What does the GOP stand for anymore? And by stand for, I mean what do they believe in? Although it may also be useful to come up with a new acronym for them. How about Group Of Porkers? They just tapped Hal Rogers, known as the "Prince of Pork" to head the House Appropriations Committee. Which sends exactly the kind of message they've always wanted to send to the American people: an inconclusive one. Am I right? (When I ask that question, it's ALWAYS rhetorical.) They campaigned on slashing federal spending. It got them elected, allowed them to sweep into Congress like a river flooding its banks. And now some other things are going to overflow; namely, your taxes, their spending, and of course, their lies. Pretty much all given.
Which is why people need to learn how to vote as if the letters "D" and "R" didn't exist. While the Republican platform (well, what's left of it) seems to be a remedy for America's "situation" (okay, maybe not, but it used to), it's not like they'll follow it. In the end, Democratic politicians and Republican politicians are still politicians. They're more bipartisan than they'll admit, because they're both exactly the same.
I swear, half of voting Americans would be clueless at the polls without the letters "D" and "R." No one votes on principles or voting record anymore; they simply vote on the basis of race, religion, party, or sex. Honestly? No wonder we're so screwed up. This is how we choose the people who run our country. I bet most of us just flip a coin every time we make a choice, am I right?
I'm fourteen and I have more convictions than a lot of voting Americans. And yet I can't vote. But YOU can. I'm doing all I can here, which is, sadly, not much. I'm going to D.C. this January for the March for Life. In second grade and since I've written our Presidents and other elected officials, including Ben Nelson, that... ahem, idiot... from Nebraska. But I don't have the power of voting. I can only influence those who do.
Sadly, they'd rather take advice from a genie or a flipped coin than a politically active teenager. So.
Why are we letting this happen? Why can't the GOP be the Grand Old Party anymore? Why are they just Good Old Politicians or Group Of Porkers? Is this America? Really? Is that the best you can do?
We fought Great Britain for our independence and won. We fought OURSELVES and won. That takes some freaking skill. We're fighting terrorists! We're fighting! And yet most of us are sitting here at home, watching the news and MOCKING our troops, criticizing them for giving their lives for us, complaining about elected officials but not having our own convictions, not doing so much as writing to one of them. Really? We're viewed around the world as the selfish fatties. Among other things. We view OURSELVES that way. We actually debate over whether or not to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. We debate over whether or not we should be treating terrorists so meanly. And yet we kill babies. We save trees and terrorists, but we screw babies. We burn our flags, we slam our own country. Do you realize that every time you slam America, you're attesting to its greatness? In other countries, you slam your nation, you're DEAD. Dead. We don't realize how great our nation is.
And if we don't realize how great it is, we can't realize how hard, fast, and far it's falling.
So wake up. Realize that there is more to the world than pop culture and... well, pop culture. Realize that you need to realize things. And realize them. Realize your dreams, your hopes, your ambitions. Have convictions. Love your country, or leave. Support your troops or go fight against them, because that's just as bad.
You're American. YOU. ARE. THE. LUCKIEST. PERSON. ON. THIS. PLANET. If you don't like America, leave or make it better (often, there's little difference between the two c:).
Maybe you're going through a tough time. Yes, the economy is bad, no matter what Barry-O tells you. It might not get better for a long time; it'll probably get worse, especially with all these politicians running around. But that's the thing about America: things get bad. But things get better. In America, yes, you're free to fall.
But you're free to fly.
You're also free to take that freedom away, so watch it.
DO something. Or something like that.
Don't be like that Group Of Porkers. Don't be a Good Old Politician. Don't be a God Of Pitifulness. Don't be a... yes, I'm sitting bored in class so I'm trying to think up acronyms. Anyway. To put it simply:
DON'T BE AN IDIOT.
You're free to be an idiot, of course. But you're also free to make a change. In your life, in someone else's. It starts with one small change.
I'd start now, before you give your freedom so freely away.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Restoration
What do liberals have against those who take hold of the American dream and ride it wherever they want to go? That's the American dream. Why do they want to crush it?
Don't answer that.
Liberals think in terms of entitlement. Conservatives think in terms of opportunity. In America, we are not entitled to a job, a house, education, healthcare, a six-figure paycheck. But we have the opportunity to achieve these things. Liberals hold that we are entitled to mediocrity. We're entitled to the same thing as everyone else. In an entitlement mentality, no one can get ahead. Admittedly, no one can fall behind, either. But how are you to get ahead if you don't come from behind?
People speak of the chains of poverty. I may be called selfish and naive for saying this, but there is no such thing in America. In America, you always have the opportunity to rise. It may be hard, but you can if you put your mind and heart to it.
Liberals would have us truly in chains. Not of poverty, but of mediocrity. They believe everyone is entitled to be as good as everyone else. And if no one can be better or worse, as long as we all have the same standard of living, that standard can be anything. Or nothing. And we can't get out.
Speaking of not being able to get out, America: WE NEED TO GET OUT NOW. By get out I mean get people out of Congress, get out of the situation we're in financially, and get out of "entangling alliances" such as the New START treaty. And all the climate change treaties and countless other things. But MOST IMPORTANTLY, we need to GET OUT of the mindset we're in, the rut we're in. A feeling of entitlement never amounts to anything, does it? In fact, it makes us feel worse, because we never get everything we want, because others cannot give it. Only we know what our dreams are, and only we can achieve them.
That's another problem. We've lost sight of our dreams. Are we content to just do nothing, be nothing, just go through life instead of living it? Where's our sense of pride? Where's our sense of America?
Who are we? Do we even care? Why are we teaching young people one-sided liberal opinions formed by the government instead of teaching them to think, and once we've got that down, to do it for themselves? Why are we content to compromise? Why must we meet the government at their end? We, the people, need to do something.
How is it that there are three hundred million of us and we all act so powerless?
Oh, I know. Because a few people have convinced us we are. We are so gullible. In our own defense, we've been trained to be so since we entered public schools at ages five and even earlier.
Reform doesn't even begin to cover INTRODUCING what needs to happen in America. Change? Nope, it's beyond that. Revolution? Close, but I don't think we're quite there yet. Keep that one in mind, though. It's not even along the lines of transformation.
It's called restoration.
Does the year 1776 mean anything to you?
Don't answer that.
Liberals think in terms of entitlement. Conservatives think in terms of opportunity. In America, we are not entitled to a job, a house, education, healthcare, a six-figure paycheck. But we have the opportunity to achieve these things. Liberals hold that we are entitled to mediocrity. We're entitled to the same thing as everyone else. In an entitlement mentality, no one can get ahead. Admittedly, no one can fall behind, either. But how are you to get ahead if you don't come from behind?
People speak of the chains of poverty. I may be called selfish and naive for saying this, but there is no such thing in America. In America, you always have the opportunity to rise. It may be hard, but you can if you put your mind and heart to it.
Liberals would have us truly in chains. Not of poverty, but of mediocrity. They believe everyone is entitled to be as good as everyone else. And if no one can be better or worse, as long as we all have the same standard of living, that standard can be anything. Or nothing. And we can't get out.
Speaking of not being able to get out, America: WE NEED TO GET OUT NOW. By get out I mean get people out of Congress, get out of the situation we're in financially, and get out of "entangling alliances" such as the New START treaty. And all the climate change treaties and countless other things. But MOST IMPORTANTLY, we need to GET OUT of the mindset we're in, the rut we're in. A feeling of entitlement never amounts to anything, does it? In fact, it makes us feel worse, because we never get everything we want, because others cannot give it. Only we know what our dreams are, and only we can achieve them.
That's another problem. We've lost sight of our dreams. Are we content to just do nothing, be nothing, just go through life instead of living it? Where's our sense of pride? Where's our sense of America?
Who are we? Do we even care? Why are we teaching young people one-sided liberal opinions formed by the government instead of teaching them to think, and once we've got that down, to do it for themselves? Why are we content to compromise? Why must we meet the government at their end? We, the people, need to do something.
How is it that there are three hundred million of us and we all act so powerless?
Oh, I know. Because a few people have convinced us we are. We are so gullible. In our own defense, we've been trained to be so since we entered public schools at ages five and even earlier.
Reform doesn't even begin to cover INTRODUCING what needs to happen in America. Change? Nope, it's beyond that. Revolution? Close, but I don't think we're quite there yet. Keep that one in mind, though. It's not even along the lines of transformation.
It's called restoration.
Does the year 1776 mean anything to you?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Must We Define "Terrorist" Again?
Okay, you know, let's just clear a terrorist of TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-NINE charges and just put the terrorist in jail for about twenty years. Possibly for life. But possibly for just twenty years. At which point the terrorist will be fully "rehabilitated" and the liberals will launch a campaign to integrate all terrorists into society. They seem to already play a big role in our society, so I don't see why we need to give them more.
Perhaps he would have gotten a more harsh sentence had a key witness been allowed to testify in the trial. But no. Oh, no. Because the witness had been uncovered under harsh interrogation techniques. So any evidence gleaned from those interrogation techniques, including a key witness, is invalid because we're mean.
We're mean to the people who plot to kill us daily, and would give their lives to end ours. And we're "mean" to them. It's "mean" to do what's in our best interests as a nation because that offends possible future allies (by that I mean terrorists who the liberals stubbornly insist can be rehabilitated).
