The Redhead Agenda

Thursday Night's Debate Thoughts

2012-01-19T21:59:00.000-05:00

Apparently, I need to go back to watch the beginning to see Newt go after the "moderator". Seems he asked Newt about his ex-wife and Newt slammed him. Awesome!

Jumping in 30 minutes late. Just now hearing Romney's answer about Obamacare, which I like, but I'm wary. Romney is the one who wanted Romneycare. Actions speak louder than words.

Gingrich - the voice of reason. People are skeptical of Washington. Ooo, nice slam against Obama offering health insurance to kids under 26. "Elect us and we'll provide jobs so your kids will move out".

Niiice, Santorum, pointing out that Romney has nice words, but has stood by Obamneycare. I think if something happens to Gingrich in this race (Heaven Forbid), then he'll be my next choice. I like health savings accounts, although think that should be up to the people and government shouldn't have a hand in it at all.

Ewww, Romney is defending his universal health care plan. Ewww, ewww, ewww!!!! This bugger is going to get the nomination, isn't he?? You arrogant $%^&!!!! Hinting that those that don't agree with his plan "don't care about people who don't have health insurance". Spare me. You sound like Obama. Get off the stage!!

Nice, again, Santorum, pointing out Romney's hypocrasy! I'm liking him more and more.

Romney talks a big game, but all I see is a wolf in sheep's clothing. They are all sure getting heated up, aren't they? The three of them anyways.... Poor Ron Paul is getting ignored in the corner. "Congressman's getting lonely down here" - referring to Paul.

Ouch! Look at Santorum and Gingrich going at it! Poor Ron Paul is like the little kid that no one will pass the ball, too. I'm sorry - he may have good ideas, but when I hear him talk, all I see are his supporters, running around in tin foil hats.

HAHAHAHA omigosh!!! Will you look at the three of them staring at Paul when he goes off on his tangent about military spending overseas?!?! They are all looking like he took off his pants and is running around the stage in women's underwear!! haha Classic. This debate is better than any reality TV show out there.

Oh, Romney, quite trying to paint yourself as a "Washinton outsider". Gimme a break. I realize that's the most popular thing to be, but, honey, you are anything but. All the "Washington Outsiders" are gone.

Romney talks a good game, but would you ever be fooled if you didn't know his record. Good gawd.

Yeah, why the hell are people so preoccupied with releasing tax records?? Who cares???? Let's get to some real issues. I do like Romney's idea about releasing them when they are down to one nominee. I think it's an absurd practice, personally. Quit making a big deal out of nothing. This is bullcrap.

The rest of the candidates think Paul is insane.

"You are asking a Conservative about the economic standings of Hollywood". Way to go, Newt!

Ohhh, Santorum. I'm sooo disappointed in you!! There ARE laws against pirating and copywrite! Government shouldn't stick their nose in this and we aren't saying "anything goes" on the internet. Hands off!

Point for Paul - "This bill is not going to pass, but watch out for the next one."

Eh... I like most of Gingrich's "amnesty" plan, but I disagree that you can't sever ties with illegals that have been here 20+ years. Doesn't matter. If they cared about staying, then they would make sure they stayed here right. Don't give me the crap about splitting up Grandmothers & Grandfathers from their grandchildren. That's a liberal tactic.

I'll admit, I liked Santorum's answer about illegal immigration the best thus far. If they have been here for 25 years, then they have also broken other laws - they've worked for that time and probably have stolen someone's social security card. Good point.

YES!!!!!!!!!! Newt resolving to drop the lawsuits against the states that are defending our country from illegal immigration!!!

Poor Paul. Shame on the "moderator" for skipping over him and shame on him for the crowd having to call attention to him.

I'll have to watch Gingrich go after the moderator tomorrow. Jamie Dupree of WSB said it was not to be missed.

Anyone else watch Romney each time he speaks and think "Please not Romney, please not Romney, please not Romney"??

Wonder who will drop out next? I'm thinking Santorum or Paul, but it won't be for awhile... They'll hang in there a bit.

Monday's Debate

2012-01-19T14:11:00.000-05:00

A few thoughts at Monday's debate:

Rick Perry needs to go. What's that rubbish about "demanding" Romney release his income tax records?
Does Rick Perry remind anyone else of a younger Mr. Rogers? All that's missing is the vest. Oh crap, he's a pilot...
Ohhhhh, I spoke too soon - "I think the noise you are looking for is a gong". Got to hand it to Perry for that one. Nice, witty response.
Oh geez, Ron Paul... "a golden rule in foreign policy"??? How can people like this guy?!?!
And as much as I rag on Romney, he had a pretty good answer about going after our enemies and strengthening our military so much so that no one will dare mess with us.
Booo for Romney wanting to detain American citizens w/o a trial if they are deemed "dangerous" by the president. Thank you, Santorum.

(And not completely unrelated, but Ron Paul laughs like Renfeld.)
Wow... Gingrich is on fire during this debate! Did you just hear his response about improving unemployment by teaching skills to workers so one day they can own the job? Wow, just blew me away.

(And I'm snickering at everyone getting their panties in a wad that Ron Paul only got one question in the first 35 minutes.)
Romney is certainly an artful dodger, isn't he? (And a little bit arrogant, too.)
Wow, is that really Santorum going after Romney? "I'm looking for an answer to the question first". He's on fire, too. I'll admit, I never saw that coming. Have to admire him for that. Romney looked like a deer in headlights. "I'm asking you to answer the question. That's how you got the time {for the response}. It's actually my time." Way to go, Santorum!
Am I ever sooooo glad that Bachmann is out of these debates. My poor ears finally got a rest!

Beck uses the race card???

2011-12-10T22:53:00.001-05:00

Never thought I'd see Beck play the race card. I liked him when he first came on Fox. I admire his interest in politics and history. It's great that he's gotten so many people inspired, he's like Sarah Palin that way. Loved him on the Beck/O'Reilly tour. I love his books - they are chock full of information and delightfully A.D.D. When I read my last one, there was information that I just could not believe, so I looked it up for myself and found Beck had stretched the truth a little bit. I became wary of him, and think he abuses his power. But that's niether here nor there.

I'll take his challenge. I will research Newt in depth, backwards & forwards, to prove that he is NOT like Barack Obama. I've already posted about how the global warming charge against Newt was bogus and will continue to make posts about his record to show why he's the best guy for the job... or I just might end up changing my mind in the process. Who knows?

But shame on Beck for stooping to that level. Hey Beck, you know only progressives use the race card, right? You sure you are a "true" conservative?

Gingrich and Global Warming

2011-12-04T09:44:00.000-05:00

Now that Herman Cain is out of the race, I'm turning more of my attention to my #2 choice - Newt Gingrich. I realize some of us have our reservations, especially when it comes to his views on Global Warming and other things. So I had to see this Global Warming ad for myself.

Here's the ad in it's entirety:

Now what concerns me more about that ad is Pelosi smiling (looks like an alligator after it spotted its lunch), the fact that they are so 50's family sitcom sickeningly sweet to one another (that smile they gave each other made me gag) and the overall scariness of it. I've been reading a Stephen King book before bed and I guarantee you that this ad will give me more nightmares than that book.

That said, in all fairness, even thought he referenced global warming, the main point of this ad was to get together and clean up the Earth by cleaner, cheaper energy sources. Everyone can agree to that. Global Warming or not, we do need to keep the Earth clean. I don't think this ad is as damaging as some people like to point out.

Now here's Newt's response to the ad:

He says it was "the dumbest single thing" he's done in recent years. Also, that he isn't sure whether the Earth is warming or not, which is good. He's not pushing his views on anyone else and says we should listen to both sides. He also reiterated what I said above, that all Americans should find cleaner energy sources. He says "I do not think you should have a gigantic, central government model of a solution". Also said that he has studied the Earth's temperatures and they go up and down over time. Plus, he voted against Cap & Trade.

Doesn't seem like he's "in favor" of Global Warming to me. He's fairly honest about it actually. He basically says he's not sure about it (and I think he's more doubting that believing), he definitely isn't for taxing the stuffing out of us in the name of it, yet believes that we still need to protect the environment and find cheaper/cleaner energy sources. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think I just warmed up to him a little bit more...

Herman Cain

2011-12-03T17:44:00.001-05:00

I had planned to make a post about Mr. Cain this weekend. He had planned to make an announcement on Monday, concerning on whether or not to suspend his campaign or not. I had planned to make a post in support of him and urge others to lend their prayers and good thoughts towards him.

