The RICH, and the middle class -
Before I begin, let me make clear the following ~
I am not even near rich, or even comfortable. I am not supporting ill-gotten gains in wealth. I am not suggesting the rich be given special consideration in taxation.
I DO believe in reasonable tax reform, where everyone pays into the system (I like the fair tax, but several simplified tax plans could be better than what we have now.). And in no way, should criminal activity, such as fraud, be tolerated.
But this wave of blaming the rich (what IS rich?), is BS, and it's a serious diversion from the real problems in American economics and government.
But, what should we think about the RICH? Many (most?) of those protesting at Wall Street, would say we should arrest them (for what crime?) because they shouldn't have that wealth (really?). Funny, those people do so, by sharing their views and protests while using their Apple laptops, iPhones, iPads, and such. All made by one of the biggest and most successful companies out there!
The RICH, you know ... the ones Obama encourages many to hate ... buy stuff. Lots of stuff. And that STUFF, is made, maintained, and sold by people from all walks of employment. I say, in stead of vilifying the RICH, make stuff for them, sell stuff to them, maintain stuff for them! Make YOU money OFF them. Thousands upon thousands are doing that right now!
Just for fun, lets make up a RICH family. A RICH family who have earned their own way, but, let's say, designing and selling the best mouse traps the world has ever know.
The RICH family is a family of four. A 46 year old dad; his business partner wife, who is also 46 (high school sweethearts); a 17 year old daughter; a 16 year old son; two pure bred Irish Setters; and an African Grey Parrot. They live on 5 acres, with a pool, a 4 car garage, with a 5 bedroom, 4-1/2 bath, 3800 sq ft home.
Fred RICH, drives a Cadillac SRT.
Betty RICH drives a XC-90 Volvo SUV.
Sandy RICH was given a 1992 Nissan Sentra for school, Dad's character builder
Sean RICH was given ... a ride to school
Fred loves golf, and belongs to a country club.
Betty loves antiques.
Sandy shows her dog on a national level.
Sean plays baseball, in school and on a summer league.
They all love in-home movies, and enjoy the surround sound fully equipped home theater system, with 72 " Plasma TV
Fred and Sandy hold weekend billiard challenges in their game room.
Betty takes in-home cooking lessons, in her large country kitchen.
Sean has leaned to bake pizzas in the brick-oven.
Okay, nice, uh! Yep, the RICH have what many would think of as a well to do live, and life style. They earned it, and at a rate of $1,200,000 a year, in earnings and investments. They are, by any standard normal people would say, RICH.
So, I ask ....
And how many people were involved in building that house?
What about the sub-contractors?
How about the suppliers of all the plumbing? The electrical? The appliances? The cabinets?
How many people work in the Cadillac and Volvo factories?
Or work in the sales room, finance department, service shop?
How many people work at the billiard company? Or the factory show rooms? Or the delivery and set-up crews?
How many people make the TVs, stereos, all the home theater furnishings?
How much gets spent in travel to all the baseball games (gas, meals, even over-nights)?
How much to maintain the Pure Bred Irish Setters, and travel for the dog shows?
How many people maintain the country club, and golf greens?
And HOW MANY PEOPLE, do the RICH's employ, pay, provide benefits to?
And how many people, collectively, design, build, supply, sell, and maintain all the RICH stuff?
(And how many of those protesting at Wall Street, will be hiring YOU?)
Protest REAL fraud and criminal conduct!
Protest bad government!
Protest wasteful spending!
Protest government elected officials and appointees who abuse their power, getting life-long benefits, when the rest of us have to follow laws and rules they don't!
But to Protest the RICH, because they have, and you don't, IS STUPID. Unless - SOCIALISM is your preferred form of government!
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Budget cuts and our Military
No doubt, our out-of-control spending by the government, MUST be curtailed. And I have no doubt that every government department and agency can find cuts that need to be made. Millions and Billions could be saved.
The Defense Dept. is no exception. I bet that if we just reduced all the waste (stupid spending on over prices for hammers, for example?), we could save a bundle, without cutting critical mission tools and forces. But - For all the things we take for granted, all the things we want as a nation, all the things we hold dear, would all be gone if either of two things happened.
One - If this government ... and I don't just mean Obama ... should advance any more control over our every segment of personal and private enterprise, we will have LOST our FREEDOMS. A tyrannical (read that as all controlling) government will stifle our freedoms, our enterprising thought, and our freedom to enjoy life without a BIG BROTHER looking over our shoulder and making every decision. It's been growing toward that for several decades, and the speed of that strangulation under Obama is very, very, unsettling.
