I feel like just not voting out of protest.
That's a dangerous thing. The only thing that would more insure a victory for the Democratic candidate, whoever it may be, would be to vote for the Democratic candidate.
I would encourage all Republicans to vote Republican, regardless of the candidate.
This country would have difficulty surviving under the Socialist regime of Hillary or Obama.
I've asked this before, and I'm still asking. Has the Republican party in this country gone crazy? Is there a worse Republican candidate than McCain? Is he really a Republican? He doesn't bear much resemblance.
Is he some kind of Svengali? Why are so many voters so infactuated with this man?
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing worse than a President McCain is a President Clinton. Any President Clinton. Especially Hillary.
The Virginia state primary is next Tuesday, and although it is probably an exercise in futility, I will cast my vote for Romney.
I think.
At this point, I'm not sure which of the several evils to choose. I really don't trust Romney. Something about him just doesn't seem right to me.
It could be that he managed to get himself elected Governor in a state which is arguably the most Liberal state in the union. There's something wrong with that picture. I figure he must have misrepresented himself to the people of Massachusetts to get their vote.
Is he misrepresenting himself to the Republicans now?
I don't know, and what's more, I think I'm becoming completely disgusted, disgruntled, and apathetic about the whole thing.
I suspect many Republicans feel the same way. I feel like just not voting out of protest.
That's a dangerous thing. The only thing that would more insure a victory for the Democratic candidate, whoever it may be, would be to vote for the Democratic candidate.
I would encourage all Republicans to vote Republican, regardless of the candidate.
This country would have difficulty surviving under the Socialist regime of Hillary or Obama.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Are You Kidding Me?
"You have all the characteristics of a popular politician: a horrible voice, bad breeding, and a vulgar manner." ~ Aristophanes
Here is yet another of those quizzes that supposedly match you and your ideology with those of the current Presidential candidates. It was created by Minnesota Public Radio, so one would think the questions are Liberally biased, but aside from the question on enviromental policies, it is pretty straight. At least I think so.
Here are my results:
John McCain
Score: 84
Agree:
Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Environment
Education
Disagree:
Immigration
Marriage
Mitt Romney
Score: 63
Agree:
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Environment
Education
Disagree:
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Social Security
Energy
Gun Control
Mike Huckabee
Score: 63
Agree:
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Education
Disagree:
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Energy
Environment
Ron Paul
Score: 49
Agree:
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Energy
Gun Control
Environment
Disagree :
Iraq
Immigration
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Education
Rudy Giuliani
Score: 49
Agree:
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Social Security
Death Penalty
Environment
Education
Disagree:
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Barack Obama
Score: 14
Agree:
Death Penalty
Education
Disagree:
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Environment
Mike Gravel
Score: 7
Agree :
Education
Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Environment
Hillary Clinton
Score: 7
Agree:
Death Penalty
Disagree:
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Environment
Education
How did you do? And how fair are the questions, in your opinion?
Here is yet another of those quizzes that supposedly match you and your ideology with those of the current Presidential candidates. It was created by Minnesota Public Radio, so one would think the questions are Liberally biased, but aside from the question on enviromental policies, it is pretty straight. At least I think so.
Here are my results:
John McCain
Score: 84
Agree:
Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Environment
Education
Disagree:
Immigration
Marriage
Mitt Romney
Score: 63
Agree:
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Environment
Education
Disagree:
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Social Security
Energy
Gun Control
Mike Huckabee
Score: 63
Agree:
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Education
Disagree:
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Energy
Environment
Ron Paul
Score: 49
Agree:
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Energy
Gun Control
Environment
Disagree :
Iraq
Immigration
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Education
Rudy Giuliani
Score: 49
Agree:
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Social Security
Death Penalty
Environment
Education
Disagree:
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Barack Obama
Score: 14
Agree:
Death Penalty
Education
Disagree:
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Environment
Mike Gravel
Score: 7
Agree :
Education
Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Environment
Hillary Clinton
Score: 7
Agree:
Death Penalty
Disagree:
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Environment
Education
How did you do? And how fair are the questions, in your opinion?
Friday, February 01, 2008
Terrorists Cross The Line
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Finally, the Democrats have a reason to get behind the war on terror. From the Liberally biased AP, we learn that the terrorists are now using retarded women (excuse me. I mean women with "special needs") as human bombs.
But that's not the reason Democrats will finally support the war in Iraq.
They are also using young boys with Down's Syndrome.
But that's not the reason for supporting the war either.
The real reason they may finally start expressing outrage over the atrocities commited by Isamic Jihadist terrorists is this:
Terrorists are now starting to murder animals!
They can fly airliners into buildings, killing thousands of innocent humans, and the Libs call them "Freedom Fighters".
They can shout "Death to America" and call for the murder of our people and our leaders, and the Libs think they are just misunderstood.
They can detonate bombs in crowded marketplaces, killing hundreds of their own people, and the Libs demand that we sit down with them over tea and crumpets to ascertain why they don't like us.
They can announce to all the world that their sole mission in life is to kill Jews and Christians and everyone else that isn't Muslim, and the Libs insist America is to blame.
And, as Lone Ranger reminds us, they can cut off heads and the Libs call us war criminals for pouring water in their face.
But now, they are targeting pets, as well as Humans. Now that they have started terrorizing wildlife, Libs must finally recognize they are indeed terrorists.
Now, they have crossed the line.
Finally, the Democrats have a reason to get behind the war on terror. From the Liberally biased AP, we learn that the terrorists are now using retarded women (excuse me. I mean women with "special needs") as human bombs.
But that's not the reason Democrats will finally support the war in Iraq.
They are also using young boys with Down's Syndrome.
But that's not the reason for supporting the war either.
The real reason they may finally start expressing outrage over the atrocities commited by Isamic Jihadist terrorists is this:
Terrorists are now starting to murder animals!
They can fly airliners into buildings, killing thousands of innocent humans, and the Libs call them "Freedom Fighters".
They can shout "Death to America" and call for the murder of our people and our leaders, and the Libs think they are just misunderstood.
They can detonate bombs in crowded marketplaces, killing hundreds of their own people, and the Libs demand that we sit down with them over tea and crumpets to ascertain why they don't like us.
They can announce to all the world that their sole mission in life is to kill Jews and Christians and everyone else that isn't Muslim, and the Libs insist America is to blame.
And, as Lone Ranger reminds us, they can cut off heads and the Libs call us war criminals for pouring water in their face.
But now, they are targeting pets, as well as Humans. Now that they have started terrorizing wildlife, Libs must finally recognize they are indeed terrorists.
Now, they have crossed the line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