Well, too little too late it seems. Herman Cain has suspended him campaign. I came home and saw the news when I hopped onto my computer, almost an hour after the announcement. My heart sank.

I know I haven't been around a long time, but Herman Cain has been the ONLY candidate that I have ever supported whole-heartedly. He's the first candidate I've ever donated money to their campaign. Every other candidate that I've ever supported was because they were the lesser of two evils. I didn't believe exactly what they had to say, but at least they weren't the other guy. I've always casted a ballot to keep out someone else, but never in support of someone. When Herman announced that he was running for President, I was encouraged that I'd actually get to cast a ballot for someone I actually wanted to become President.

I firmly believe Herman is innocent of all the charges against him. And I think it's unfortunate that people would so ruthlessly go after someone and attempt not only to ruin their character, but ruined their relationship with their family, just to win a political race or to get their name out there. It's shameful. Now that Cain will have more time on his hands, I'd like to see him go as ruthlessly after these women and sue the pants off of them. But I have a feeling he won't - he doesn't strike me as being vindictive like that, although he has every right to be.

I never got to post about why I thought he was innocent of the charges:

#1 No evidence. Not one woman ever had any substantial evidence, except the last one with text messages (which I always found weird... how many of us have parents, relatives, etc who are Herman's age that use text messages? Not saying there aren't and that he doesn't text message, but I'd guess very few 60-70 year olds text. It's just odd, like I said.)

#2 - The first accusers vanished when he went down in the polls. Things kept getting curiouser and curiouser.

#3 - One small boost in the polls and then this "13 year affair" stuff breaks.

#4 He was a prominent radio talk show host for years. Where were these ladies then?

#5 As Boortz points out, isn't it odd that all of these women came from Cain's years working for the Restaurant Association? If he really was a womanizer and had a problem, then wouldn't they come from different jobs? (Boortz also points out almost tongue-in-cheek that Cain had his radio show during the supposed 13 year affair. His radio show was on early evening/nighttime. Not exactly a good schedule for dating/going outside one's marriage.)

#6 I realize that it's possible that my favoritism towards Cain makes me blind to the truth. We may never know. But on a personal note, I was in a long-term relationship where I was lied for maybe 6 years. I also worked in retail during high school and college. I currently work in a school and deal with students' excuses to why they failed/can't show up for class. I think I'm pretty good at being able to tell if someone is lying or not.

It's certainly a sad day for our country. I'm firmly believe he could have turned things around. He turned at least two near-bankruptcy business around and made them successful. His plans and ideas could have really worked for us. He's the Anti-Obama. He would have put this country back on the right track again. I'm so disheartened by this news.

I hate the way the media treated him, and are continuing to treat him. They cast him off like a buffoon, made the same dumb jokes that they made about Bush and were horribly, unapologetically racist towards him. I know that's (unfortunately) politics for you, but he did not deserve that kind of treatment. I don't care if he wasn't "the media's" pick for President - he was mine and the pick of so many other people that wanted to have hope (real hope, not hopenchange) in rescuing our country. I don't where they got the idea he was stupid; the man was a Rocket Scientist - literally! Can't get much smarter than that... The despairingly racist comments towards him just broke my heart for him. What do you mean he's "not a REAL black"? Gimme a break... And you guys say conservatives are the racist ones.

We finally had a chance to bring our country back from the clutches of someone like Obama. Someone who it was PROVEN that he started his campaign with a beer summit in the living room of Bill Ayers AND THE MEDIA IGNORED IT. How many other things has he done that the media has IGNORED? And Herman Cain only has accusations, yet the bury him. WHY?!?!?! What the HELL is wrong with people?? Give a dishonest man pass after pass after pass and go for blood when there's a whisper of a rumor about an innocent man. We are really messed up. We really need to turn ourselves around or we just might see all of that doomsday stuff that Beck's always preaching about actually come to pass.
What's done is done and nothing will change the fact that Herman Cain is gone from this race. It just kills me that those liberals are going to take this as an admission of guilt. It sickens me.
Time to pick up the pieces and move on. Guess that's all we can do. Just need to find someone who can defeat Obama. So once again, I'm back to voting for whomever will stand a chance against Obama. Newt's always been my second choice. He's smart, brings good ideas to the table. He has his flaws, but at least he's not Romney/Perry/Bachman

Good luck to you, Herman, you'll always have my support, should you ever decide to run again. Hopefully, you'll be able to do more for this country on the outside instead of inside. I bought a t-shirt at the rally when he announced he was running for President and I will continue to wear that shirt with pride.

Robbers Protest Homeowners

2011-10-04T21:46:00.000-04:00

I was thinking today about how ironic it was that the Wall Street Occupiers were protesting people who work. It's like robbers protesting homeowners. So I sat down and thought about what demands the Local Robbers Union would have for all of us, if they did decide to have such a protest. It's asinine and silly, but I needed to relieve stress from the dirty liberals. This is the last entry I'll write about the Wall Street bums. They'll go away if we stop talking about them and I won't donate any more of my blog to calling attention to them.

So without further adieu:

The Local Robbers' Union Demands for Homeowners

1) Home Security Systems must be turned off 20% of the time. It's not fair to have them on all the time and we are at a disadvantage. Homeowners can still have them on 80% of the time and that's more than enough. What are the chances we'll hit your house during the 20% of the time it's off anyways? No one needs it on more than 80% of the time.

2) Free health care. We constantly get injured while robbing your houses - cuts from the broken glass that we smashed in, jumping from second story windows when you come home unexpectedly and your dogs treating us like chew toys. Not to mention all the stress that's involved. It's not an easy job robbing houses and the least you guys can do for us is pay for our health care.

3) Nights and weekends. As previously stated, robbing houses is tough work. Robbers are people too and we deserve to have nights and weekends off. Please plan your vacations accordingly. We have families that we need to support, too. We don't always like sneaking into unfamiliar places in the middle of the night.

4) Vacation time. Robbing people blind is tough work and we deserve a few vacations a year. Of course, we wouldn't be robbers if we could afford those for ourselves, so you would need to provide (at minimum) 3 fully paid for vacations.

5) Robbery forgiveness. If by any chance you catch us in the action of robbing your house, then we need robbery forgiveness. Don't call the cops, don't shoot us with your gun, don't sick Fido on us. Just let us go and we won't steal any more of your stuff, but we get to keep the stuff we already loaded into the truck because it'd be a pain to unload it after we just got everything in there.

6) A 30 day return policy. If by any chance something was broken during the robbery, then we have up to 30 days to return it for a new one and you will upgrade us to a better one for free. If your items were not up to our standards (ex: VCR instead of BluRay, cord phone instead of Iphone), you will provide us with an item of proper quality and mail it to us.

7) A fully stocked refrigerator. Robbers live life on the go and we don't always have time for a balanced meal. It would help if you kept ready-made, portable meals stocked in your fridge for us. Further more, we deserve an hour break for every 8 hours worked.

8) Wages. In robbery, some days are good; some days are bad. No one can expect to support a family on that kind of income, so we need a set wage per hour at least at minimum wage. (This does not include the items we take from you. Those are counted as tips and are not taxable)

9) Car insurance. Not at robbers have cars, but some of us do. It'd be nice if you'd provide us with that as well. Our cars get a lot of damage from high-speed car chases away from the cops and from being in a general rush all the time.

10) Remove Home Security Ads. Take them down. They are degrading to our profession and are very prejudice. We do not wear stripes or always dress in black. Not all of us are brutes who can kick down doors and very few of us run at the sound of an alarm. But remember, if it makes you feel safer, you can still keep it on 80% of the time.

The Wall Street Occupiers

2011-10-04T14:52:00.000-04:00

So we saw this movement start as a small protest, which laughably showed up on the wrong street on the first day. These dedicated souls promised to be out there for a month, if needed, to make sure their message was heard. It was then that we witness the ultimate irony: unemployed moochers protesting Wall Street workers.

I ventured to their website the other day - at the time I visited, they had 756 backers. Also noticed that somehow 756 people raised $30, 507 for their cause. Where do 756 unemployed moochers get that kind of money? It comes out to about $40. 35 for each person and that's just average! Heck, I'm one of the "evil rich" and all I could afford to send Herman Cain was $25. Another lesson in irony for you - just how are anti-capitalistic people obtaining that kind of dough?