Two - Without a strong military, we will find ourselves on the defense from those who would see us as weak, vulnerable, and defeatable. While the peace-nics would have us surrender our weapons to be a peace loving nation ... the truth is this ----- EVIL does exist in the hearts and minds of too many in the world. That EVIL is boundless in it's desire to destroy all it can, just because they can. EVIL needs no reason. EVIL can't be negotiated with. EVIL can't be trusted. EVIL can not be reasoned with. Because of that, EVIL can only be fought against, by forces stronger than what EVIL will have to use.
Which leads to ... STRENGTH THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. And that firepower, must be so strong, so terrible, that it is obvious to all others, to defeat us would be impossible. And, to attempt to further the desires of those EVIL DOERS, we must be prepared to strike fast, and strike anywhere in the world. That takes a well armed, and well placed military.
Tighten down on multi-branch duplication of spending, but continue development of weapons systems and keep our military razor sharp, in hopes we don't need to them. Sorta like health insurance. Expensive, but near as much as being without it if a catastrophic illness comes along. Cut the waste ... but NOT our military might.
The Defense Dept. is no exception. I bet that if we just reduced all the waste (stupid spending on over prices for hammers, for example?), we could save a bundle, without cutting critical mission tools and forces. But - For all the things we take for granted, all the things we want as a nation, all the things we hold dear, would all be gone if either of two things happened.
One - If this government ... and I don't just mean Obama ... should advance any more control over our every segment of personal and private enterprise, we will have LOST our FREEDOMS. A tyrannical (read that as all controlling) government will stifle our freedoms, our enterprising thought, and our freedom to enjoy life without a BIG BROTHER looking over our shoulder and making every decision. It's been growing toward that for several decades, and the speed of that strangulation under Obama is very, very, unsettling.
Two - Without a strong military, we will find ourselves on the defense from those who would see us as weak, vulnerable, and defeatable. While the peace-nics would have us surrender our weapons to be a peace loving nation ... the truth is this ----- EVIL does exist in the hearts and minds of too many in the world. That EVIL is boundless in it's desire to destroy all it can, just because they can. EVIL needs no reason. EVIL can't be negotiated with. EVIL can't be trusted. EVIL can not be reasoned with. Because of that, EVIL can only be fought against, by forces stronger than what EVIL will have to use.
Which leads to ... STRENGTH THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. And that firepower, must be so strong, so terrible, that it is obvious to all others, to defeat us would be impossible. And, to attempt to further the desires of those EVIL DOERS, we must be prepared to strike fast, and strike anywhere in the world. That takes a well armed, and well placed military.
Tighten down on multi-branch duplication of spending, but continue development of weapons systems and keep our military razor sharp, in hopes we don't need to them. Sorta like health insurance. Expensive, but near as much as being without it if a catastrophic illness comes along. Cut the waste ... but NOT our military might.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Terror threats in America
New Terror Threat America
Sadly, we are an easy target. Much easier than most people think. I won't go into the details, but I could easily devise a plan to terrorize America, using otherwise legal weapons, and a hand-full of faithful extremists.
First, when it comes to terrorism, we need to understand that it isn't just about the numbers that would be killed. It's about the numbers that "could be" killed. Terror is in the mind. And if someone can make us feel terrified, make us lose our feelings of being secure and safe, then terrorism has worked. Fear of flying and getting blown out of the air? Fear of mass gatherings, because of a suicide bomber? Fear of buses? Fear of a Islamic "looking" person? Any progress by those who hate us, to have us grow more fearful, will broaden terrorism in the minds of those targeted.
Personally, I think it's time for the modern day "Minuteman", and every willing American legally able to do so, should learn to shoot, and have a firearm safely close at hand. We might not stop a bomb with a handgun, but if just ONE of the soldiers at Fort Hood had a handgun at the ready, who knows how many lives may have been saved. (Major numb nuts KNEW they were unarmed!)
While our police and intelligence organizations are trying to deal with all the possibilities, in the end, it could come down to more people, like those on Flight 93, to make a stand and do what ever they can to stop such an act. Americans need to adopt that mind-set of those on Flight 93, like "minutemen", in our every day lives.
We can't just leave it all to those in uniform. We need to take some responsibility for our own safety and protection as well. If and when the crap hits the fan someplace, our first responders will have their hands too busy to answer individual calls for help. It will then be up to each of us, to protect ourselves and our families.
Sadly, we are an easy target. Much easier than most people think. I won't go into the details, but I could easily devise a plan to terrorize America, using otherwise legal weapons, and a hand-full of faithful extremists.