Honestly? This terrorist is a prisoner of war. He has no place in civilian courts. None whatsoever. Of course, Obama has no place whatsoever in the White House... So I guess there's a trend going on here. (Just wait, there'll be terrorists in the White House before... you... know.. it... oh. Right.)
But back to the issue at hand (the innumerable other issues will have to wait). I think that it would be helpful to pull up the definition for "terrorist," just to clarify for the seemingly massive number of people who still don't get it. (Dictionary.Com)
ter·ror·ist
[ter-er-ist]
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
Under this definition, Obama would, in fact, be a terrorist. He advocates terrorism. Don't try to tell me that giving a terrorist the rights of a U.S. citizen is not advocating terrorism. Don't tell me closing Gitmo and prohibiting "mean" interrogation techniques isn't advocating terrorism. And don't tell me that Obama hasn't terrified you. Because, liberal or conservative, he probably has. It's just his thing.
Of course, it's all right to discriminate against Christians, the unborn, the elderly, and, you know, patriotic Americans... BUT LOOK AT A MUSLIM THE WRONG WAY AND YOU COULD BE JAILED FOR LIFE FOR HATE SPEECH! Whereas an actual terrorist faces a minimum sentence of twenty years.
Once again, I don't see what is at issue here, or how we constantly, continually defend the indefensible. Airplane security, interrogation, trials, the Ground Zero Mosque: As much as I love debating, these shouldn't even be debatable. Some things are, by nature, taboo to a society. And yet here we are. We kill babies. Our government takes our money and does with it what they please, and when they run out, they take more. On airplanes, we frisk two-year-old boys and ninety-year-old women, but if an airline has more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning, it gets fined. We are at WAR with Muslim extremists. There's no getting around it. You can't deny that we're fighting a war. But we're not winning the war on terror, because half of elected officials refuse to admit it exists! We have a description of the suspect. It's not "discrimination" if you take a suspect into custody. It's called justice. If they're innocent, they'll get their due. But if they're guilty, we have to make sure they also get their due.
I feel much, much worse for the families of those who lost their lives on 9/11 than I do for an Arab who gets some extra screening at an airport. You fly on U.S. airlines, you understand that we have a problem and are addressing it. Otherwise, take a boat.
We aren't allowed to interrogate terror suspects for fear that we're offending them and that they'll hate us. Their hate and offense are both caused by one thing: our existence. And unless Obama wants America to stop existing (maybe he does), then we should stop walking on eggshells when we have national security at stake.
And terrorists? As citizens? Really, who do they think they're fooling. CITIZENS are those whose deaths terrorists are responsible for. Terrorists are war prisoners, and should be treated as such. Except that's mean.
Mean? Mean is killing 3,000 people in the space of a few hours. Mean is murdering people in cold blood, for no other reason than that they're American and you're a psychopath. Mean is refusing to take the measures needed to avenge the dead and ensure that as few more as possible die. Mean is refusing to take control and protect your country.
Mean is being insensitive to the tears of your countrymen and building a mosque near where Muslim extremists killed THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE. THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE! They can move their mosque. We don't owe them anything.
We're not at war with all Muslims. But the people we are at war with are almost all Muslims. If you feel uncomfortable acknowledging this, I suggest you step down from any position of power you may hold and hand it over to someone more sensible and capable. Like my cat, for example.
Perhaps he would have gotten a more harsh sentence had a key witness been allowed to testify in the trial. But no. Oh, no. Because the witness had been uncovered under harsh interrogation techniques. So any evidence gleaned from those interrogation techniques, including a key witness, is invalid because we're mean.
We're mean to the people who plot to kill us daily, and would give their lives to end ours. And we're "mean" to them. It's "mean" to do what's in our best interests as a nation because that offends possible future allies (by that I mean terrorists who the liberals stubbornly insist can be rehabilitated).
Honestly? This terrorist is a prisoner of war. He has no place in civilian courts. None whatsoever. Of course, Obama has no place whatsoever in the White House... So I guess there's a trend going on here. (Just wait, there'll be terrorists in the White House before... you... know.. it... oh. Right.)
But back to the issue at hand (the innumerable other issues will have to wait). I think that it would be helpful to pull up the definition for "terrorist," just to clarify for the seemingly massive number of people who still don't get it. (Dictionary.Com)
ter·ror·ist
[ter-er-ist]
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
Under this definition, Obama would, in fact, be a terrorist. He advocates terrorism. Don't try to tell me that giving a terrorist the rights of a U.S. citizen is not advocating terrorism. Don't tell me closing Gitmo and prohibiting "mean" interrogation techniques isn't advocating terrorism. And don't tell me that Obama hasn't terrified you. Because, liberal or conservative, he probably has. It's just his thing.
Of course, it's all right to discriminate against Christians, the unborn, the elderly, and, you know, patriotic Americans... BUT LOOK AT A MUSLIM THE WRONG WAY AND YOU COULD BE JAILED FOR LIFE FOR HATE SPEECH! Whereas an actual terrorist faces a minimum sentence of twenty years.
Once again, I don't see what is at issue here, or how we constantly, continually defend the indefensible. Airplane security, interrogation, trials, the Ground Zero Mosque: As much as I love debating, these shouldn't even be debatable. Some things are, by nature, taboo to a society. And yet here we are. We kill babies. Our government takes our money and does with it what they please, and when they run out, they take more. On airplanes, we frisk two-year-old boys and ninety-year-old women, but if an airline has more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning, it gets fined. We are at WAR with Muslim extremists. There's no getting around it. You can't deny that we're fighting a war. But we're not winning the war on terror, because half of elected officials refuse to admit it exists! We have a description of the suspect. It's not "discrimination" if you take a suspect into custody. It's called justice. If they're innocent, they'll get their due. But if they're guilty, we have to make sure they also get their due.
I feel much, much worse for the families of those who lost their lives on 9/11 than I do for an Arab who gets some extra screening at an airport. You fly on U.S. airlines, you understand that we have a problem and are addressing it. Otherwise, take a boat.
We aren't allowed to interrogate terror suspects for fear that we're offending them and that they'll hate us. Their hate and offense are both caused by one thing: our existence. And unless Obama wants America to stop existing (maybe he does), then we should stop walking on eggshells when we have national security at stake.
And terrorists? As citizens? Really, who do they think they're fooling. CITIZENS are those whose deaths terrorists are responsible for. Terrorists are war prisoners, and should be treated as such. Except that's mean.
Mean? Mean is killing 3,000 people in the space of a few hours. Mean is murdering people in cold blood, for no other reason than that they're American and you're a psychopath. Mean is refusing to take the measures needed to avenge the dead and ensure that as few more as possible die. Mean is refusing to take control and protect your country.
Mean is being insensitive to the tears of your countrymen and building a mosque near where Muslim extremists killed THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE. THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE! They can move their mosque. We don't owe them anything.
We're not at war with all Muslims. But the people we are at war with are almost all Muslims. If you feel uncomfortable acknowledging this, I suggest you step down from any position of power you may hold and hand it over to someone more sensible and capable. Like my cat, for example.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Hitler Campaigns For The Right Of Jews!
Hitler campaigns for the rights of Jews!
Oh, never mind. It's just Cuba and China campaigning against the United States for "human rights." The "against the United States" part is the only thing that really matters, of course. If human rights were really at issue, they'd be hypocrites.
This is obviously nothing more than an anti-American stunt, much like, say, trying terrorists in civilian court. Anti-American hate will be spewed, some regulation will be passed, and we will continue down this road of insanity. Just watch.
The Obama administration has decided to join the convention, unlike the Bush administration. Is anyone else sensing a pattern?
Under the guise of "taking the process seriously [which] contributes to the universality” of the human rights process. Newsflash: you don't take JOKES seriously.
Pause to entertain a conspiracy theory:
All the liberals in the world are conspiring to bring the United States down. Well, yeah, that's obvious. But what devices are they using? Let's just say, for the sake of my conspiracy theory, that they have employed the following:
1. The UN
2. al Qaeda and other terrorist groups
3. various elected officials
And what use would they have for each of these? Well, each one can somehow bring the U.S. down. Terrorists, of course, can bomb us, which not only shakes our security (both our sense of and the actual), but can cause financial problems and political and ethnic divisions. The UN is great at screwing with things, and they're also powerful and well-known. They are a great device to put pressure on our government, spread propaganda about us, and pass universal regulations. And, of course, having people on the inside (elected officials) is great for them, too. They also use newspapers, TV and radio shows, and any medium they can to spread propaganda, or at least hide the truth. I don't think we've realized how far they've got their hands in the cookie jar, so to speak. Even without employing terrorists.
America honestly has much better things to do than deal with these bogus claims. Especially by Cuba and China. This makes it even more obvious that it's just a cover-up. All this will do is make us more lenient toward terrorists and illegal immigrants.
Does this sound suspiciously like the liberal agenda? Yes. Yes, it does. So you can see where I'm coming from.
Although it seems like everything that is evil in the world sounds suspiciously like the liberal agenda.
Oh, never mind. It's just Cuba and China campaigning against the United States for "human rights." The "against the United States" part is the only thing that really matters, of course. If human rights were really at issue, they'd be hypocrites.
This is obviously nothing more than an anti-American stunt, much like, say, trying terrorists in civilian court. Anti-American hate will be spewed, some regulation will be passed, and we will continue down this road of insanity. Just watch.