Have you seen some of these videos from the rally? A bunch of people chanting what another person says. Warning: There's 8 minutes of it. I couldn't last longer than 2 minutes. Have to hand it to them - I can stomach to listen to Obama longer than that. There's another one, thankfully shorter and the guys actually does articulate his argument well... Although, he goes off the beaten path to blame the bad economy on Fox News and Conservative Billionaires. (Hey, I said it was easier to listen to... but not by much.)

And now, released today, their list of "demands". I can barely contain my excitement. Unfortunately, I'll only be able to share some gems with you, as I cannot possibly do justice to the whole list.

"Demand One: Restoration of a living wage. ... Minimum wage must be raised to twenty dollars an hour". Yes... that will get us back to work. So now instead of a business being able to afford 10 employees, he has to cut down to less than half because he needs to pay them $20 an hour.

"Demand Two: Single Payer Healthcare System". Yeah, yeah, yeah... Seems like this is a staple on every whiney, moocher liberal's list these days. You aren't getting it and we're making sure of that.

"Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment." There are just no words. You want to be paid for not doing a job? Really? And who's going to pay it - the "Evil rich" (most likely)?? There's not enough money to go around! Did these people get allowances as a kid without doing any work? (probably)

"Demand four: Free college education." Well, if anyone needs it, they do. They need some kind of education.

Make sure you are sitting down for this one. This one is my favorite:
"Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period."
Wow, I can just tell that was written by an early 20-something, can't you? And yeah, we'll forgive your student loans. Just return your diplomas and give back all the things you learned.

But in all seriousness, those of us that went to college all have to pay for our education. How is it "fair" that you expect to get your debts forgiven when I had to pay for my schooling? Yes, college is expensive. That's life. I'm currently taking myself through flight school and paying is one of the worst parts. But if I walked in there and said that they should let me take free lessons, who is going to be there to teach me after the school goes under from lack of funds? Who will repair the planes when they need maintenance? How will we get gas in them to be able to get off the ground? These things cost money and no, I can't steal the money from an "evil rich" to pay for me. They don't want to go to flight school; I do. Therefore, it's my responsibility to pay for it. I don't expect them to take the knowledge from the textbooks and dump it into my head, and I don't expect them to dump money into my pockets. I need to pay for the services rendered. This is how the world works. Yes, it is hard - I know. But it will be worth it in the end. All of that hard work, all of that studying, all of that time and money put in will result in something that I'll be able to be proud of because I accomplished it. Think of "The Little Red Hen" story your Mom read you as a kid. She gathered all the materials, she spent all day in the kitchen, she baked and cleaned when everyone else was out having fun. When all was said and done, she was able to enjoy the pie that she put so much effort into making.

Hey, Moochers- I've got a solution for all of your asinine demands: GET A JOB. It'll solve all of them. Really, just look:

1) Living wage of $20 an hour. This one is easy. You go to school, get a degree, and get a job. You either work your way up in this job or work until a better opportunity comes along. Follow these easy steps and you will get $20 an hour one day.

2) Health care. Cut out the fancy cell phone, cable and other things you don't need. Use that money to purchase health insurance while you are young. Take care of yourself so you get the lowest rate possible. Then go back to #1 and get a decent job. After awhile, you can sign up for the company's health plan and pay even less than you are now. You might even be able to afford cable and Iphones again!

3) Guarantee yourself a living wage, regardless of employment. I don't care if you are working at McDonald's or on Wall Street. Live within your means and you will always have a "living wage". Budget, save, build your skills, do whatever you can to make sure you are living comfortably no matter where you work.

4) Free college education - we have it. It's called a library and it's fantastic. You can learn about everything that you've ever wanted to know and it doesn't cost you a dime (unless you return a book late).

Another way to learn skills for free - volunteer. They are so happy that people are willing to show up that they are willing to teach you anything.

11) With your spanking new job, snazzy new health insurance and free new skills you learned at the library and volunteering, you can now afford to pay back all of your student loans. Easy, right?

Moral of the story: Go out and earn your own money. Use your drive and enthusiasm towards getting a job and working hard at it, rather than wasting that energy on complaining about what others have that you don't. You can take all the money from me that you want and you will never be happy until you earn your own.

“Clearly, he’s been corrupted by the ring of power.”

2011-08-10T22:30:00.000-04:00

Thank you, McCain. You have given me the opportunity I was waiting for. I’m getting tired of talking about Obama and I was thinking that I blog about him way too much. I was hoping someone else in DC would step forward and give me an excuse to blog about them for a bit.

I already gave McCain a jab in my last entry about the “TeaParty Hobbits” comment. Didn’t pay it too much attention because as irritating as it was, I mostly laughed it off. Failed Presidential Candidate who didn’t get elected because he was too liberal to be a conservative and he goes off on true conservatives. Cute. Kinda funny (if it wasn’t so sad).

But then it starts to get irksome when he gives an unapology and goes off on a constituent during a town hall meeting. He unapologizes like Hillary, goes off on people during a town hall meeting like the liberals did and seems to be as classy as Emperor Obama.

Well, not that I like the alternative, but Thank Gawd he wasn't elected. Otherwise, we may have ended up in the same boat without all of the sleeping dragons waking up.

Why is having a balanced budget amendment wrong? I don't care if you think it's impractical. It's NECESSARY. You and the liberals act like you are allergic to balancing a budget. We're spending money so fast that poor George Washington on the dollar bill breaks the sound barrier as he slips through your fingers. WE NEED A BLOODY SPEED LIMIT TO SLOW YOUR SPENDING DOWN! Call us all the names you want; doesn't change the fact that we need to stop spending NOW.

"McCain said conservatives' insistence that an increase in the debt ceiling be accompanied by a balanced budget amendment was "worse than foolish" because it couldn't get through the Senate."

And what's wrong with that? (Besides agreeing to a debt ceiling increase. It should not have been moved an inch, IMHO.)

He says that the debt ceiling is going to be raised one way or another. It will if you give up before you even try! You are supposed to fight for us - you are supposed to curb the spending, "conservative"!

But I digress. Just remember, McCain, some of those "Tea Party Hobbits" were the reason you got as far as you did in the election. Some of them are even probably why you have the job that you have now. And remember that the liberals pull as many punches as they do because you are too busy wrapped up in fantasy tales and calling other people names. The hobbits were the heroes of that story, you know... So thanks for the compliment, even though I know you didn't intend it that way. And give up the ring, Gollum, it's only causing you to be more two-faced than usual. Unfortunately, we're stuck with you on this journey. Here's hoping you don't betray us down the line or try to push us into the fires of Mordor.

Politically Incorrect Monday

2011-08-08T21:08:00.001-04:00

In honor of the debt fiasco...

Although I DO have to hand it to him that he wasn't this sarcastic today during his presser. He got in one zinger about "big government" and again said that the wealthy would have to contribute more (as expected). Didn't take responsibility either... but ya know... can't have your cake and eat it too.

And the line about how the U.S. will "always have AAA credit" no matter what anyone says - CRAP. Just like saying it doesn't matter if it hit an iceburg and sank, the Titanic will always be an unsinkable ship.

The US loses it's AAA rating; Libs blame the Tea Party

2011-08-06T23:13:00.000-04:00

Leave it to the libs to smoke me out of hiding. Just couldn't take it anymore. All of their (and granted to be fair, the Republicans too) actions have gotten me so smoking mad lately that it was either find some medication to lower my boiling blood pressure or blog. I've still been around, posting a random thought or snarky remark here and there on Facebook, such as:

"NEWS ALERT: Apparently with the loss of the AAA rating comes a new definition of racism. You are now a racist if you don't want to spend money that you don't have."

Which, have no fear, I will get into a bit later. Apart from that, I have been busy off fear-conquering and becoming a pilot (which only adds to my irkdom with all of the FAA shutdown mess and The Chosen One's "corporate jet owners" foolishness).

Okay, a few random thoughts to get out before I launch into my rant. I'm sure I've said all of this before, so I won't waste a whole entry on it again, but the monetary-challenged moochers still haven't gotten some of these things through their pretty little heads yet:

1) The secret to being rich is to work hard, save as much as you can, and don't spend what you don't have. A budget can't hurt either. And yes, it's really as simple as that. There's no magic money tree and no bag of leprechaun coins is going to fall into your lap out of the sky. Likewise, there's no evil conspiracy by those who are rich to prevent you from doing well for yourself. And yes, life isn't fair, but life is also what you make it.