First, when it comes to terrorism, we need to understand that it isn't just about the numbers that would be killed. It's about the numbers that "could be" killed. Terror is in the mind. And if someone can make us feel terrified, make us lose our feelings of being secure and safe, then terrorism has worked. Fear of flying and getting blown out of the air? Fear of mass gatherings, because of a suicide bomber? Fear of buses? Fear of a Islamic "looking" person? Any progress by those who hate us, to have us grow more fearful, will broaden terrorism in the minds of those targeted.
Personally, I think it's time for the modern day "Minuteman", and every willing American legally able to do so, should learn to shoot, and have a firearm safely close at hand. We might not stop a bomb with a handgun, but if just ONE of the soldiers at Fort Hood had a handgun at the ready, who knows how many lives may have been saved. (Major numb nuts KNEW they were unarmed!)
While our police and intelligence organizations are trying to deal with all the possibilities, in the end, it could come down to more people, like those on Flight 93, to make a stand and do what ever they can to stop such an act. Americans need to adopt that mind-set of those on Flight 93, like "minutemen", in our every day lives.
We can't just leave it all to those in uniform. We need to take some responsibility for our own safety and protection as well. If and when the crap hits the fan someplace, our first responders will have their hands too busy to answer individual calls for help. It will then be up to each of us, to protect ourselves and our families.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
American 1st - the basis of all this
Let me start with this Disclaimer -
To be proud of ANY national heritage, is a good thing. Our roots are important. And hardly like anyplace else on earth, America is made up of people "up-rooted" from all over the world. That is one of the truly great things about America.
That said - I will say that it bothers me when people identify themselves as (anything)-American. I think it distracts from saying that they are an American...first and foremost. We, as citizens, should be Americans FIRST. In the current political climate, some might also add in Democrat-American or Republican-American! But, no matter what party affiliation, what ever religion (or none at all) one practices, what color they are, what gender they are, or where their family originated from ... if we are citizens, the we MUST be Americans FIRST!
As a nation, we can not risk a division that makes us appear fragmented and weak. Our differing views are part of what also makes us great, but to not appear as Americans first, is hurting us. Despots, like Chavez, come here and take advantage of such weaknesses and divisions and lure many into doubting who WE are... as Americans first.
Real Americans don't burn OUR own flag. Americans DO voice differing opinions and protest wrong doings and poor policies. Americans DO disagree and DO vote to make changes. But as Americans, WE need to be ONE NATION.
I liken America like a large bickering family. A family that may argue at gatherings, disagree on how to run the family farm, even fight among themselves. But let someone outside the family take a punch at any one family member.... and look out... the whole family will kick that outsider's ass! Right or wrong, that family will join in and get'r done! (The family will usually sort out the right or wrong in a later family fight!)
We need to be like that large bickering family. We need to argue, even vigorously, those things that are important to us. But when any outsider takes a shot at ANY of us, we ALL need to take the fight to them. And when we do it, we ALL need to be waving OUR Flag in unity. (Another posting about OUR Flag later!)
Be proud of where you came from. Be proud to be an American. But in any case, be an "American 1st!"
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
If you choose to live here, as a citizen, with all the benefits America and our Constitution has to offer, then that Pledge must be a commitment and should be in your heart. If anyone has ANY allegiance to another country over America, then they need not be here! To them, I will say......GO HOME!
Be an AMERICAN 1st and above ALL others, or get the hell out!
To be proud of ANY national heritage, is a good thing. Our roots are important. And hardly like anyplace else on earth, America is made up of people "up-rooted" from all over the world. That is one of the truly great things about America.
That said - I will say that it bothers me when people identify themselves as (anything)-American. I think it distracts from saying that they are an American...first and foremost. We, as citizens, should be Americans FIRST. In the current political climate, some might also add in Democrat-American or Republican-American! But, no matter what party affiliation, what ever religion (or none at all) one practices, what color they are, what gender they are, or where their family originated from ... if we are citizens, the we MUST be Americans FIRST!
As a nation, we can not risk a division that makes us appear fragmented and weak. Our differing views are part of what also makes us great, but to not appear as Americans first, is hurting us. Despots, like Chavez, come here and take advantage of such weaknesses and divisions and lure many into doubting who WE are... as Americans first.
Real Americans don't burn OUR own flag. Americans DO voice differing opinions and protest wrong doings and poor policies. Americans DO disagree and DO vote to make changes. But as Americans, WE need to be ONE NATION.
I liken America like a large bickering family. A family that may argue at gatherings, disagree on how to run the family farm, even fight among themselves. But let someone outside the family take a punch at any one family member.... and look out... the whole family will kick that outsider's ass! Right or wrong, that family will join in and get'r done! (The family will usually sort out the right or wrong in a later family fight!)