The Obama administration has decided to join the convention, unlike the Bush administration. Is anyone else sensing a pattern?
Under the guise of "taking the process seriously [which] contributes to the universality” of the human rights process. Newsflash: you don't take JOKES seriously.
Pause to entertain a conspiracy theory:
All the liberals in the world are conspiring to bring the United States down. Well, yeah, that's obvious. But what devices are they using? Let's just say, for the sake of my conspiracy theory, that they have employed the following:
1. The UN
2. al Qaeda and other terrorist groups
3. various elected officials
And what use would they have for each of these? Well, each one can somehow bring the U.S. down. Terrorists, of course, can bomb us, which not only shakes our security (both our sense of and the actual), but can cause financial problems and political and ethnic divisions. The UN is great at screwing with things, and they're also powerful and well-known. They are a great device to put pressure on our government, spread propaganda about us, and pass universal regulations. And, of course, having people on the inside (elected officials) is great for them, too. They also use newspapers, TV and radio shows, and any medium they can to spread propaganda, or at least hide the truth. I don't think we've realized how far they've got their hands in the cookie jar, so to speak. Even without employing terrorists.
America honestly has much better things to do than deal with these bogus claims. Especially by Cuba and China. This makes it even more obvious that it's just a cover-up. All this will do is make us more lenient toward terrorists and illegal immigrants.
Does this sound suspiciously like the liberal agenda? Yes. Yes, it does. So you can see where I'm coming from.
Although it seems like everything that is evil in the world sounds suspiciously like the liberal agenda.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
To Be Or Not To Be America (It's Not A Question, It's A Call)
To be a citizen or not to be a citizen, that is the question. It’s not whether or not they can vote. Citizens vote. Non-citizens don’t. You want to vote, become a citizen. That’s the only issue at hand here: whether you want to be a citizen or not. If not, don’t expect voting rights.
We cannot blur the citizen-immigrant line much more without it becoming just a figurative idea that is sometimes applied, but more often not. If immigrants are “loyal, patriotic, hardworking Americans,” which sounds just like what a citizen should be, they should become citizens! See how that works?
The path to voting for non-citizens is not a ballot deciding whether they can vote. It’s called citizenship.
If non-citizens can do everything citizens can, what’s the difference? If there is no such thing as a border, is there such thing as a country? If there’s no such thing as America, there is no such thing as an American. How would you like ceasing to exist? Does that fit in with your plans for the weekend?
Of course, if there was no such thing as America, we could all just kind of sift over into the World Union people are trying to form. I mean, the dollar’s dead anyway. We’re down the economic drain. Our President’s a screwhead. Our policies, parties, and culture is tearing at the seams. We’re teetering on the edge of a cliff in the middle of a tornado. It makes sense to just abandon everything, doesn’t it?
Heck no. We could have abandoned ourselves in the middle of the Revolution. We’re losing this thing anyway, and don’t know what to do if we win it. Let’s just give up. But we didn’t. Building the Transcontinental Railroad, settling the West, we could have given up. But we didn’t. Fighting the Civil War, we could have just said, “Screw the South.” But we didn’t. And we never will. No matter how jacked up things may seem, this is America, and always will be.
Although I admit sometimes things seem hopeless.
Take healthcare, for instance. Last week a leading manufacturer informed workers that their healthcare costs would rise partly because of the law. The law that was supposed to provide a competitive market by being something better, not making the other companies worse. Everyone who signed that bill (all of them Democrats) knew what they were signing (this time). No one in America knew, but that didn’t matter to them. Their constituents had a pretty good idea, though. All you had to do was watch the clips of Obama talking about ending private insurance. All you had to do was listen to him selling that law and you knew it was bogus. But what could we have done?
Let’s not go there right now.
We all knew that job-based coverage was pretty much screwed. We all knew that the government was going to dominate the market like Big Business in the 1800s and 1900s. We knew it was coming. But the worst part was knowing we were powerless, short of a rebellion, to stop it. This is not how it should be. We are not helpless onlookers. We ARE the government. We are what creates them, funds them, keeps them in existence. At any point in time we can end them. They seem to have forgotten that there are more of us than there are of them. And we don’t believe in gun control.
You can see the Democratic schemes at work. A Democratic governor laid out a plan for employers to shift workers into the taxpayer-subsidized healthcare plans that will be available (soon to be mandatory) in 2014. There’s the manufacturere who told workers their premiums would jump. According to Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee (a Democrat), "The economics of dropping existing coverage is about to become very attractive to many employers, both public and private." Does that sound like undermining private insurance to you?
They’re not even trying to hide it anymore. Either they’re very smug or know they’re screwed in a week and are just doing everything they can to screw us, too. Probably both.
Employers are considering shifting most or all healthcare costs to workers. Coupled with the economy (which is, we’re told, “improving,” which is another way of saying “it’s still pretty ugly and we don’t feel like telling you about the mess we’ve made”), this adds up (or subtracts) to the middle class being a little bit screwed. Just a tad.
The middle class has depended on job-based coverage for decades. 150 million people rely on it. There are, according to B. Hussein, 47 million uninsured Americans. I wonder if that number will be higher or lower in ten years.
That raises an interesting question. What will things be like in ten years? Will we be on the streets? Will we be dead from terrorist attacks? Will we have fling cars? How high will taxes be? Will America even still exist the way it does today? It’s sad that that is possible. That we can wonder. What will we be doing in ten years? Anything? Nothing?
Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t better to just start a mini revolution and start over. Keep the Constitution, keep the system, keep the bare legal necessities of survival, keep the core of our society, the stock market, that kind of thing. Scrap everything else.
Of course, the world economy would plummet. You probably can’t even pull something like that off. Maybe you don’t keep anything but the Constitution. Maybe you don’t even keep that (though you’d hopefully model the new one on it). Hopefully you do it right.
Think about it. You’re painting a picture and it starts to rain. Drop after drop hits the paper until the picture is a runny mess. Do you keep painting? Do you take it inside, let it dry, and paint over it? Do you pull out a new piece of paper?
I don’t know what’s right, or what’s going to happen. But I feel like something is going to happen. Something big. A storm is about to break.
All I ask is that we’re ready. That we cling to our money, guns, religion, kids, and freedom. That we never forget who we are.
We are America.
And Obama, nothing is ever going to change that.
And we’re not apologizing.
We cannot blur the citizen-immigrant line much more without it becoming just a figurative idea that is sometimes applied, but more often not. If immigrants are “loyal, patriotic, hardworking Americans,” which sounds just like what a citizen should be, they should become citizens! See how that works?
The path to voting for non-citizens is not a ballot deciding whether they can vote. It’s called citizenship.
If non-citizens can do everything citizens can, what’s the difference? If there is no such thing as a border, is there such thing as a country? If there’s no such thing as America, there is no such thing as an American. How would you like ceasing to exist? Does that fit in with your plans for the weekend?
Of course, if there was no such thing as America, we could all just kind of sift over into the World Union people are trying to form. I mean, the dollar’s dead anyway. We’re down the economic drain. Our President’s a screwhead. Our policies, parties, and culture is tearing at the seams. We’re teetering on the edge of a cliff in the middle of a tornado. It makes sense to just abandon everything, doesn’t it?
Heck no. We could have abandoned ourselves in the middle of the Revolution. We’re losing this thing anyway, and don’t know what to do if we win it. Let’s just give up. But we didn’t. Building the Transcontinental Railroad, settling the West, we could have given up. But we didn’t. Fighting the Civil War, we could have just said, “Screw the South.” But we didn’t. And we never will. No matter how jacked up things may seem, this is America, and always will be.
Although I admit sometimes things seem hopeless.
Take healthcare, for instance. Last week a leading manufacturer informed workers that their healthcare costs would rise partly because of the law. The law that was supposed to provide a competitive market by being something better, not making the other companies worse. Everyone who signed that bill (all of them Democrats) knew what they were signing (this time). No one in America knew, but that didn’t matter to them. Their constituents had a pretty good idea, though. All you had to do was watch the clips of Obama talking about ending private insurance. All you had to do was listen to him selling that law and you knew it was bogus. But what could we have done?
Let’s not go there right now.
We all knew that job-based coverage was pretty much screwed. We all knew that the government was going to dominate the market like Big Business in the 1800s and 1900s. We knew it was coming. But the worst part was knowing we were powerless, short of a rebellion, to stop it. This is not how it should be. We are not helpless onlookers. We ARE the government. We are what creates them, funds them, keeps them in existence. At any point in time we can end them. They seem to have forgotten that there are more of us than there are of them. And we don’t believe in gun control.
You can see the Democratic schemes at work. A Democratic governor laid out a plan for employers to shift workers into the taxpayer-subsidized healthcare plans that will be available (soon to be mandatory) in 2014. There’s the manufacturere who told workers their premiums would jump. According to Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee (a Democrat), "The economics of dropping existing coverage is about to become very attractive to many employers, both public and private." Does that sound like undermining private insurance to you?
They’re not even trying to hide it anymore. Either they’re very smug or know they’re screwed in a week and are just doing everything they can to screw us, too. Probably both.
Employers are considering shifting most or all healthcare costs to workers. Coupled with the economy (which is, we’re told, “improving,” which is another way of saying “it’s still pretty ugly and we don’t feel like telling you about the mess we’ve made”), this adds up (or subtracts) to the middle class being a little bit screwed. Just a tad.