2) No, you cannot have my money. I don't care if you think you deserve it more than I do. Nobody deserves my money more than I do, except maybe the people/animals/causes that I choose to give it to. And yes, I am selfish. To quote Hank Reardon from Atlas Shrugged, "What part of 'MINE' don't you understand?'. (Side note: Yes, I read it. Saw the movie too. Poke fun at my reading skills/intelligence all you want, libs. I know differently and don't care. You are making fun of people who read a 1000+ book (AND endured Galt's speech, nonetheless). Who are you to make fun of someone else's reading skills?) Btw, you are just going to make me hang onto my money harder if you go whining to the gov't to take my money away from me.

3) To Obama and his cronies: In what math class were you taught that a person who earns $250k is a "millionaire" or "billionaire"? And to your followers who call me a "millionaire", thanks for the compliment, but in what world does 5 figures equal a million dollars?

4) One day you grow up and realize that social classes are not determined by how much you earn. Social classes are a mindset and nothing more. Think and act like you were middle class or upper class and you will be there. Ditto with lower class, which is why some of them will never leave - they don't want to leave. But terms like "upper class", "middle class" and "the underprivileged" (libs would never, ever say "lower class") are just there to build up the war between the classes. The TRUE classes are the Producers, the Looters and the Moochers. And like the other three, these also have nothing to do with what you earn, but a mindset.

Okay, I think that covers everything. So the US has lost it's AAA rating. And as much as the libs are foaming at the mouth to blame the Tea Party...and blame them some more...and a little more. In fact, when I saw the spike in "Blame the Tea Party" rhetoric last week, I compared them to being like roaches when someone turns on the light. I joke, but their juvenile reaction is absolutely, positively shameful. I expect more out of grown adults, especially those representing us in government (as well as so-called "journalists"). Shame on you. You can't take responsibility for your own actions and you turn around and blame others. You spend money like a teenage girl with her parents' credit card, can't keep track of the money you have and dare to ask for more when you aren't even responsible for the money you have! "Oh, but the millionaires and billionaires won't miss it. They've got a couple of hundred thousand just sitting around collecting dust; they don't need it. It's their patriotic duty to pay their fair share". You sit around, doing God knows what, because we know for sure you aren't reading any pesky bills or anything since you don't have time for that. You run your mouth on TV, and avoid town hall meetings so you don't have to own up to what you are doing (or not doing). Some of you are yammering on about how islands are going to 'capsize', or making kindergarten presentations about how the republicans want you to "die quickly". You are supposed to represent us and work for us. And when people - average, everyday people- get sick & tired of the whole reality-show-worthy circus call you out and ask you to do what you've been sent to Washington to do, you have the nerve to call them terrorists and every other violence-inciting word out there. These are people in your districts and in your states. These are people you represent. These are the people you work for. And you still have a job! Even if I could get away with that at my job, I'd like to think that I've got more class to ever stoop that low. You have the gaul to call us names, to treat us as less than human, to ignore us and turn your backs on us, yet you think you are entitled to our money? Think again.

Forget for a minute that you have NO right to someone else's money. Why don't you clean up your act and stop spending billions on cloud watching museums and put that money to good use. Maybe people would be more willing to let their hard-earned dollars go if you were responsible with their money. Enough filling the pockets of illegal aliens or welfare bums. Enough posting signs everywhere that these roads were paid for by the "Reinvestment and Recovery Act". There's a few million that wasn't necessary.

Obama, quit demonizing corporate jet owners (that by the way, YOU gave the tax break to in the first place), while you are zipping around in Air Force One, like it was your corporate jet. Stay at home, save some gas and we're got our Air Force One tax break right there. And I think that's great that you've got a couple hundred thousand dollars just sitting around that you don't need. Please be my guest to donate that to the government. Nothing's stopping you. But don't force me at the point of a gun to give up my money that you deem "dispensable income". Stop the "you must give up your fair share so some poor kids can go to college". I am not responsible to send someone else's kids to college, no matter how poor they may be. If they want to go badly enough, there are scholarships and loans, or maybe the parents should be making sacrifices for their kids. It's not being mean or selfish. It's how the rest of us got through college. They can do it too. It builds character and makes them work harder in the end.

I highly suspect that we would have lost our AAA credit rating, even if we let the libs have their way. By the way, for the financially-challenged liberals (redundant, maybe?), raising the debt ceiling to pay off the debts we already have is like taking out another credit card to pay off our already increasing debts. Doesn't work that way. And frankly, I'm still appalled at the agreement they managed to reach and am not happy for the so-called "conservatives" (yeah, that goes for you, McCain. Loved the "Lord of the Rings" analogy, but please stop watching movies and do your job) who voted for it. We shouldn't have raised the debt ceiling AT ALL. Again, not to be mean, but because we can't afford to do so. Why is it so hard to understand that we cannot afford to spend money that we do not have? (By the way, preventing people from spending money you don't have makes you a racist.) The way to reduce our debts is to stop spending, not by taxing more (or perhaps by taxing the bottom 50% who pay no taxes... Fair Tax?)

Just keep in mind that once you open the Pandora's Box to allow the government to tax the "rich" more, then you have allowed them to also take as much as they want from you. You may not be "rich", but the government's definitions are not what we think of as traditional definitions. And one day, the "rich" will run out of money and guess whose door the government will be knocking on? Yours. I guarantee it.

There, I think my blood pressure has returned to normal. For now. Obugger's good at raising it by flapping his gums, saying the same thing over and over and over, interrupting my radio programs. I'll try not to stay away so long next time (and honestly had no idea so much time had gone by since my last post!). In the meantime, you can catch me on Facebook or one of my other blogs.

The Arizona Shooting Blame Game

2011-01-09T13:20:00.000-05:00

The shooting in Arizona yesterday was tragic and my heart goes out to all the innocent victims and their families. No one should ever use violence to express their anger over politics, or anything for that matter.

Now what upsets me about this whole incident is the fact that the media and the liberals are using it to promote their agenda. Who cares what political party he belongs to? How in the world does that have anything to do with the issue at hand? He's a nutjob. Period. And innocent people were killed or injured because of this nutjob's actions. We need to take the attention off of him and give it to the victims of this tragedy, who deserve it. Squabbling about if he's a Tea Party member or liberal and blaming other people for his actions is a slap in the face to those that suffered from this and are still suffering.

Unfortunately, people are going to use this incident and the victims to push their Anti-gun laws or "The Tea Party is full of violent nutjobs" myth. They will blame innocent people, like Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck, for "inciting violence". I fear they will use this situation and others like it to build momentum into silencing the Glenn Beck's, Sarah Palin's or the Tea Party. I really fear for my country.

We already have people that refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. Now we have people assigning responsibility to others for someone else's actions. Sad, sad times. Yes, it was unfortunate Salin Palin had cross hairs over Congresswoman Giffords picture/district/state whatever, but to call for her head over it is just insane. (Btw, thank you for the classy act, Senator Alexander)

My heart just breaks when I read statements like this:

"When asked if she had any enemies, Giffords' father reportedly wept. "'Yeah,'" he told The New York Post. "'The whole Tea Party.'"

I may disagree with some of her politics, but I don't consider her an "enemy". My prayers go out to Congresswoman Giffords and her family. May she have a speedy recovery.

So wait... just which one is President again??

2010-12-14T14:46:00.000-05:00

Last week, Obama held a press conference, asked Bill Clinton to help him out and then ditched him at the podium to go to a party.

Sounds like some sort of bad sitcom. I heard this and I swear I started channeling Pelosi - "Are you serious?? Are YOU serious??". He never ceases to shock me. I know he has no class and I know he isn't even remotely prepared to handle the job of the Presidency, but he just lowers that bar on an almost daily basis.

And what's even more flabbergasting is the number of liberal talking-heads that think the move was genius. Can you imagine the reaction they would have had if Bush had held a press conference with his Dad and turned things over to him to go to a golf game or whatever. They'd be calling for his head.

So I get that Obama has both sides mad at him and he freaks out because he can't handle it, so he figures they will listen to Clinton and drags him into the mix. This is a bad move. People from both sides are going to be mad at you - it's just apart of the job. But what's also apart of the job is taking the lead, communicating with people and trying to compromise. It's apart of being a leader - you take the good with the bad. If everyone's mad at you, you do your best to smooth things out and most likely, they will respect you for having the guts to do so. But Obama chose another path and dragged Clinton into it. They stand at that podium and it reminds me of a 3rd grade group presentation, where you have to stand up in front of the room with your friends for support because you are scared. So they appease the press for a little bit because Obama says he's turning things over to Clinton because he has a party to go to and his wife is waiting. Things go from bad to worse.