We need to be like that large bickering family. We need to argue, even vigorously, those things that are important to us. But when any outsider takes a shot at ANY of us, we ALL need to take the fight to them. And when we do it, we ALL need to be waving OUR Flag in unity. (Another posting about OUR Flag later!)
Be proud of where you came from. Be proud to be an American. But in any case, be an "American 1st!"
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
If you choose to live here, as a citizen, with all the benefits America and our Constitution has to offer, then that Pledge must be a commitment and should be in your heart. If anyone has ANY allegiance to another country over America, then they need not be here! To them, I will say......GO HOME!
Be an AMERICAN 1st and above ALL others, or get the hell out!
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Don't Feed the Bears
If you know anything about wildlife, then you know that humans should not feed them. And some wildlife, such as bears, can get downright deadly when you stop feeding them, and they're still hungry! (What is Dan writing about now? Keep reading.)
There are many issues to consider with regard to feeding wildlife, and all well documented. For example -
* When young wild animals are taught to depend on a human-provided food source, they may not fully develop essential foraging skills. Animals who are raised relying on humans for food may struggle to survive in the absence of that artificial food source when they disperse from their parents' territory.
* A constant, human-provided food source may attract many more wild animals to the area than would normally be found there. Who doesn't like a free meal? When food is readily available, animals will gather in abnormally large numbers.
* Often, the wild animals can become an incredible nuisance and people want to kill or remove them. Many people do not think about the neighborhood impact when they start feeding wildlife. Wild animals do not usually discriminate between one person and another, and will often start pestering neighbors. The animals may also cause damage to homes and property because they expect to be fed and have lost their fear of people.
* The best thing you can do to care for the wild animals, is to give them habitat, not handouts.
....................................
(Here it comes.)
Well, as we can see from today's news, the "wild animals" in Great Britain, don't like having their food (and other free shit - handouts) stopped. Never mind the tax-payers can't afford it any more. It seems to me, that the welfare state of giving people stuff, has spoiled many, and now, they are demanding, by way and violence and destruction, to have their way.
The USA is in danger of the same thing. Our welfare state (and growing socialist ways), have caused far too many people to EXPECT the handouts, and they don't care who's pocket it comes from! When we can't afford it any more, what will our own citizens do?
Oh ... By the way. Those business owners and citizens in the UK, could only rely on the vastly out-numbered and over-whelmed Police, because those citizens are NOT permitted to own firearms, even to protect themselves or their property. Thank God, and our Forefathers, for OUR 2nd amendment!
There are many issues to consider with regard to feeding wildlife, and all well documented. For example -
* When young wild animals are taught to depend on a human-provided food source, they may not fully develop essential foraging skills. Animals who are raised relying on humans for food may struggle to survive in the absence of that artificial food source when they disperse from their parents' territory.
* A constant, human-provided food source may attract many more wild animals to the area than would normally be found there. Who doesn't like a free meal? When food is readily available, animals will gather in abnormally large numbers.
* Often, the wild animals can become an incredible nuisance and people want to kill or remove them. Many people do not think about the neighborhood impact when they start feeding wildlife. Wild animals do not usually discriminate between one person and another, and will often start pestering neighbors. The animals may also cause damage to homes and property because they expect to be fed and have lost their fear of people.
* The best thing you can do to care for the wild animals, is to give them habitat, not handouts.
....................................
(Here it comes.)
Well, as we can see from today's news, the "wild animals" in Great Britain, don't like having their food (and other free shit - handouts) stopped. Never mind the tax-payers can't afford it any more. It seems to me, that the welfare state of giving people stuff, has spoiled many, and now, they are demanding, by way and violence and destruction, to have their way.
The USA is in danger of the same thing. Our welfare state (and growing socialist ways), have caused far too many people to EXPECT the handouts, and they don't care who's pocket it comes from! When we can't afford it any more, what will our own citizens do?
Oh ... By the way. Those business owners and citizens in the UK, could only rely on the vastly out-numbered and over-whelmed Police, because those citizens are NOT permitted to own firearms, even to protect themselves or their property. Thank God, and our Forefathers, for OUR 2nd amendment!
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Separation of Church and State
What a topic! Today, Governor Perry (of Texas) is drawn into that fray.
Not long ago, I was listening to a radio talk show, and this was the general topic. On the air, was someone representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They profess to be protecting the constitutional principle of the separation of state and church.
Now, as I often will do, I offer this disclaimer: I am NOT a constitutional or historical scholar. So with that, take what you wish from my words and viewpoints.
Being the simple man that I am, I tend to look at this subject in a simplistic way, trying to imagine what our forefathers were wanting to accomplish with our most precious national document. I also think we should not stray from the principles of that document, and instead, find ways in our modern world to go back and really apply those ideas and principles to our country today.