The middle class has depended on job-based coverage for decades. 150 million people rely on it. There are, according to B. Hussein, 47 million uninsured Americans. I wonder if that number will be higher or lower in ten years.
That raises an interesting question. What will things be like in ten years? Will we be on the streets? Will we be dead from terrorist attacks? Will we have fling cars? How high will taxes be? Will America even still exist the way it does today? It’s sad that that is possible. That we can wonder. What will we be doing in ten years? Anything? Nothing?
Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t better to just start a mini revolution and start over. Keep the Constitution, keep the system, keep the bare legal necessities of survival, keep the core of our society, the stock market, that kind of thing. Scrap everything else.
Of course, the world economy would plummet. You probably can’t even pull something like that off. Maybe you don’t keep anything but the Constitution. Maybe you don’t even keep that (though you’d hopefully model the new one on it). Hopefully you do it right.
Think about it. You’re painting a picture and it starts to rain. Drop after drop hits the paper until the picture is a runny mess. Do you keep painting? Do you take it inside, let it dry, and paint over it? Do you pull out a new piece of paper?
I don’t know what’s right, or what’s going to happen. But I feel like something is going to happen. Something big. A storm is about to break.
All I ask is that we’re ready. That we cling to our money, guns, religion, kids, and freedom. That we never forget who we are.
We are America.
And Obama, nothing is ever going to change that.
And we’re not apologizing.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
The Cost
Price of gas: about three bucks, maybe more.
Price of income: around a third of what you make.
Price of freedom: whatever we sell it for.
The elections are ten days away, folks. Ten days. Are we really thinking about what will happen as a result of our choices? What the cost will be?
We have all these people promising to make things better. Maybe they can. Maybe they can't. If they do, though, what's the cost?
Is free healthcare worth the control the government gets? The taxes they impose? The regulations and restrictions they create? Is free stuff worth freedom? Is a promise of a better life that has been broken many times worth higher taxes and more corruption? What are you willing to risk in the name of hope?
Have you even considered what things will be like in ten, twenty, thirty years? And what you can do to influence it? What do you want? What do you want for your children and grandchildren, for yourself in retirement? What do you want for those you love?
These politicians can make promise after promise, but in the end, you decide what happens. Unless you give all of you're freedom away, but we're not quite there. Not yet.
Maybe they can give you all of your wildest dreams. But what will it cost you? Your family? Your friends? Your freedom?
Can it last?
Is it worth the cost?
I hope we thin of all of these things in ten days, and all days to come. I hope we use our heads, not our feelings or whims or the heat of the moment. I hope we really stop to think about things (before that becomes illegal). I hope we realize the truth, the implications, the cost of electing those who would lead us farther down the road we're on.
We have the power. It's in our hands to change the world. No offense to Harry Reid, but we're saving the world, down here in America. We go to work every day. We come home and feed our families. We work hard for the American dream, and we live it every day. We send our kids to school and pay taxes that fund who-knows-what and more. But why? We don't have to comply to the government's every wish. They comply to ours. Because in addition to all of those aforementioned other things we do, there is one more, very important thing. Look out, Democrats.
We vote.
Price of income: around a third of what you make.
Price of freedom: whatever we sell it for.
The elections are ten days away, folks. Ten days. Are we really thinking about what will happen as a result of our choices? What the cost will be?
We have all these people promising to make things better. Maybe they can. Maybe they can't. If they do, though, what's the cost?
Is free healthcare worth the control the government gets? The taxes they impose? The regulations and restrictions they create? Is free stuff worth freedom? Is a promise of a better life that has been broken many times worth higher taxes and more corruption? What are you willing to risk in the name of hope?
Have you even considered what things will be like in ten, twenty, thirty years? And what you can do to influence it? What do you want? What do you want for your children and grandchildren, for yourself in retirement? What do you want for those you love?
These politicians can make promise after promise, but in the end, you decide what happens. Unless you give all of you're freedom away, but we're not quite there. Not yet.
Maybe they can give you all of your wildest dreams. But what will it cost you? Your family? Your friends? Your freedom?
Can it last?
Is it worth the cost?
I hope we thin of all of these things in ten days, and all days to come. I hope we use our heads, not our feelings or whims or the heat of the moment. I hope we really stop to think about things (before that becomes illegal). I hope we realize the truth, the implications, the cost of electing those who would lead us farther down the road we're on.
We have the power. It's in our hands to change the world. No offense to Harry Reid, but we're saving the world, down here in America. We go to work every day. We come home and feed our families. We work hard for the American dream, and we live it every day. We send our kids to school and pay taxes that fund who-knows-what and more. But why? We don't have to comply to the government's every wish. They comply to ours. Because in addition to all of those aforementioned other things we do, there is one more, very important thing. Look out, Democrats.
We vote.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Saving The World
Harry Reid is trying to convince his constituents that he saved the world and they just don't realize it. How'd you save the world, Harry? Invent the internet?
I guess we must not have noticed. I get a mental image of Harry Reid flying around in blue and red spandex, his cape billowing in the wind, and get the feeling that that would be something we probably couldn't help but notice. He must have been humble in his world-saving and suddenly decided to brag about it. With no relation to the upcoming elections, of course.
According to Reid, we'd be in a world-wide depression if it weren't for him. Thanks to him, we are merely heading at breakneck speeds toward a depression instead of being in one. Thanks for saving the world, Harry.
I don't believe him. Did he win a Nobel Peace Prize? No. Obama is the Savior, not Reid. I think Reid may have missed that memo. "Hey, all play-acting as God normally on schedule is cancelled due to Obama being the Savior. Force of habit does not matter. As much as we may want to, no Democrat but Obama can claim to be God (while simultaneously obviously not believing in him). Are we clear?" Yeah, Harry must have been out doing typical Democrat Saturday-night stuff when that memo came out.
And I don't know where America was when the "Harry saved the world" memo came out. Probably out working, filing taxes, taking our kids to school.
Harry telling us he saved the world is actually a jab at himself. The world is not looking very saved. That's like a homeless man telling his kids he got pizza and dividing a piece of pepperoni among his five kids and wife. Yeah. Thanks.
So, Harry, little suggestion, next time you save the world, can you do us all a favor and stay out of it?
I guess we must not have noticed. I get a mental image of Harry Reid flying around in blue and red spandex, his cape billowing in the wind, and get the feeling that that would be something we probably couldn't help but notice. He must have been humble in his world-saving and suddenly decided to brag about it. With no relation to the upcoming elections, of course.
According to Reid, we'd be in a world-wide depression if it weren't for him. Thanks to him, we are merely heading at breakneck speeds toward a depression instead of being in one. Thanks for saving the world, Harry.
I don't believe him. Did he win a Nobel Peace Prize? No. Obama is the Savior, not Reid. I think Reid may have missed that memo. "Hey, all play-acting as God normally on schedule is cancelled due to Obama being the Savior. Force of habit does not matter. As much as we may want to, no Democrat but Obama can claim to be God (while simultaneously obviously not believing in him). Are we clear?" Yeah, Harry must have been out doing typical Democrat Saturday-night stuff when that memo came out.
And I don't know where America was when the "Harry saved the world" memo came out. Probably out working, filing taxes, taking our kids to school.
Harry telling us he saved the world is actually a jab at himself. The world is not looking very saved. That's like a homeless man telling his kids he got pizza and dividing a piece of pepperoni among his five kids and wife. Yeah. Thanks.
So, Harry, little suggestion, next time you save the world, can you do us all a favor and stay out of it?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wrong
There was a comic in our local paper yesterday. One frame. Pictured were a witch, an anti-gay demonstrator, Hitler, and a Tea Partier with a dunce cap on his head. “I’m not a witch,” proclaimed the witch. “I’m not a homophobe,” insisted the demonstrator. “I’m not a Nazi,” declared Hitler. “I’m not an idiot,” pronounced the Tea Partier.
How eloquent and original to call a Tea Partier an idiot. That’s certainly never been done before, and the word idiot has fallen out of use. It’s good to see it making a comeback.
This is the left’s sorry attempt at... well, whatever they’re trying to do now. The sad thing is, any competent observer can tell the difference between Hitler and the witch and the Tea Partier and the demonstrator. First of all, Hitler would never say he wasn’t a Nazi. That’s what he was. And a witch is a witch. Granted, she could have just been dressed up for Halloween. So the only one they know for sure is Hitler. But the button on the demonstrator’s jacket said, “Gays are immoral,” not “I’m afraid of gays.” Bill Clinton was immoral (yet is still celebrated by society). Are we afraid of him? That could go either way, but most people are not. Think of all the adjectives liberals use to describe conservatives. Following liberal “logic,” they’re afraid of all of us! Score! And finally the Tea Partier. You can’t prove to me that a Tea Partier is an idiot. Of course, it was a somewhat clever comic(for a liberal), but I’m obliged to rip it to shreds.
Not that I’m all that pleased with Republicans either. You know the feeling of, “Come on, guys, you had this handed to you, take it”? (Ironically, this handout [the increase in popularity among voters] came from Democrats [the lords of the handout].) Why can’t they do it right now that they have the chance? Why couldn’t they be doing it right even when they didn’t have the chance, so that when the chance came along, they’d be ready? Why did they have to screw themselves over so that the party is divided now? The Tea Party should actually be called the GOP, because they’re everything Republicans should be.