I can't believe the number of things he does that I'd get fired for if I did them at my job. My boss would never stop screaming (after she got over the shock first) if I plunked someone down in my office and told them to take over things because I was late for a party. But that wouldn't happen, because I have more tact than that.

I'm sure he has a very active social life with parties and golf games and guzzling the gas by traveling on Air Force One, but his job should be his main priority. And press conferences are apart of that job. Parties can wait and people will understand. Don't place someone else to stand in for you, especially behind the Presidential Seal. Clinton is no longer President (although he was quite thrilled or appeared to be enjoying it - maybe because this action proves Hilary right that Obama can't handle the job) and should not be placed in that position.

This type of action IS NOT the mark of a leader. It's classless and tactless. It shows that this job is not a priority for him and emphasises his arrogance in that he believes his personal life is more important than his professional life.

"But...uh...you are in good hands." Disgraceful.

A little hard work never killed anyone (except maybe a few liberals...)

2010-11-15T22:22:00.000-05:00

One of my fellow teachers announced today that she has decided to be a Republican because "how easy would life be to go around believing all you need is hard work to succeed"?

And how did she get where she is - luck? I know that I'm where I am today by my own merit and effort. And I realize some luck comes into play, but it's mostly 99% hard work and 1% luck. Sometimes you even make your own luck. Sometimes you are only in the "right place, right time" because you placed yourself there in the first place.

I have worked hard for everything I have. And yes, I'll be the first to admit that sometimes positive things in my life have fallen right into my lap, but have ultimately occurred because my hard work had placed me in the right place/right time for those "lucky" things to happen to me. I don't really believe in the type of luck brought to you by fairies in the night.

People tell me how "lucky" I was to have saved up money to pay for my surgery back in April. Luck had nothing to do with that. I saved that money and worked hard to do so.

And any successful person is the same way - talk show hosts, business owners, bloggers, athletes, singers... They put everything into their work and stay completely focused on it. And they make their own luck. (And don't complain if they don't have any)

If you aren't where you want to be in life, then most likely that's because of you and your choices in life. Not luck (or lack thereof).

Insanity at the Restore the Sanity Rally

2010-10-30T21:33:00.001-04:00

Seems Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert had their "political" rally today. No one can tell if it was legit or a joke (probably more of a joke, considering it involved those two).

But some have used it as a rallying cry against Tea Partiers. "Take THAT, Tea Baggers!", "It's soo refreshing that they can ACTAULLY spell and have teeth!!" and other colorful phrases have popped up on my Facebook Friends' Feed. Someone posted pictures of people at the rally with signs that read:

And to all of them, I'd like to say that no one has proposed eliminating taxes all together. I know taxes are part of being an adult, cheeky guy on the left, but when 50% of the people don't pay taxes and the top income earners are paying over 60% of the taxes, we have a problem. Especially when the jobs aren't coming from that bottom 50%. Tax the upper income earners (the business owners) more and they'll pass it down to their customers. They'll also be able to hire less, creating less jobs.

And I don't care if Obama claims that he'll only tax those making over $150,000. Guess what happens when he doesn't have enough money for his schemes and there are no "rich" people left? He'll go after those making less than $150,000. And no, this isn't a scare tactic. I've said it before and I'll say it again - open that door and allow the government to take money from one person and you have allowed them to take from EVERYONE. Don't you get it? It doesn't matter if you make $150,000 or $25,000 - there's always going to be someone who needs your money more than you do, according to the government and they are going to take it from you.

On that note, what is mine is mine and no one is going to take it from me. Call me selfish, call me whatever names you want. I agree with the quote from the character Hank Reardon from Atlas Shrugged: "Because it's MINE. Do you understand the word?". It's none of the government's business if I earn $10,000 or $100,000. And they have no right to take more money from me just because I "can afford it" just because I have a savings account or 401K., I donate to whom I want when I want and the government isn't going to force me to donate my money to the homeless over a cause that I deem important. Whether I want to spend all my money on gumballs or store it all in the bank is my business (as long as I don't ask others to bail me out). Ask me to help you out and I probably will. Force me against my will to help someone that will not help themselves and I'll get an iron grip on that money. I think I've earned the right to be selfish with my money - what part of mine don't you understand?

Besides, I'm willing to bet that those three pictured don't pay taxes in the first place.

Is the Media Adding Gasoline to the Anti-Muslim/Anti-immigrant "Fire"?

2010-09-13T21:37:00.000-04:00

So nice to see so many stories in the media on and after 09/11 about how anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant we are as a nation.

Caught two such articles on MSN.com this morning:

"Muslims face growing bias in the workplace" and "Americans' suspicions frustrate Muslims"

and it made me wonder if the media is to blame for perpetuating this myth that America is an anti-Muslim/ anti-immigrant nation?

Now I don't doubt some bias and discrimination happens to them, but somehow I don't think it occurs as wide-scale as they would like us to believe. So this "anti-Muslim" attitude the media attributes to the opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque and the one yahoo down in Florida with a 50 member church. Can you REALLY use those two examples to charge the United States as a whole with an anti-Muslim sentiment? NO!

First, the Mosque at Ground Zero - I don't care if people wanted to build a Mc Donald's there; I'd still be offended and think it didn't belong. The only things that should be built there are the two towers again and a memorial for the victims. Nothing else. No nightclubs, no churches, no restaurants - NOTHING ELSE.

And secondly, the creepy mustached dude from Florida, threatening to burn the Quran - the media created that freak show. All the needed to do was ignore his nonsense and it would have gone away, but they had to give him attention and give it to him again, so his story blew up on the national stage. There was no reason for that to get that far. The media blew it up more than they needed to because they hoped to link him with Tea Partiers.

As for the media claiming "anti-immigrant feelings are on the rise" - the majority of us ARE immigrants ourselves, children of immigrants or (great) grandchildren of immigrants. Doubtful we'd be anti-ourselves or anti-family. I have yet to hear someone say "I don't like immigrants. They all need to go home and don't belong here". Now I know A LOT Of us immigrants, children of immigrants and (great) grandchildren of immigrants are anti - ILLEGAL immigration. We're not mad at the fact they are immigrants - we're mad at the fact that they chose to ignore rules that the rest of us had to follow and are getting rewarded for it. That's all. Nothing to do with race, culture, home country origin or mother tongue. It's like if I stood in line for 8 hours to get into a concert and someone cut in the front of the line. Not only did they let him in, but gave him a front row seat and a free drink. And then on top of everything, I was called names for objecting to his 5-star treatment when I bought an expensive ticket for my last-row seat and paid $10 for a sip of soda. I don't care if he's white, black, tan, orange or a woman - that's not going to change the reason why I'm mad.

Now I may be blinded by my whiteness (as my liberal friends like to say), but personally, I don't see ANY anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant sentiments, aside from what I see on the news. Again, I don't doubt it happens - as it does to ALL of us at one point or another. I just feel that the media blows it out of proportion, as they do with all things, like with "racism". It's unfortunate that for awhile now, perhaps even before I was born, the news doesn't report the news, but chooses to perpetuate their own news.And it's sad they use those people to further their own agenda. It's even sadder that those people don't even realize it.

The media, like the Obama Administration, is working hard to pit us against one another. It's harder to hold them accountable if we're all distracted with squabbling over petty things like children and unfortunately, it's working. The media knows how to play us well and we're falling for it.

Doggone It!

2010-09-08T08:47:00.000-04:00

Well, we complain about Obowma being too dependant on TelePromtors, but then when he goes off-script, we hear gems like this: "They talk about me like a dog".

I think he's been hanging around his loose cannon VP friend too long. Sorry, Barry, you are wrong - I LIKE dogs. They are loyal, a good judge of character and protect those they love - can't say that about you or your cronies. Now I do talk about you like a snake, but if the snake skin fits... All I see those liberals doing is slithering through Washington, hiding under rocks when we are looking for them, barring their fangs and spewing venom.

I like what the Republican Strategist said in this article: "The president thinks he's been treated like a dog by Republicans and Congress. He should probably stop treating them like a fire hydrant".