So, just what does the Constitution say about the so-called, "separation of church and state"? Well, as it was written, it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." Well, I do not see today, anywhere, that our Congress (or Governor Perry) has established a religion. Where is it that the "state", by way of Congress, has established a religion? Where is it, that Congress, or any state or city, has established a religion? Does a prayer, establish a religion? Do the words, In God We Trust, establish a religion? And, who has been denied ANY governmental services, or even protection, because they were not of a particular religious persuasion?
If you look at the word, establish", one can easily find as part of the definition,
1 : something established: as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : established church
Wouldn't a government who would "establish" a religion (like the "church of England"?), have that same religion as part of some established order and cause its people to acknowledge their religion, before receiving some part of the government's graces in services, protection, or other benefits?
It would also seem to me, that there should be some kind of "harm" that such inferences to God in a public prayer, aside from just being offended, should be shown in a measurable way, before demanding that the inference be removed. The 1st Amendment does NOT protect people from being offended. And that, my friends and readers, is what this is really all about. Some people don't want religion in any public view and it offends them that God might be somehow lurking around, watching them! The fact is, no one has been harmed. No one has been denied ANY services or protection, because God somehow is mentioned in the public arena.
Our Founders, knew that men are weak and subject to corruption. Our Founders knew that it could only be by the guidance of a higher power, of a higher power of conscience of right and wrong, that people might....MIGHT....keep that higher power in mind when conducting ourselves with out fellow citizens. And our Forefathers WERE religious men. Not perfect or flawless, but believers of a Divine guidance. Where would we have been in that day, if their crafting of this nation, were not guided by some sense of a high power?
But my point is this. For over 235 years, there has been NO government established religion. NO ONE, is required in any way, to follow any particular religion, and NO ONE has been denied services or protections, or any of their constitutional RIGHTS, by anyone leading in a prayer, the mention of God in a public place, or the word God on our currency and landmarks. Sorry if that offends anyone, but if it does, then you offend me. But you have a right to follow no religion, if you wish. And for that, you WILL NOT be denied any of your constitutional rights. NONE!
Before I conclude, I will say that "I" DO NOT want our government to dictate what religion (or no religion) I must follow. We sure don't need a religion or government that dictates that we cut off your head for following some other religion. Or be denied rights, because we didn't follow some government supported religious doctrine. We can see that in bombings elsewhere! Our government has not, and should never, dictate a religion to follow. THAT would be an establishment!
As it stands today, if Governor Perry wishes to "invite" people to join him in prayer, isn't that HIS right? Does his holding of a government office preclude HIS right?
God Bless You!
Dan
Not long ago, I was listening to a radio talk show, and this was the general topic. On the air, was someone representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They profess to be protecting the constitutional principle of the separation of state and church.
Now, as I often will do, I offer this disclaimer: I am NOT a constitutional or historical scholar. So with that, take what you wish from my words and viewpoints.
Being the simple man that I am, I tend to look at this subject in a simplistic way, trying to imagine what our forefathers were wanting to accomplish with our most precious national document. I also think we should not stray from the principles of that document, and instead, find ways in our modern world to go back and really apply those ideas and principles to our country today.
So, just what does the Constitution say about the so-called, "separation of church and state"? Well, as it was written, it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." Well, I do not see today, anywhere, that our Congress (or Governor Perry) has established a religion. Where is it that the "state", by way of Congress, has established a religion? Where is it, that Congress, or any state or city, has established a religion? Does a prayer, establish a religion? Do the words, In God We Trust, establish a religion? And, who has been denied ANY governmental services, or even protection, because they were not of a particular religious persuasion?
If you look at the word, establish", one can easily find as part of the definition,
1 : something established: as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : established church
Wouldn't a government who would "establish" a religion (like the "church of England"?), have that same religion as part of some established order and cause its people to acknowledge their religion, before receiving some part of the government's graces in services, protection, or other benefits?
It would also seem to me, that there should be some kind of "harm" that such inferences to God in a public prayer, aside from just being offended, should be shown in a measurable way, before demanding that the inference be removed. The 1st Amendment does NOT protect people from being offended. And that, my friends and readers, is what this is really all about. Some people don't want religion in any public view and it offends them that God might be somehow lurking around, watching them! The fact is, no one has been harmed. No one has been denied ANY services or protection, because God somehow is mentioned in the public arena.