Should be. That’s the operative word here, isn’t it?
America should be income tax-free. America should be governed by, for, and of the people. America should be one of the most revered nations on the planet, not an object of disdain from foreign countries and even our own elected officials and citizens. There should be a sense of “should be.” There should be ethical standards. It’s WRONG to murder babies. It’s WRONG for same-sex couples to marry (or act... married...). It’s WRONG for us to be afraid of our government. It’s WRONG for us to worry that terrorists and violent criminals will be let loose in our own backyards. It’s WRONG. I’m not going to sugar-coat it. It’s not just immoral, unethical, unconventional, or whatever adjective you want to apply to it. It’s not disputable.
It’s WRONG.
We as a society cannot accept the idea of “wrong.” What Bill Clinton did wasn’t “wrong.” What al Quaeda did wasn’t “wrong.” What the Fort Hood shooter did wasn’t “wrong.” Some people might think so, but some people don’t, and we must respect everyone’s opinions.
Good luck with that. Hijackers are heading a plane for the White House and you want us to respect their opinions? Not to stop them because that would be religious discrimination? Give me a break, liberals. In theory their ideas are... well, cute. And ideal. But they logically cannot work. It can only end in chaos.
Gee... Has that happened before?
We’re laying the foundations for the World Trade Center memorial. Are we going to be stupid enough to let that fall, too? (Read between the lines: Are we going to be stupid enough to let liberals get in power again?) I realize that it happened while Bush was President, but he had just taken office less than a year before, and quickly took the measures needed to ensure that it would not happen again. Which is more than I can say for B. Hussein, who’s only concerned with continuing and accelerating Bush’s spending policies. Not his tax breaks, not his pro-life and anti-terrorism stances, just the spending. If Obama “had this dumped on him,” he should have started cleaning it up, instead of setting records for most debt accumulated per year by a President.... IN HIS FIRST YEAR.
Blame all you want, just don’t expect any favors... like votes...
How eloquent and original to call a Tea Partier an idiot. That’s certainly never been done before, and the word idiot has fallen out of use. It’s good to see it making a comeback.
This is the left’s sorry attempt at... well, whatever they’re trying to do now. The sad thing is, any competent observer can tell the difference between Hitler and the witch and the Tea Partier and the demonstrator. First of all, Hitler would never say he wasn’t a Nazi. That’s what he was. And a witch is a witch. Granted, she could have just been dressed up for Halloween. So the only one they know for sure is Hitler. But the button on the demonstrator’s jacket said, “Gays are immoral,” not “I’m afraid of gays.” Bill Clinton was immoral (yet is still celebrated by society). Are we afraid of him? That could go either way, but most people are not. Think of all the adjectives liberals use to describe conservatives. Following liberal “logic,” they’re afraid of all of us! Score! And finally the Tea Partier. You can’t prove to me that a Tea Partier is an idiot. Of course, it was a somewhat clever comic(for a liberal), but I’m obliged to rip it to shreds.
Not that I’m all that pleased with Republicans either. You know the feeling of, “Come on, guys, you had this handed to you, take it”? (Ironically, this handout [the increase in popularity among voters] came from Democrats [the lords of the handout].) Why can’t they do it right now that they have the chance? Why couldn’t they be doing it right even when they didn’t have the chance, so that when the chance came along, they’d be ready? Why did they have to screw themselves over so that the party is divided now? The Tea Party should actually be called the GOP, because they’re everything Republicans should be.
Should be. That’s the operative word here, isn’t it?
America should be income tax-free. America should be governed by, for, and of the people. America should be one of the most revered nations on the planet, not an object of disdain from foreign countries and even our own elected officials and citizens. There should be a sense of “should be.” There should be ethical standards. It’s WRONG to murder babies. It’s WRONG for same-sex couples to marry (or act... married...). It’s WRONG for us to be afraid of our government. It’s WRONG for us to worry that terrorists and violent criminals will be let loose in our own backyards. It’s WRONG. I’m not going to sugar-coat it. It’s not just immoral, unethical, unconventional, or whatever adjective you want to apply to it. It’s not disputable.
It’s WRONG.
We as a society cannot accept the idea of “wrong.” What Bill Clinton did wasn’t “wrong.” What al Quaeda did wasn’t “wrong.” What the Fort Hood shooter did wasn’t “wrong.” Some people might think so, but some people don’t, and we must respect everyone’s opinions.
Good luck with that. Hijackers are heading a plane for the White House and you want us to respect their opinions? Not to stop them because that would be religious discrimination? Give me a break, liberals. In theory their ideas are... well, cute. And ideal. But they logically cannot work. It can only end in chaos.
Gee... Has that happened before?
We’re laying the foundations for the World Trade Center memorial. Are we going to be stupid enough to let that fall, too? (Read between the lines: Are we going to be stupid enough to let liberals get in power again?) I realize that it happened while Bush was President, but he had just taken office less than a year before, and quickly took the measures needed to ensure that it would not happen again. Which is more than I can say for B. Hussein, who’s only concerned with continuing and accelerating Bush’s spending policies. Not his tax breaks, not his pro-life and anti-terrorism stances, just the spending. If Obama “had this dumped on him,” he should have started cleaning it up, instead of setting records for most debt accumulated per year by a President.... IN HIS FIRST YEAR.
Blame all you want, just don’t expect any favors... like votes...
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Skewl
Some schools (not necessarily the school I currently attend, any school I have previously attended, or any school I am in association with, but not necessarily NOT one of those schools previously mentioned) are making an effort to be more modern while being environmentally friendly. It is obvious that the measures that, shall we say, certain schools have taken were not extensively researched, at least not as thoroughly as they should have been.
For example, it will definitely contribute to the school's attraction if they give their kids laptops. What with the whole "going green/paperless" thing, people are sure to come flocking. Plus, hello, it's a freaking laptop. What high school kid doesn't want a laptop?
Me, actually.
I mean, yeah, I'd love to have a personal laptop. But to use it all the time, never to touch a pencil again, to experience the frustration of running out of lead, to bask in the satisfying rhythm of pencil scratching paper... eh, it's a writing thing. But seriously, there's something about writing things down with your own hands that makes it.. personal. This is your story. Not the computer's. You wrote this. I think it aids knowledge retention and allows students to function more adequately.
We take our geometry tests online. We have to press the protractor to the laptop screen and measure an angle. And we can't extend the lines because, honestly, who's going to draw on their laptop screen?
I get headaches almost every day. I've always been really sensitive to exposure to screens, whether it's TV or computer or a Gameboy or what. I already have bad eyesight, so I can't even begin to imagine what this screen's doing to my eyes and my brain.
Then there's the distraction/temptation factor. You give a kid a laptop... Honestly? What teenage boy isn't going to be playing games in the middle of the lecture? Or, better yet, using the screen to hide the cell phone they're testing on.
It sickens me how we're all like lap dogs, always eager to please and full of ourselves when we do. "Oh, we're saving trees by going paperless!" When did paper become the universal symbol of all that is evil? I love paper. I have this thing for completely blank sheets of paper. I have to fill them up. Documents on a screen? Not the same effect. You don't learn the same way. But since it's currently the fad, I guess that's what we're going to do. And we'll be so proud, parading ourselves around. Good for us. (You've figured out by now that it is my school that I'm talking about.) No one thinks about the consequences. If we're ahead of the curve, who cares that we'll all be blind and brain damaged in twenty years? What does it really matter as long as some tree somewhere isn't cut down for a few more days? What does it really matter as long as we meet the standard of liberalism that is so ingrained in our culture. We don't even realize that they've infiltrated every aspect of our lives. The very thoughts we think are contaminated.
Why?
Because they have our children. They have our children in their hands (when we let them live, that is) from ages three and four to age eighteen (sometimes longer). Add to the list of things that should be privatized (Social Security, welfare [aka charity, ever heard of it?], and infrastructure spending are already on the list): schooling. They have our children. They have the future. They're controlling it. Public schools are the principal vessels of liberal indoctrination. All the legislation that comes with the package too, of course. Like "No Child Left Behind"? Yes, I am willing to rip on Bush because I know what's right and what's wrong, as opposed to what's Democrat and what's Republican. Our school took in two students who were kicked out of their old school for trying to start a mafia. Well, we can't leave any child behind (except the ones lying dead in the commons).
And where's the other end of that deal? What about the people who are too advanced for their grade level and are forced by law to remain where they are? Sure, we're not leaving anyone behind (except everyone in the public school system [it's not like most teachers really care, with the exception of a few--I've had some pretty awesome teachers--because the unions will fight for them whether they deserve better pay or not. There's no incentive for good teaching, just bad teachers demanding more pay than they're worth]), bu we're not promoting success, either. Mandatory mediocrity is what it is.
So, in short, public schooling (among many, many, many other things) is completely screwy and is going to either fail itself or result in the failing of America.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get my sleep. I'm taking a state-mandated standardized test tomorrow morning.
For example, it will definitely contribute to the school's attraction if they give their kids laptops. What with the whole "going green/paperless" thing, people are sure to come flocking. Plus, hello, it's a freaking laptop. What high school kid doesn't want a laptop?
Me, actually.