But I have a problem with his "scripted words" as well - "Building our economy on a new foundation" just rings of communism to me. Tearing down our old economy, saying it doesn't work and using it as an excuse to shove a whole new structure in there. Any economist will tell you that you can't "strengthen the middle class" by destroying the upper class. And "taking on some powerful interests" - gotta love his code words. He never comes out and says it directly, but everyone knows who he's talking about. He indicates those "powerful interests" aren't happy with him just because they've been in power for a long time and they don't want him challenging them. "They aren't always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That's not in my prepared remarks, it's just - but it's true". Gawd, is every "speech" going to be about how he's getting picked on?? I'd almost rather he DID play golf all the time... I'm sick of his whining. And you don't have no right to regulate Wall Street. "They aren't happy about it, but it was the right thing to do" - isn't that what he said about Obamacare? And did he really say "ending tax payer bailouts for Bush... er... for Wall Street once and for all"?

By the way, it was less than a week ago that Obama said he wanted to renew the Bush Tax Cuts, but it seems that wasn't exactly true....

Just Some Thoughts...

2010-09-02T21:08:00.000-04:00

So all of this fuss about Obama's "true" religion is a complete waste of time. I don't care if the man worships the moldy piece of cheese in his fridge. However, I DO care if he lies about it and uses his stance to punish those who are lactose-intolerant. And I don't care about his personal views about the Ground Zero Mosque; he has no right to butt in about it. By backing it, or at least expressing support of it, he only further polarizes the issue.

And I don't care just how many times the President chooses to go on vacation, unless he uses our tax dollars to do so. Better for him to go off to Camp David or something than bowing to foreign leaders and embarrassing us in other countries. I know the man is an utter disaster, but we have to pick out battles.

Chris Matthews said what???

2010-09-02T20:53:00.000-04:00

Guess Chris Matthews isn't getting "tingles up his leg" anymore from the President... 'Bout time this was said by a member of the "Professional Left". But he's right... and I can't believe I'm saying that about Chris Matthews - it seems wrong somehow. I seriously thought I must have fallen over and died to hear those words coming out of his mouth.(And for the record, I kinda felt the same way with the "thrill up the leg" comment... although a different kind of disbelief for that one)

But Obama seriously has a problem with those TelePromptors. It's beyond an addiction now. Does he REALLY use those to talk to people in his office? C'mon now... that CAN'T be true.... If a right-wing talk show host said that, I'd think he was joking. And at least the President put the TelePromptor in front of him, so his head didn't bounce side to side, like he was watching a tennis match this time...

So Chris Matthews, way to go, buddy! I first clicked on the video out of morbid curiosity, but I was floored by those comments. I seriously hit the "replay" button 5 more times after watching it the first time. Wish I could have heard those comments from the other people on the show. Wow... just wow...

Obama's Two Speeches

2010-08-31T22:44:00.000-04:00

Gotta love Boortz calling Obama a "narcissistic boob". Much cuter than "arrogant SOB".

Anyways, so Obama gave two speeches in the last couple of days - one on the economy and one on Iraq.

First the one on Iraq:
Great, so he's announcing he's pulling the troops out of Iraq. Dumb move to a) announce it out loud where enemies might hear and take advantage and b) walk away before the job was finished. But we've known he's intended to do this for awhile and both dumb move related arguments have been hashed and rehashed.

But my problem is what else he said in his speech. He indicated that now we can concentrate on the economy, rather than the war:

"To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jump-start industries that create jobs and end our dependence on foreign oil.”

Now that scares me. "We MUST GIVE all our children the education they deserve"??? That's a HUGE red flag for me. Not only because he's sounding like FDR, but that phrase makes me think of Universal Healthcare for schools. I don't think he's talking just public elementary, middle and high schools here. But we knew that all along, didn't we? Yes, let's give education to everyone and lower the accomplishment of those that earned it.

And ditto with the other part of that sentence: "We must give... all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy". Since when have you ever been given a skill? All of my skills I either learned or earned. Given, my ass. But the big thing to read in that sentence is: UNIONS. It's the only way they can distribute skills to the workers and keep a tight leash on them. Think about it - if the government "gives" you a skill, then they can tell you where to work, how long and for how much. Don't give away your freedom so easily - go out and build your own skills. And btw, "global economy" doesn't sit well with me either. I hear that and I think Globalization. I think something like the Euro, only combining currency from Canada, Mexico and the United States.

But again, nothing new.

His last line sent chills through me and echoed of Atlas Shrugged:

"We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs."

Which assembly lines? Government Motors? Won't have much innovation if you keep taking it from the inventors and entrepreneurs and distributing their wealth.

Second speech on the economy:

Okay, well first things first... I wonder what was up with him tapping the mike asking if the reporters could hear him - TWICE in the first minute of the speech. I heard no sound problem at my end. As one person in the comments asked, "Did he get lost?".

"It took a decade to dig the hole we are in". Ha... sounds like a not-so-subtle paraphrasing of "I inherited this mess". Not that he's exactly wrong on that (unfortunately). It's probably taken many decades to dig the hole we are in - probably before I was born, in fact. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama just dug a little faster than everyone else.

(And on a totally insensitive, immature and unrelated note - I'm glad he actually has notecards to read off this time, but can he pick either notecards OR telepromptors? I mean, every 3 seconds, his head is bobbing side to side or looking down. Right side, look down, left side, look down... Geez, I'm getting kind of sea sick over here, not to mention distracted and I'm not a minute and a half into the speech yet... )

Ok..."That's why my administration has pushed forward to repair the damage done to the middle class over the last decade". So....#1 just rehashing the same line as before... yeah, yeah...we've heard it before and #2 Doesn't the "last decade" INCLUDE your administration? Just sayin'...

Whoa, whoa... wait. Did he just say "EXTENDING the middle class tax cuts"??? But I thought that's what got us into this mess in the first place... I thought they only helped the "wealthy"?? Does anyone else remember Reid and other democrats whining about that not too long ago??

"Congress' 1st job should be making it easier for small business to grow and hire"??? Didn't ya burn the bridge on that one when you passed Obamacare? And when you passed the Wall Street Reform? And when you tax people (read: small business owners) earning more than $250,000? And what you attempted to do with the Card Check bill?

"Unfortunately, this bill {referring to the jobs bill} has been languishing in the Senate for months, held up by a partisan minority that won't even allow it to go to a vote"

Hmm, wonder who he could be talking about here?? Can't imagine... Some evil group of people that don't want small businesses to expand or want to allow them to cut capital gains taxes for them, which they might not pay anyways... "That makes no sense", he says. Those meanie Republicans don't want us spending money we don't have. "This bill is fully paid for." Oh yeah? Like the Obamacare bill and all of the others? Paid for by what? Money from your stash?? "It will not add to the deficit". I hear that and think of a good title for a kid's book - 'It will not add to the deficit' and other lies my government told me. Is this man even capable of telling the truth??

OMG! I LOVE this one:
"There is no reason to block it besides pure partisan politics"
Really now? No other reason? Just like there's no other reason to disagree with Obama besides racism. Nice logic. No pork that you guys stuffed in there to discover just how painful a fire ant's bite is or why a fly is attracted to trash. WSJ claims that this "paid for" jobs bill will cost $80 billion. How has $80 billion just lying around somewhere? And I guess we should be asking where he got it, too. Who knows what other goodies are hiding inside?

He says small businesses don't have time for political games (then stop playing them, Mr. President). And even went on to say that he saw a story that small businesses were putting a hold on hiring and expanding, just to wait for this bill to go through. Um... wrong bill. I'd wager that they are putting hiring and expanding on hold due to another bill... Obamacare.

"Holding this bill hostage" hahaha wow... strong language. Wait, I think I'm beginning to understand - I think someone mixed up these speeches. The first one, supposedly about Iraq, was really about the economy and this second one, supposedly about the economy, was about demonizing and attacking people against his agenda. Almost sounds like a campaign speech for his jobs bill.

"It's got to get done"... "A full scale attack". Oops, sounds like they are going to ram it through again... Geez, I love politics and everything, but I am SO sick of hearing this windbag speak. Same speech each time, just modifies it a little. You'd almost think he didn't need the telepromptors anymore. After all, I think the rest of us have gotten his speech patterns down:

"Remember, this mess was here when I got here. We're going to have to break a few eggs to bake a cake, so we need to spend to get out of this mess. But don't worry, it's all been paid for. Those that tell you otherwise are just trying to make my job as President harder by blocking my bills for no other reason except to be mean. I don't play these type of games, but they are forcing me to. It's never my fault; always someone else's. So I don't know why these people are blaming me - they SHOULD be thanking me! We just need to work together to get things done, but don't expect me to work with you. I'm the President - you should be working with ME. After all, it's all about me and my accomplishments, not yours or the United States'. Thank you."