Our Founders, knew that men are weak and subject to corruption. Our Founders knew that it could only be by the guidance of a higher power, of a higher power of conscience of right and wrong, that people might....MIGHT....keep that higher power in mind when conducting ourselves with out fellow citizens. And our Forefathers WERE religious men. Not perfect or flawless, but believers of a Divine guidance. Where would we have been in that day, if their crafting of this nation, were not guided by some sense of a high power?
But my point is this. For over 235 years, there has been NO government established religion. NO ONE, is required in any way, to follow any particular religion, and NO ONE has been denied services or protections, or any of their constitutional RIGHTS, by anyone leading in a prayer, the mention of God in a public place, or the word God on our currency and landmarks. Sorry if that offends anyone, but if it does, then you offend me. But you have a right to follow no religion, if you wish. And for that, you WILL NOT be denied any of your constitutional rights. NONE!
Before I conclude, I will say that "I" DO NOT want our government to dictate what religion (or no religion) I must follow. We sure don't need a religion or government that dictates that we cut off your head for following some other religion. Or be denied rights, because we didn't follow some government supported religious doctrine. We can see that in bombings elsewhere! Our government has not, and should never, dictate a religion to follow. THAT would be an establishment!
As it stands today, if Governor Perry wishes to "invite" people to join him in prayer, isn't that HIS right? Does his holding of a government office preclude HIS right?
God Bless You!
Dan
Friday, July 29, 2011
The Debt and the Jobless rate
Seems to me, the only jobs Obama and friends care about, are their own.
From my point of view, all the new debt added by Obama and buddies, could have been used better to actually help businesses add more workers and inspire real jobs. But more entitlements, and to major businesses and banks DID NOT add real jobs. Money handed out, with basically NO conditions set on the use.
Just how many real jobs ...in the USA ...could a TRILLION dollars created? Or even that first $700 BILLION?
The man has NO idea what he's doing. None.
From my point of view, all the new debt added by Obama and buddies, could have been used better to actually help businesses add more workers and inspire real jobs. But more entitlements, and to major businesses and banks DID NOT add real jobs. Money handed out, with basically NO conditions set on the use.
Just how many real jobs ...in the USA ...could a TRILLION dollars created? Or even that first $700 BILLION?
The man has NO idea what he's doing. None.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Squirrel hunting with Patrick
On this warm summer day, Patrick was busy with ending his day's chores. His wife was tending to the children, and he was dreaming of all the possibilities a new world could bring with it. But that dream was yet to be born in real life, but there were those who struggled each day to bring that to the land.
As Patrick sets his work tools away, he considers a bit of hunting before sunset. From his work shed closet, he pulls out his most recent acquisition, an affordable used rifle with impressive new features. Patrick marvels at the rifle, and is anxious to take it out. He knows that some of his brethren have also purchased new rifles, some newer and better than his, but Patrick had a budget, and a family, to consider.
Patrick slings to his shoulder his rifle, leaving behind the older .36 caliber he had been using. This one was a smaller caliber, but he knew the newer advantages would prove useful in the field. Patrick also picked up some ammo and headed to the nearby woods.
After Patrick settles into a nice shaded spot beneath an oak tree, he watches for sign of squirrel. Not long to wait, Patrick sights in on gray squirrel, fat for the eating he thinks.
As Patrick began his slow pull on the trigger, he heard a snap of a twig behind him. Peering behind the tree, he sees his friend and neighbor, Bart. Bart by now comes up on Patrick and whispers, "Patrick, we need you to come down to the cross roads. It's time. They are already headed to the munitions storehouse"
Patrick knew. He knew that talks had failed, and it would be no time before the King's army would come to take control of them, and their guns.
Quickly, Patrick picked up that little M1 carbine, and the extra magazines he had, and went with Bart. Bart too was armed with his own rifle, some kind of AR something or other. As they got closer to the crossing, they saw their neighbors also armed and ready. Too late to get the militia's arms from the storehouse now. If you didn't have your own gun, it was too late. The Red Coats had already raided the storehouse and destroyed or collected all the guns in there. Good thing for Patrick, he had already purchased his rifle. It wasn't a big gun, but it could help fend off the Red Coats until more of his neighbors arrived. ..................................
As you have read the above, I ask, is that so out of the imagination that if our forefathers had such access, they wouldn't own such guns? Do you not think they would have armed themselves, for sport, hunting, or protection, with what could have been available if it were today? Or do you think they would have by-passed the M1 Carbine or AR-15, and just bought the .36 caliber, single shot, black power single shot muzzle loading squirrel rifle?
The 2nd Amendment - it ain't about hunting. And just because it was over 235 years ago, doesn't mean there will never be tyrants here again. I happen to believe they're just around the corner!