I mean, yeah, I'd love to have a personal laptop. But to use it all the time, never to touch a pencil again, to experience the frustration of running out of lead, to bask in the satisfying rhythm of pencil scratching paper... eh, it's a writing thing. But seriously, there's something about writing things down with your own hands that makes it.. personal. This is your story. Not the computer's. You wrote this. I think it aids knowledge retention and allows students to function more adequately.
We take our geometry tests online. We have to press the protractor to the laptop screen and measure an angle. And we can't extend the lines because, honestly, who's going to draw on their laptop screen?
I get headaches almost every day. I've always been really sensitive to exposure to screens, whether it's TV or computer or a Gameboy or what. I already have bad eyesight, so I can't even begin to imagine what this screen's doing to my eyes and my brain.
Then there's the distraction/temptation factor. You give a kid a laptop... Honestly? What teenage boy isn't going to be playing games in the middle of the lecture? Or, better yet, using the screen to hide the cell phone they're testing on.
It sickens me how we're all like lap dogs, always eager to please and full of ourselves when we do. "Oh, we're saving trees by going paperless!" When did paper become the universal symbol of all that is evil? I love paper. I have this thing for completely blank sheets of paper. I have to fill them up. Documents on a screen? Not the same effect. You don't learn the same way. But since it's currently the fad, I guess that's what we're going to do. And we'll be so proud, parading ourselves around. Good for us. (You've figured out by now that it is my school that I'm talking about.) No one thinks about the consequences. If we're ahead of the curve, who cares that we'll all be blind and brain damaged in twenty years? What does it really matter as long as some tree somewhere isn't cut down for a few more days? What does it really matter as long as we meet the standard of liberalism that is so ingrained in our culture. We don't even realize that they've infiltrated every aspect of our lives. The very thoughts we think are contaminated.
Why?
Because they have our children. They have our children in their hands (when we let them live, that is) from ages three and four to age eighteen (sometimes longer). Add to the list of things that should be privatized (Social Security, welfare [aka charity, ever heard of it?], and infrastructure spending are already on the list): schooling. They have our children. They have the future. They're controlling it. Public schools are the principal vessels of liberal indoctrination. All the legislation that comes with the package too, of course. Like "No Child Left Behind"? Yes, I am willing to rip on Bush because I know what's right and what's wrong, as opposed to what's Democrat and what's Republican. Our school took in two students who were kicked out of their old school for trying to start a mafia. Well, we can't leave any child behind (except the ones lying dead in the commons).
And where's the other end of that deal? What about the people who are too advanced for their grade level and are forced by law to remain where they are? Sure, we're not leaving anyone behind (except everyone in the public school system [it's not like most teachers really care, with the exception of a few--I've had some pretty awesome teachers--because the unions will fight for them whether they deserve better pay or not. There's no incentive for good teaching, just bad teachers demanding more pay than they're worth]), bu we're not promoting success, either. Mandatory mediocrity is what it is.
So, in short, public schooling (among many, many, many other things) is completely screwy and is going to either fail itself or result in the failing of America.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get my sleep. I'm taking a state-mandated standardized test tomorrow morning.
We Know The Drill
Besides being a better football team, there's another reason to prefer Michigan State over U of M. I'm just going to be blunt here: Michigan kills babies.
I know that's old news, but I thought it appropriate in light of recent athletic events to rip on Michigan a little.
Anyway. Midterms are in about two weeks. Sadly, it's been more than that amount of time since I've posted, which shows how busy high school is. (Last I knew there were 75 days until the elections.)
Personally, I'm supremely ticked. We have the chance to take back America and we can't even unite our party or pick candidates who stand for anything but, basically, moderate Democrat ideas. If you're not a Republican, please don't soil the name. (I consider myself a Tea Party Constitutional Traditional Conservative GOP Republican, emphasis on the "Grand Old" in GOP.)
And of course, clinging to what hope they have, Congress is postponing the vote on extending the Bush tax cuts. If the Democrats voted on that before the election, their being screwed would be more than speculation.
But that never stops Obama from running his mouth. You'd think he got paid to--oh, yeah. You know, I sometimes almost feel a little sorry for the guy. Not really, but it has crossed my mind. I mean, he's too stupid to know when and how to lie. He seems bent on destroying Republicans while subconsciously destroying his own party. I suppose I should thank him for that.
Anyway, if you're enjoying your retirement, lounging by the golf course, reminiscing about your hard work in your youth, well... say goodbye to the golf course, at least. Because the government just might (which is news-speak for "they will") tax your dividends as income to pay for their ever-expanding budget.
You know, if I was a Democrat, I would have so much fun in the focus groups I'm sure they have. I can think of tons of ways to suck your hard-earned money right out of your pockets. How about taxing you for anything your minor children earn, and taxing them, too? Bonus! How about taxing them for the five bucks they made mowing the lawn? Basically, anything is taxable. So watch out.
I'm so sick of hearing this "Obama had this dumped on him, he inherited it" crap. Well, sucks to be him! He shouldn't have run for President, then. The per-year rate at which he's piling on the debt is already more than double Bush's, and he's been in office less than two years! (Heaven forbid he get re-elected.) You think he's going to stop? Between blaming Bush and becoming the savior of terrorists everywhere, I doubt he has time to rethink his economic policies. He'd have to figure out how to think first, anyway.
It's times like this when I'm almost tempted to believe in evolution. Some people really seem to have the minds of apes.
Speaking of that, I wrote a myth for English, "The Origin of the Origin of Species." It's about how the theories of evolution and overpopulation were born. I'll leave it at that, and you can finish the myth yourselves. It's great because my teacher is a big lib (who I'm sure considers himself some kind of independent, "new" liberal), but also a great teacher, so I'm hoping he got a kick out of it. I almost wrote it on the origin of the liberal, but thought that to be a bit much. :D
On taxing dividends: there's apparently constitutionally not even supposed to be an income tax, an argument I'll be researching extensively (when I find time).
So. In summary, the apes in Washington are trying to screw us without officially proclaiming it. Honestly? The Democratic Party has been around how long? We know the drill.
I know that's old news, but I thought it appropriate in light of recent athletic events to rip on Michigan a little.
Anyway. Midterms are in about two weeks. Sadly, it's been more than that amount of time since I've posted, which shows how busy high school is. (Last I knew there were 75 days until the elections.)
Personally, I'm supremely ticked. We have the chance to take back America and we can't even unite our party or pick candidates who stand for anything but, basically, moderate Democrat ideas. If you're not a Republican, please don't soil the name. (I consider myself a Tea Party Constitutional Traditional Conservative GOP Republican, emphasis on the "Grand Old" in GOP.)
And of course, clinging to what hope they have, Congress is postponing the vote on extending the Bush tax cuts. If the Democrats voted on that before the election, their being screwed would be more than speculation.
But that never stops Obama from running his mouth. You'd think he got paid to--oh, yeah. You know, I sometimes almost feel a little sorry for the guy. Not really, but it has crossed my mind. I mean, he's too stupid to know when and how to lie. He seems bent on destroying Republicans while subconsciously destroying his own party. I suppose I should thank him for that.
Anyway, if you're enjoying your retirement, lounging by the golf course, reminiscing about your hard work in your youth, well... say goodbye to the golf course, at least. Because the government just might (which is news-speak for "they will") tax your dividends as income to pay for their ever-expanding budget.
You know, if I was a Democrat, I would have so much fun in the focus groups I'm sure they have. I can think of tons of ways to suck your hard-earned money right out of your pockets. How about taxing you for anything your minor children earn, and taxing them, too? Bonus! How about taxing them for the five bucks they made mowing the lawn? Basically, anything is taxable. So watch out.
I'm so sick of hearing this "Obama had this dumped on him, he inherited it" crap. Well, sucks to be him! He shouldn't have run for President, then. The per-year rate at which he's piling on the debt is already more than double Bush's, and he's been in office less than two years! (Heaven forbid he get re-elected.) You think he's going to stop? Between blaming Bush and becoming the savior of terrorists everywhere, I doubt he has time to rethink his economic policies. He'd have to figure out how to think first, anyway.
It's times like this when I'm almost tempted to believe in evolution. Some people really seem to have the minds of apes.
Speaking of that, I wrote a myth for English, "The Origin of the Origin of Species." It's about how the theories of evolution and overpopulation were born. I'll leave it at that, and you can finish the myth yourselves. It's great because my teacher is a big lib (who I'm sure considers himself some kind of independent, "new" liberal), but also a great teacher, so I'm hoping he got a kick out of it. I almost wrote it on the origin of the liberal, but thought that to be a bit much. :D
On taxing dividends: there's apparently constitutionally not even supposed to be an income tax, an argument I'll be researching extensively (when I find time).
So. In summary, the apes in Washington are trying to screw us without officially proclaiming it. Honestly? The Democratic Party has been around how long? We know the drill.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Gotta Love It (Since Hate Is Illegal)
You gotta love the hypocrisy of liberals. With them, inconsistency is the one thing you can rely on.
They spend how many hundreds of billions of dollars on stimulus, and then they worry about whether or not we can "afford" tax cuts for the rich. Priceless.
They are extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class, however, which is a good thing. If that's the only option, as John Boehner said, we'll take what we can get.
I guess that's what you have to do when Obama's in the White House and Dems dominate Congress.
Read between the lines.
We'll take what we can get, and then we'll take the midterms.