Maybe I should go into Presidental speech writing... haha

Obama and Arizona's Immigration Law

2010-08-03T21:56:00.000-04:00

H/t to Gateway Pundit

“What we can’t do is demagogue the issue. And what we can’t do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states or cities or localities, where anyone who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly say I’m gonna be anti-immigrant and I’m gonna see if we can solve the problem ourselves.”

First of all, Obama, the States were originally set up to govern themselves. Federal government came secondary to state government, but you should know that since you are a Constitutional Scholar, right?

Secondly, you arrogant SOB, it's about protecting ourselves not "trying to make a name for ourselves" that this Arizona law was passed. No one is "Anti-immigrant" just because they want people to come into this country LEGALLY.

I personally laugh heartily whenever a liberal calls me "anti-immigrant". Oh yeah? My mom's an immigrant, as was my Grandmother and Aunt on her side. As was her grandparents and uncles on her father's side. And guess what? They all came in LEGALLY. I think the world of immigrants that come to this country legally and work hard. It's not fair to people like them to wait for citizenship for 7-8 years, while others sneak in the country illegally and get freebies. Heck, it's not fair to us that were born here.

And P.S., Obama, we the states will continue to pass our own laws to do jobs that you refuse to do. One by one, we will pass laws to knock out illegal immigration if we have to and one by one, we will pass laws to pull the plug on your Obamacare.We WILL solve the problems as long as you turn a blind eye to them. Do the job you were elected to do and we wouldn't have to pass laws like this.

The Mosque at Ground Zero

2010-08-03T21:37:00.000-04:00

This issue has rubbed me the wrong way since it first came up and now today, a panel has approved for it to be built, apparently against popular opinion.

Personally, I agree with the opposition - it's an insult to all Americans, especially those that lost their lives in the attack or to family members who lost someone. And this PC gobbledygook about "fostering relations between Americans and Muslims" is pure BS. If they really believed all of that hot air that comes out of their mouths, then they wouldn't feel the need to call people "racist" or "bigot" when they oppose something like this. You know something stinks when someone can only call you names and not defend their position.

Seriously, whenever you raise your voice and ask just why this group wants to build a mosque on Ground Zero, instead of building a memorial or something to those that lost their lives, and what are their reasons for it, they scream "Racism!". Can't even talk with people any more... Ask someone a question to get information and you get called names.

(Wouldn't that be a hoot to turn it around for once and just have a hissy fit when a liberal asks how you are? Scream "racism!" and run away. They'd think you lost your mind...)

Ok, but back to the situation at hand. Seriously - why would they want to build a mosque on Ground Zero? Talk show hosts, like Boortz, claim it's because Muslims build mosques on places they have "conquered". Now I've tried to look that up and can't find it anywhere except on right-wing blogs. Anyone know if there's any truth to that?

I feel the liberals are all in favor for this due to being PC and not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings - nothing more. (Much like the "profiling" in Arizona) It's not about human rights or religious rights. It's the "everybody's equal and we can't keep score during a kids' baseball game because someone's feelings might be hurt" mentality.

Saw a great quote in a WSJ op-ed piece:

"many believe that Ground Zero should be reserved for memorials to the event itself and to its victims. They do not understand why of all possible locations in the city, Cordoba House must be sited so near to there"

Totally agree. Explain to me in a rational, adult manner why this Cordoba House should be built at Ground Zero instead of a memorial and I'll be willing to listen. Help us understand. Call me names as your "explanation" and I'll refuse to listen.

And the op-ed piece continues, with another great point:

"Many New Yorkers and Americans will conclude that the radical interpretation of Cordoba House's purpose is correct. That belief will undermine what you have articulated to be Cordoba House's core mission. Rather than furthering cross-cultural and interfaith understanding, a Cordoba House located near Ground Zero would undermine them. Rather that serving as a bridge between Muslim and non-Muslim peoples, it would function as a divide.”

You claim this center's purpose is to strengthen Muslim and American relations. But it's not helping your cause by ignoring what people want, saying this is the way things are going to be and insulting me because I disagree. That's going to hurt relations, not help them.

Is it just me or is the strategy of the Cordoba House (shoving things through against popular opinion and calling the opposition names) something straight out of the Obama play book? Is this really the way things are going to be from now on in this regime?

Catering to the Lowest Common Denominator: The Slow Reading Movement

2010-07-18T22:20:00.000-04:00

When I was in school, I remember how much emphasis the teachers placed on speed reading. We were constantly being timed or using tips and tricks to improve our reading times. I'm an avid (and 'rabid') reader - there is nothing I enjoy more than to curl up with a good book, so my reading speed is naturally fast just due to practice. I never liked how teachers were so fixed on speed-reading. I think one should read at a pace that is comfortable to them. Granted, when it comes to second language learning, I can see how you would want to increase your reading speed in order to become more fluent (or at least sound that way). That also just requires practice of reading over and over and over again. No tips, no tricks, no timers - just practice. And I really disagree that speed readers are more intelligent than other readers. If anything, I think that speed readers attained their speed through practice of reading books, magazines, newspapers and/or whatever they could get their hands on and therefore introduced themselves to new ideas. THAT is what adds to a person's intelligence; the speed reading is just a side effect and not really related at all.

As much as I disliked teachers preaching about speed reading, I was horrified to learn this week about the Slow Reading movement. (Wish I was kidding) Seems society and teachers have done a 180 and now believe the way to go is Slow Reading. Apparently the premise is that we are so focused on doing things fast, that we miss the important things in life. And I don't disagree with that. There is a time and place to stop and smell the roses, but in the real world, if you do that all the time, you will be left behind. For instance, for dinner choices - home cooked is a much better option than fast food (and tastier/healthier too). But taking your time on a project for work, not such a good idea.

And the same for this "slow reading" stuff - sure, slow down for technical books, non-fiction science, computer books what have you. They are very dense with information should be read at a slower pace than a fiction novel. But to snail read through a light-hearted fiction novella is rubbish.

In the Seattle Times, the executive humanities editor at Havard says there's a world-wide reading crisis (I agree there) and thinks there should be a "revolution in reading". Yes, encourage people to read more. Don't encourage them to read slowly.

For the most part, I think this whole slow reading nonsense is nothing more than pandering to the lowest level so they don't get their feelings hurt. It's some sort of extension of "everyone's a winner/let's make everyone feel good" rubbish that they are spreading through schools now. Or the "Did I read the bill? I'm a Senator - I don't have time for that" attitude in Congress. I don't care if the students read fast or slow, just as long as they read, but don't you dare make a person feel bad about being a speed reader.

In the Newsweek article, there were some gems of quotes:

"But mostly the “movement” is just a bunch of authors, schoolteachers, and college professors who think that just maybe we’re all reading too much too fast and that instead we should think more highly of those who take their time with a book or an article."

So yes... now reading 50+ books in a year is no longer an accomplishment. And pretty soon, they'll be telling us to think highly of people who don't read books at all. We all just need to slow down, enjoy ourselves and melt all of those fast-moving neurons while we watch American Idol. I'm being sarcastic (mostly) and I get what they are saying about taking your time and not treating reading like a race, but the article goes on...

"Instead, Newkirk says, schools should encourage old-fashioned exercises such as reading aloud and memorization. He says that when he uses these exercises in his college-level classes, his students thank him and tell him that it helps them concentrate, unlike the surfing they do online."

'Reading aloud' in college? Are you kidding me? I had a professor who did that and I was bored to tears. College kids know how to read already (I hope)! Helps them concentrate, my foot.

Then an author of a book about slow reading (does that seem odd to anyone else? An author promoting slow reading...? Yeah, encourage people to read less and slower and they won't be buying as many of your books... Or maybe he only has the one book and he doesn't care. I don't know...), John Miedema says:

"Slow reading is about bringing more of the person to bear on the book."

Huh? What kind of BS is that? What does that even mean exactly - relating more to the book by reading slower? Sounds pretentious to me...

And then the author admits there isn't any scientific backing to his idea.

"When you bring more of the person to bear on the book -or maybe more of the book to bear on a person in a sense - you develop a more intimate and rich relationship with the information that builds richer memories and richer intelligence."