As Patrick sets his work tools away, he considers a bit of hunting before sunset. From his work shed closet, he pulls out his most recent acquisition, an affordable used rifle with impressive new features. Patrick marvels at the rifle, and is anxious to take it out. He knows that some of his brethren have also purchased new rifles, some newer and better than his, but Patrick had a budget, and a family, to consider.
Patrick slings to his shoulder his rifle, leaving behind the older .36 caliber he had been using. This one was a smaller caliber, but he knew the newer advantages would prove useful in the field. Patrick also picked up some ammo and headed to the nearby woods.
After Patrick settles into a nice shaded spot beneath an oak tree, he watches for sign of squirrel. Not long to wait, Patrick sights in on gray squirrel, fat for the eating he thinks.
As Patrick began his slow pull on the trigger, he heard a snap of a twig behind him. Peering behind the tree, he sees his friend and neighbor, Bart. Bart by now comes up on Patrick and whispers, "Patrick, we need you to come down to the cross roads. It's time. They are already headed to the munitions storehouse"
Patrick knew. He knew that talks had failed, and it would be no time before the King's army would come to take control of them, and their guns.
Quickly, Patrick picked up that little M1 carbine, and the extra magazines he had, and went with Bart. Bart too was armed with his own rifle, some kind of AR something or other. As they got closer to the crossing, they saw their neighbors also armed and ready. Too late to get the militia's arms from the storehouse now. If you didn't have your own gun, it was too late. The Red Coats had already raided the storehouse and destroyed or collected all the guns in there. Good thing for Patrick, he had already purchased his rifle. It wasn't a big gun, but it could help fend off the Red Coats until more of his neighbors arrived. ..................................
As you have read the above, I ask, is that so out of the imagination that if our forefathers had such access, they wouldn't own such guns? Do you not think they would have armed themselves, for sport, hunting, or protection, with what could have been available if it were today? Or do you think they would have by-passed the M1 Carbine or AR-15, and just bought the .36 caliber, single shot, black power single shot muzzle loading squirrel rifle?
The 2nd Amendment - it ain't about hunting. And just because it was over 235 years ago, doesn't mean there will never be tyrants here again. I happen to believe they're just around the corner!
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Congress shall make no law ...
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Religion has always been under attack. And of late, more attacks, and more attempts to remove all mention God in public. I DO NOT want my government to "establish" any religion. Even if it was to be the Christian faith, I don't want the government to dictate what religion we must practice, and make any "law" to do so.
And guess what. Since it's ratification in 1791, this government, OUR government, HAS NEVER made any LAW which has "established" a religion...any religion!
It is my general understanding, that to "establish" a religion, the government would have made one religion THE one that all must follow. I would also expect that if we were "establish" something, like establishing rules to play by, then we would expect to follow those established rules, or risk forfeiting a game, or rights, or benefits. With that thinking, it is a fact that our government has not done anything like that, and NO ONE has been denied any government benefits or other rights under the constitution, because of the lack of practicing any one religion. If anyone would have been so denied, then redress should be made.
So ... What's the deal with all the law suits and protests over the word "God" on money, signage, or anything else in local, state, or federal government? In all these years, about 220 years, NO ONE has been made to practice any one, any "established", religion. NO ONE has been denied their rights. And I can not imagine ANY harm that has come from such mentions. (As a point to be made here, one of my co-workers is a Muslim, and it doesn't bother him in the least. He has told me that he knew our country was founded on Christian principles, and his family moved here anyway.)
It looks to me, that the only real issue with such objections, is that there are those who HATE God and/or religion, and don't want to see it anywhere. It is simply an attack on ALL of us who practice a religion. And I dare say, it is almost exclusively Christianity that is being attacked.
And I'll add this, other than a few religious zealots, most of us DO NOT go around attacking their, the non-believers, right to NOT believe in a religion. I'm not harmed by their non-belief. Their non-belief has no effect on my life. So to those who want to wipe God off everything, I say ....give it up! YOU have not been harmed or denied anything because of MY belief, or the word God on our currency, or the Ten Commandments on the building of the Supreme Court. And don't deny MY right to the free exercise thereof, by trying to attack my faith at every turn.
Pay attention on this one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." And, NO LAW has been made to establish a religion. NONE. Nadda.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Religion has always been under attack. And of late, more attacks, and more attempts to remove all mention God in public. I DO NOT want my government to "establish" any religion. Even if it was to be the Christian faith, I don't want the government to dictate what religion we must practice, and make any "law" to do so.
And guess what. Since it's ratification in 1791, this government, OUR government, HAS NEVER made any LAW which has "established" a religion...any religion!