They spend how many hundreds of billions of dollars on stimulus, and then they worry about whether or not we can "afford" tax cuts for the rich. Priceless.
They are extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class, however, which is a good thing. If that's the only option, as John Boehner said, we'll take what we can get.
I guess that's what you have to do when Obama's in the White House and Dems dominate Congress.
Read between the lines.
We'll take what we can get, and then we'll take the midterms.
Of Mosques and Men
No one is denying the Muslims the constitutional right to build the mosque. We're just asking for sensitivity on the issue of the site of the building.
If this really weren't a political stunt, Muslims would have no problem moving the mosque, would they? It would be of no consequence where the mosque was, and out of empathy and sensitivity for fellow Americans, they would move the mosque. They would quietly agree with the American people. This would not be an issue. And yet.
Were this not a political stunt, it would have no place in politics at all.
And yet.
My English teacher this year is a hardcore liberal, as I believe I've mentioned before. And he was trying to get us to think outside the box. (Little Red Riding Hood is the story of a transvestite pedophile.) He asked how we'd like to know that 9/11 was a conspiracy by our own government.
Earlier he had told us not to hate Muslims and gays. Of course, hate means anything that would remotely offend anyone in any way, shape, or form. So "discriminating" and "profiling" would fall under that category, right next to "suspicion" and "wariness". So in that sense I hate Muslims. Anyway, he tells us not to "hate" Muslims, and yet we can be as quick as--quicker than--we want in "hating" our government and assuming they were behind the 9/11 attacks. This is the logic of the liberal. You can't win, or they'll call you a name and point to your argument as evidence for theirs. You can't catch them in their own lies, because they'll just deny it with such convincing zeal that everyone will think you're crazy "which they will staunchly affirm).
The only solution is duct tape.
If this mosque is built (the "if" is just meant for grammar, not as a description of reality), al Quaeda will see it and remember that Obama is President and they can do whatever they want. At least, I'm sure they have the constitutional right, from the living (dying) constitution, to do so.
But that doesn't mean they should.
If this really weren't a political stunt, Muslims would have no problem moving the mosque, would they? It would be of no consequence where the mosque was, and out of empathy and sensitivity for fellow Americans, they would move the mosque. They would quietly agree with the American people. This would not be an issue. And yet.
Were this not a political stunt, it would have no place in politics at all.
And yet.
My English teacher this year is a hardcore liberal, as I believe I've mentioned before. And he was trying to get us to think outside the box. (Little Red Riding Hood is the story of a transvestite pedophile.) He asked how we'd like to know that 9/11 was a conspiracy by our own government.
Earlier he had told us not to hate Muslims and gays. Of course, hate means anything that would remotely offend anyone in any way, shape, or form. So "discriminating" and "profiling" would fall under that category, right next to "suspicion" and "wariness". So in that sense I hate Muslims. Anyway, he tells us not to "hate" Muslims, and yet we can be as quick as--quicker than--we want in "hating" our government and assuming they were behind the 9/11 attacks. This is the logic of the liberal. You can't win, or they'll call you a name and point to your argument as evidence for theirs. You can't catch them in their own lies, because they'll just deny it with such convincing zeal that everyone will think you're crazy "which they will staunchly affirm).
The only solution is duct tape.
If this mosque is built (the "if" is just meant for grammar, not as a description of reality), al Quaeda will see it and remember that Obama is President and they can do whatever they want. At least, I'm sure they have the constitutional right, from the living (dying) constitution, to do so.
But that doesn't mean they should.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Never Forget. Ever.
Yesterday night I was watching a documentary on Fox News about 9/11. I watched a cloud of dust engulf the space where the towers used to be. I saw people screaming, crying, running, dying. And I thought, there is no freaking way that the people who did this to MY COUNTRY are going to build their mosque anywhere near there. No way. I would march down there myself and... I don't know, do something, if my parents would let me. :/
Pastor Jones, who I've been hearing a bit about, the one who was/is going to burn Korans today? While I question the truth of his statement that the imam was going to move the mosque if Jones didn't burn the Koran, what happened on msnbc yesterday morning was simply unbelievable.
On Morning Joe, they called the guy in just to lecture him and implore him not to burn the Koran, and then they cut him off. He said nothing. They wouldn't let him. The last thing they said on the matter was, "And I think that's all we need to hear about that." Yeah, all we need to hear and then some. Since when is it the job of a news organization to lecture someone on morals and not give them a chance for rebuttal, as if this is the absolute truth and you are totally in the wrong? Since when does an interview consist of a lecture and then, oops, something appears to have interfered with our connection. Yeah, something interfered. It's called B.S.
How does this sound? Muslims have the constitutional right to build a mosque near Ground Zero, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. However, if your Saturday plans are burning the Koran, SCREW YOU, YOU DISCRIMINATING BIGOT! TAKE YOUR HATE SOMEWHERE ELSE!
How about, Screw you, you insensitive political stunt man! Take your anti-American sentiment somewhere else!
Another thing. Notice Obama "vs." terrorists and Bush vs. terrorists. Obama: "Don't be mean. Don't discriminate. They have a constitutional right to kill Americans... oh, wait. That's a different issue. I think my cue cards are out of order. Anyway! we need to be nice so they'll be nice, too."
Bush: "HUNT THEM DOWN."
Whatever else he may be, whatever else he has or hasn't done, Bush got it right on a couple things. Abortion, for one. And keeping America safe. Which is his job. His job isn't to keep Muslims safe. That's not in the Presidential Oath of Office. Bush seemed to grasp that. Obama, not so much. Although, we should cut him some slack since he's not familiar with the customs of this country.
Speaking of the country, I have U.S. History this year, and I am LOVING it. We're starting with the end of the Civil War/Reconstruction. It's awesome. But the theme kind of seems to be "Oh, the poor South. They lost the war and now their land is ravaged, their women are widowed, and their children are orphaned. And here come the big bad Radical Republicans, who want them to--gasp!--take an oath of loyalty to the Union! The horror! The humiliation! They want civil rights guaranteed! They want the South under military watch! They won't let former Confederate officers run for office! What did the South do to deserve this?????
I assume this was an act of racism by Republicans against whites. Or, hey, blacks. It's all the same. Whatever.
Screw the South! If they didn't want it to happen, why'd they start the war?
While we're on the subject of school, my science book is written like some liberal's diary. It tells me to open my mind and heart. It says that overpopulation is a serious problem that worsens almost every problems faced by humans today. The last part of the first chapter tells me to advance into the cosmos because "we live in an exciting time!"
It's like the self-help book for today's troubled liberal. Which I don't need because I'm not troubled or liberal. (It's pretty hard to be one without the other.)
While we're talking about troubledness, transexuals are actually at odds with the liberal worldview. If we're supposed to accept people "for who they are," well, why don't they have to accept THEMSELVES for who they are? How come they get to change?
I suppose it's wrong to judge their "lifestyle choices." Fine. I just hope you don't judge my "lifestyle choice" to start tee-peeing liberals' houses.
Why must they screw our country? What do they have against it?
Shrug. What does it matter? Smart people (I hope I don't have to specify the party) are going to DOMINATE the elections in a couple months. And then Obama won't be able to pass bills like he does, and even if they do go through (which they won't unless we elect RINOs [like in Michigan's gubernatorial race]), it'll take longer because Republicans, even, most RINOs, have this thing about READING bills before they pass them.
Anyway, American or liberal, we all have a job to do. For liberals, it's to balance out the awesomeness of using your brain. But until we have enough brains for everyone (and not by redistributing them), we'll have to do our best to keep our country safe. Which means no more 9/11. Or tolerance thereof. (That's me, the mean Republican who doesn't like people blowing up my country.) 9/11 must be remembered, not repeated.
You see, I don't remember 9/11 very well. I was, like, five. But even though I don't really remember it, I will never, ever forget.
Pastor Jones, who I've been hearing a bit about, the one who was/is going to burn Korans today? While I question the truth of his statement that the imam was going to move the mosque if Jones didn't burn the Koran, what happened on msnbc yesterday morning was simply unbelievable.
On Morning Joe, they called the guy in just to lecture him and implore him not to burn the Koran, and then they cut him off. He said nothing. They wouldn't let him. The last thing they said on the matter was, "And I think that's all we need to hear about that." Yeah, all we need to hear and then some. Since when is it the job of a news organization to lecture someone on morals and not give them a chance for rebuttal, as if this is the absolute truth and you are totally in the wrong? Since when does an interview consist of a lecture and then, oops, something appears to have interfered with our connection. Yeah, something interfered. It's called B.S.
How does this sound? Muslims have the constitutional right to build a mosque near Ground Zero, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. However, if your Saturday plans are burning the Koran, SCREW YOU, YOU DISCRIMINATING BIGOT! TAKE YOUR HATE SOMEWHERE ELSE!
How about, Screw you, you insensitive political stunt man! Take your anti-American sentiment somewhere else!
Another thing. Notice Obama "vs." terrorists and Bush vs. terrorists. Obama: "Don't be mean. Don't discriminate. They have a constitutional right to kill Americans... oh, wait. That's a different issue. I think my cue cards are out of order. Anyway! we need to be nice so they'll be nice, too."
Bush: "HUNT THEM DOWN."