Believe me, I have a relationship with my books and the information in them. I collect books like some women collect shoes. They overflow my bookshelf, camp out on my bedside table and accompany me to work. And the ones I have, I usually read multiple times. I have rich, fond memories of books I read when I first started to read and many, many more since then. Don't tell me that I don't properly enjoy books because I'm a speed reader. I may read fast, but I comprehend what I read too. It's comfortable to me - slow reading is not and it is distracting. And to claim that it builds a "richer intelligence" after you admitted that there's no scientific evidence to support your idea is poppycock. Reading alone builds intelligence; don't try and promote your idea with silly claims that have no basis.

The author of the article concludes that he's going to start "slow reading" and the worst thing he can think of happening from doing so, "is racking up a few overdue fines at the library". And this after admitting that he placed "in the middle of the pack" in a speed reading test. Sounds like speed reading envy to me.

And another load of BS related to reading: "Liberals Read More Books than Conservatives". Is that why books by conservative authors are always in the top of reading lists (Amazon, New York Times Bestseller)? Or how about books that recommended by Glenn Beck are on back-order by Amazon for months? And why did a certain 50-year-old, 1000+ page book (Atlas Shrugged) suddenly jump to the top of reading lists, sell-out in bookstores around the country and cause libraries to order more copies? Yeah, no liberal I know read any of those... Publications like Newsweek and liberal newspapers are going bankrupt due to lack of readership... Hmmm... just who reads more than whom?

Financial Reform and Scott Brown

2010-07-15T22:36:00.000-04:00

I was disappointed to hear Scott Brown sided with them on this financial reform. Just goes to show that not only to we need to vote out the lazy "you-don't-actually-expect-us-to-read-the-bill-do-you?" and "let's spend more to get out of debt" types, but we need REAL conservatives. Those that will cut spending or cut back on government. Granted, Scott Brown may have been better than the alternative, but we need to stop voting for the lesser of two evils. We need to get some people in Washington that actually want to represent us first ahead of their career.

Back to the financial reform - no doubt we need it, but government isn't the way to do it. They have no business regulating Wall Street, no matter how harmless it may seem. This bill was co-authored by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. If those two names don't send up alarm bells, I'm not sure what will. Those two are always up to something and it's never pretty. This Pelosi/Reid/Obama/Frank/Dodd crowd is only after one thing and it's not hope, change or helping anyone out. It's usually about power and how they can it away from us. And with swine like Frank & Dodd crafting a bill, you can almost be sure it'll come with a nice heaping side of pork.

Pork like this little tidbit, which I have no idea of how it pertains to "financial reform":

"Section 342 of the bill calls for an "Office of Minority and Women Inclusion" to be established in each of 29 federal bureaus and offices."

Seems like it calls for a sort of affirmative action for jobs? It even goes further:

"The regulations appear to go beyond ensuring that discrimination in hiring decisions does not occur. Instead, it requires assurance of "fair inclusion." Furchtgott-Roth says it will pressure companies to find and hire minorities even if one hasn't applied for a specific job."

"FIND minorities even if one hasn't applied for a specific job"??? WTF? So 30 qualified people apply for a job and it just so happens that none of the are classified as a minority. So that means the company will turn away all of the candidates that applied, leave the job open and go out to find a random minority, just to fill a spot?

And even though as a woman, I'm apparently included into this whole deal, but I want a job that I'm qualified for - not because I was the first woman the hiring manager ran into at the supermarket. How insulting is that?! And what the hell does this have to do with financial reform?

Oh I get it now - this affirmative action rule isn't for all companies, it's just for federal offices and other financial-related companies that do business with them. That includes:

"29 federal agencies and all financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants, and providers of legal services who do business with them."

And let's not forget those firms' sub-contractors as well - "including office-cleaning crews, paper-shredding vendors, office-party catering firms -- if they wish to do business with the government."

Well, okay, so I stand corrected. That's kind-of sort-of financially related in a Seven Degrees of Separation sort-of way... No idea of how that's supposed to help the financial institutions, other than making them go bankrupt. But if you think about it, I guess it could be considered "reform", although it's certainly not the good kind...

I know I don't want to do business with a company who hires based on race or gender, rather than based on qualifications. Certainly don't want someone handling my money like that. Shameful that the government is forcing them to and probably only so they can keep saying how many jobs they've "created or saved".

If the NAACP wants to stop racism, they should focus their attention at this bill, instead of wasting their time making up stuff about the Tea Parties.

So Sue Me

2010-07-06T22:53:00.001-04:00

So the Federal Government actually sued Arizona today. I honestly thought it was an empty threat - I didn't think they'd actually do it. Their stupidity never ceases to astound me.

This lawsuit reminds me of the type when people sue McDonalds for making them fat. The United States just sued itself for enforcing a law that it refuses to uphold. Confused yet? Yeah, me too. I never saw this episode of The Twilight Zone before. We must have really hit our head hard when we fell down that rabbit hole. Geez... is there going to be a day where I don't wake up with a confused face, saying "WTF? Is there something in the water up in Washington? How are they competent enough to dress themselves in the morning"?

Oh, but the best part about this lawsuit is that the government didn't sue because of discrimination or racism or profiling like they were all screaming about earlier. Oh no, they are suing Arizona because their immigration law, according to the New York Post, "usurps federal authority". Excuse me, what? Did I really hear that correctly? You are kidding, right?

So the Federal government won't do the job it's supposed to do by protecting our borders and you know, actually making illegal immigration illegal.So Arizona steps up and passes a redundant law and the US sues them for "usurping federal authority"? It sounds like the script to a really bad movie. Heck, that wouldn't even be believable in a movie script... It just blows my mind. I'm at a loss for words.

I do like this:

"State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the bill co-sponsored by dozens of fellow Republican legislators, denounced the lawsuit as "absolute insult to the rule of law" as well as to Arizona and its residents."

Thank you, thank you, thank you, State Sen. Russell Pearce. And let me add, it's an insult to the residents of the rest of the US too. (At least, the ones of us that HAVEN'T lost our minds).

This lawsuit makes the federal government sound like a bunch of spoiled, whiny kids - "You took away my authority, so I'm gonna sue you". And who is going to pay the legal fees? Us, the Taxpayers, no doubt. Great, more money that we can't afford to spend. I personally think the lawyers and people in the government who are behind this lawsuit should pay out of pocket. No donations, no taxes, no gifts. You want to waste our time and money by suing yourself, go ahead. But do it on your own time and with your own money. I hope the judge in this case is wise enough to throw it out.

And have I mentioned how much I love Gov. Brewer? I wish Sonny, the Governor of GA, was more like her. I wish more Governors were like her. Look at this quote from her that I found on CNN.com:

""Today's filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds," Brewer said in a statement. "These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.""

Another 'Thank you, thank you, thank you'! Another person in government who actually gets it! Good for her!

And you just gotta love this! More language from the brief:

"[its] mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives."

"Will conflict with and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities"??? What "careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities"??? The Federal Government has NO immigration enforcement priorities (except maybe amnesty...and yeah I can see the Arizona law being in conflict with that 'careful balance'). What a load of crap. Hope those lawyers and politicians are wearing knee-high boots to wade through that.

And B.S. Alert:

"The law also has 'the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.'"

Obviously the lawyers suing Arizona haven't read the law either.

Wow, for being speechless about this, I could certainly go all night. We can be puzzled by this and scratch our heads at it. We can get angry and get frustrated at the government for this. We can joke about it and poke fun at the government, but the bottom line is that things like this are currently and will ultimately tear our nation apart. I'm afraid at what consequences this holds for us. It seems laughably absurd for the United States to sue itself, but it's no laughing matter that we are headed down the road to separation.

And on a final note - those lawyers and politicians who think that this Arizona law is unconstitutional... Read Article IV- The States, Section 4:

"Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

So wouldn't you say failure (and refusal) of the Federal Government to protect one of its states against invasion and violence is unconstitutional? Maybe it'd be time better spent to sue itself for breech of contract. That's a lawsuit I can get behind.

For further blog reading:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/07/feds-sue-arizona-complaint-here.html
http://selfevidenttruths-euripides.blogspot.com/2010/07/feds-file-suit-to-stop-arizona.html
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/obama-administration-sues-arizona/

Politically Incorrect Monday

2010-07-05T09:52:00.000-04:00

RT @talkmaster