It is my general understanding, that to "establish" a religion, the government would have made one religion THE one that all must follow. I would also expect that if we were "establish" something, like establishing rules to play by, then we would expect to follow those established rules, or risk forfeiting a game, or rights, or benefits. With that thinking, it is a fact that our government has not done anything like that, and NO ONE has been denied any government benefits or other rights under the constitution, because of the lack of practicing any one religion. If anyone would have been so denied, then redress should be made.
So ... What's the deal with all the law suits and protests over the word "God" on money, signage, or anything else in local, state, or federal government? In all these years, about 220 years, NO ONE has been made to practice any one, any "established", religion. NO ONE has been denied their rights. And I can not imagine ANY harm that has come from such mentions. (As a point to be made here, one of my co-workers is a Muslim, and it doesn't bother him in the least. He has told me that he knew our country was founded on Christian principles, and his family moved here anyway.)
It looks to me, that the only real issue with such objections, is that there are those who HATE God and/or religion, and don't want to see it anywhere. It is simply an attack on ALL of us who practice a religion. And I dare say, it is almost exclusively Christianity that is being attacked.
And I'll add this, other than a few religious zealots, most of us DO NOT go around attacking their, the non-believers, right to NOT believe in a religion. I'm not harmed by their non-belief. Their non-belief has no effect on my life. So to those who want to wipe God off everything, I say ....give it up! YOU have not been harmed or denied anything because of MY belief, or the word God on our currency, or the Ten Commandments on the building of the Supreme Court. And don't deny MY right to the free exercise thereof, by trying to attack my faith at every turn.
Pay attention on this one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." And, NO LAW has been made to establish a religion. NONE. Nadda.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Bring back the WPA
Many years ago, back in 1935, the government enacted the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which was a relief measure for the millions who were out of work. With some changes in the 8 years the program ran, some 8,500,000 different persons had been put to work on over 1,400,000 projects, which included over 600,000 miles of highways, roads, and streets; constructed or improved more than 120,000 bridges, over 120,000 public buildings, with 8,000 plus parks, and 800 or more airport landing fields. (Google WPA , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration )
During those 8 years, the government spent about $11 billion in wages to all those people eligible for work. At today's dollar, that would be about $180 billion. But that, in my view, would be a far cry better way to spend the money, and getting people to work, than just giving money out. It's a dang sight less that $800 billion too!
This was done to give people a way to "earn" the money the government was giving out. With that, the idea that people would retain more self respect at having "earned" the money, than sitting by and having it just given to them.
Have we lost that? I think so. I think our social programs have enslaved some people to rely on the government for all their needs. I think so many of those folks, have lost all respect for themselves and their homes, and their stay in life. They may rant and rave about other people (often conservatives) not respecting them, but they do nothing, or very little, to improve themselves. Why should they? The government has been taking care of them, in some cases for a couple generations!
I think we need to go back to a similar worker program. I can't tell you how to do it, but with the sharp minds in the country, I'm sure it could be devised and implemented.
But we NEED to get people to working to "earn" their money. If they refuse to work, then food kitchens and public shelters for them. NO car, no house/apartment, no cell phone. Just food and basic shelter.
I expect for some, they would quickly find a better job that THEY choose, instead of a government worker program. At least, they will work harder at finding a better job.
So I say, bring back the WPA. Get people off welfare and back to earning their way. While some will never change, most will find that earning their money, is far more personally rewarding, than taking hand-outs.
During those 8 years, the government spent about $11 billion in wages to all those people eligible for work. At today's dollar, that would be about $180 billion. But that, in my view, would be a far cry better way to spend the money, and getting people to work, than just giving money out. It's a dang sight less that $800 billion too!
This was done to give people a way to "earn" the money the government was giving out. With that, the idea that people would retain more self respect at having "earned" the money, than sitting by and having it just given to them.
Have we lost that? I think so. I think our social programs have enslaved some people to rely on the government for all their needs. I think so many of those folks, have lost all respect for themselves and their homes, and their stay in life. They may rant and rave about other people (often conservatives) not respecting them, but they do nothing, or very little, to improve themselves. Why should they? The government has been taking care of them, in some cases for a couple generations!
I think we need to go back to a similar worker program. I can't tell you how to do it, but with the sharp minds in the country, I'm sure it could be devised and implemented.
But we NEED to get people to working to "earn" their money. If they refuse to work, then food kitchens and public shelters for them. NO car, no house/apartment, no cell phone. Just food and basic shelter.
I expect for some, they would quickly find a better job that THEY choose, instead of a government worker program. At least, they will work harder at finding a better job.
So I say, bring back the WPA. Get people off welfare and back to earning their way. While some will never change, most will find that earning their money, is far more personally rewarding, than taking hand-outs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)