Whatever else he may be, whatever else he has or hasn't done, Bush got it right on a couple things. Abortion, for one. And keeping America safe. Which is his job. His job isn't to keep Muslims safe. That's not in the Presidential Oath of Office. Bush seemed to grasp that. Obama, not so much. Although, we should cut him some slack since he's not familiar with the customs of this country.
Speaking of the country, I have U.S. History this year, and I am LOVING it. We're starting with the end of the Civil War/Reconstruction. It's awesome. But the theme kind of seems to be "Oh, the poor South. They lost the war and now their land is ravaged, their women are widowed, and their children are orphaned. And here come the big bad Radical Republicans, who want them to--gasp!--take an oath of loyalty to the Union! The horror! The humiliation! They want civil rights guaranteed! They want the South under military watch! They won't let former Confederate officers run for office! What did the South do to deserve this?????
I assume this was an act of racism by Republicans against whites. Or, hey, blacks. It's all the same. Whatever.
Screw the South! If they didn't want it to happen, why'd they start the war?
While we're on the subject of school, my science book is written like some liberal's diary. It tells me to open my mind and heart. It says that overpopulation is a serious problem that worsens almost every problems faced by humans today. The last part of the first chapter tells me to advance into the cosmos because "we live in an exciting time!"
It's like the self-help book for today's troubled liberal. Which I don't need because I'm not troubled or liberal. (It's pretty hard to be one without the other.)
While we're talking about troubledness, transexuals are actually at odds with the liberal worldview. If we're supposed to accept people "for who they are," well, why don't they have to accept THEMSELVES for who they are? How come they get to change?
I suppose it's wrong to judge their "lifestyle choices." Fine. I just hope you don't judge my "lifestyle choice" to start tee-peeing liberals' houses.
Why must they screw our country? What do they have against it?
Shrug. What does it matter? Smart people (I hope I don't have to specify the party) are going to DOMINATE the elections in a couple months. And then Obama won't be able to pass bills like he does, and even if they do go through (which they won't unless we elect RINOs [like in Michigan's gubernatorial race]), it'll take longer because Republicans, even, most RINOs, have this thing about READING bills before they pass them.
Anyway, American or liberal, we all have a job to do. For liberals, it's to balance out the awesomeness of using your brain. But until we have enough brains for everyone (and not by redistributing them), we'll have to do our best to keep our country safe. Which means no more 9/11. Or tolerance thereof. (That's me, the mean Republican who doesn't like people blowing up my country.) 9/11 must be remembered, not repeated.
You see, I don't remember 9/11 very well. I was, like, five. But even though I don't really remember it, I will never, ever forget.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
God--And I Do Mean God--Bless America
A high school student in Colorado was told that he had to take down two U.S. flags flying from the bed of his pickup truck because they might make other students uncomfortable.
I'd like to ask the security official to please remove the "F America" sticker from her forehead because that makes some people uncomfortable.
The security official reportedly told the student that the school promoted diversity. ("America doesn't have a national language or a national religion, so why have a national nationality?!?!?")
Yes. We all know that the word American, and the American flag, is offensive to some Americans.
... ... ...Wait, what?
The only "Americans" that the American flag offends are idiot liberals and terrorists. These people aren't really American anyway. Soon we won't be able to eat meat because it offends vegetarians, we won't be able to use guns because... never mind, that's already in the works. We won't be able to use paper or live in houses because that offends trees and their human spouses. We won't be able to go to church because... Oh. Again, that's already in the works. Ah, the things we do for the sake of political correctness. Aren't we just adorable?
Speaking of "Americans," Republicans are leading the Democrats in the polls by ten percent, the largest gap in almost seventy years. Bam.
However, Republicans need to pull themselves together. Literally. There are the Tea Partiers, the GOP, the Constitutional Conservatives... I happen to agree with a lot of these branches, but I think that all of the... denominations of Republicans need to unite. That's how we get the votes. A great guy with great values running with a label nobody's heard of is just going to dilute the votes.
Another thing: we need to stop running moderates. All they do is slowly compromise anything they've said they believe in (which is little in the first place). RINOs need to get out. You can't be a cafeteria conservative. Either choose or join the Dark Side. May the Force be with you.
Republicans need to change the face of their party into a strong face that people can trust. Because being better than Democrats is not going to help America or keep them in power. Saddam Hussein was "better than" the devil. That doesn't make him good. Republicans can't be better. We have to be the best.
And we can, if we vote smart, don't kill babies, and work hard to make the world a better place (through strength, not taking military funds to save the llama tree or something).
So fly your flags! Unite! Vote!
And most importantly, think.
And Democrats, as for you guys... just, um... keep doing what you do. It gets us elected so we can undo it.
We'll put those crosses back up in Utah. We'll remove the terrorists from the White House and from your backyards and courtrooms. We'll save babies (and really save them, as in save their lives, not put them on welfare). We'll pray, to God, for America (three birds with one stone). We'll establish a state language. Oh, oh, we'll get borders. Those would be nice. And freedom, with no extra charge! We'll give people's money back... Oh, the things we'll do, the places we'll go, the people we'll see. I love America. We need to elect officials who do, too.
God (not Allah) bless America.
I'd like to ask the security official to please remove the "F America" sticker from her forehead because that makes some people uncomfortable.
The security official reportedly told the student that the school promoted diversity. ("America doesn't have a national language or a national religion, so why have a national nationality?!?!?")
Yes. We all know that the word American, and the American flag, is offensive to some Americans.
... ... ...Wait, what?
The only "Americans" that the American flag offends are idiot liberals and terrorists. These people aren't really American anyway. Soon we won't be able to eat meat because it offends vegetarians, we won't be able to use guns because... never mind, that's already in the works. We won't be able to use paper or live in houses because that offends trees and their human spouses. We won't be able to go to church because... Oh. Again, that's already in the works. Ah, the things we do for the sake of political correctness. Aren't we just adorable?
Speaking of "Americans," Republicans are leading the Democrats in the polls by ten percent, the largest gap in almost seventy years. Bam.
However, Republicans need to pull themselves together. Literally. There are the Tea Partiers, the GOP, the Constitutional Conservatives... I happen to agree with a lot of these branches, but I think that all of the... denominations of Republicans need to unite. That's how we get the votes. A great guy with great values running with a label nobody's heard of is just going to dilute the votes.
Another thing: we need to stop running moderates. All they do is slowly compromise anything they've said they believe in (which is little in the first place). RINOs need to get out. You can't be a cafeteria conservative. Either choose or join the Dark Side. May the Force be with you.
Republicans need to change the face of their party into a strong face that people can trust. Because being better than Democrats is not going to help America or keep them in power. Saddam Hussein was "better than" the devil. That doesn't make him good. Republicans can't be better. We have to be the best.
And we can, if we vote smart, don't kill babies, and work hard to make the world a better place (through strength, not taking military funds to save the llama tree or something).
So fly your flags! Unite! Vote!
And most importantly, think.
And Democrats, as for you guys... just, um... keep doing what you do. It gets us elected so we can undo it.
We'll put those crosses back up in Utah. We'll remove the terrorists from the White House and from your backyards and courtrooms. We'll save babies (and really save them, as in save their lives, not put them on welfare). We'll pray, to God, for America (three birds with one stone). We'll establish a state language. Oh, oh, we'll get borders. Those would be nice. And freedom, with no extra charge! We'll give people's money back... Oh, the things we'll do, the places we'll go, the people we'll see. I love America. We need to elect officials who do, too.
God (not Allah) bless America.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Unprecedented
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010/09/feds-sue-arizona-sheriff-in-civil-rights-probe.html (It won't come up as a link, so just copy and paste this if you want to read the whole article. Sorry.)
So let's say you're a sheriff in Arizona who's trying to do his job and keep illegals out.
Who's more likely to immigrate from MEXICO, Mexicans or someone else? I'm thinking Mexicans, and that is also what Sheriff Arpaio thought.
Logic is discrimination, just as dissent is discrimination. Heck, purple kitties are probably discrimination.
Anyway, Arpaio says he won't turn over records in this "civil rights" case because the feds haven't stated what they're looking for. (Although, since we're talking the Obama administration here, it's obvious what they're looking for: a reason to be over-PC.)
Not to mention the fact that, you know, they're completely out of line. If they find out some of the Mexicans Arpaio was "discriminating" against were Muslims, he can kiss his behind goodbye.
Best yet, they've called his actions "unprecedented." Has the federal government ever sued a state before? Have they ever sued a sheriff before? No.
This is what is known as "unprecedented."
So let's say you're a sheriff in Arizona who's trying to do his job and keep illegals out.
Who's more likely to immigrate from MEXICO, Mexicans or someone else? I'm thinking Mexicans, and that is also what Sheriff Arpaio thought.
Logic is discrimination, just as dissent is discrimination. Heck, purple kitties are probably discrimination.
Anyway, Arpaio says he won't turn over records in this "civil rights" case because the feds haven't stated what they're looking for. (Although, since we're talking the Obama administration here, it's obvious what they're looking for: a reason to be over-PC.)
Not to mention the fact that, you know, they're completely out of line. If they find out some of the Mexicans Arpaio was "discriminating" against were Muslims, he can kiss his behind goodbye.
Best yet, they've called his actions "unprecedented." Has the federal government ever sued a state before? Have they ever sued a sheriff before? No.
This is what is known as "unprecedented."
Resting in Pieces vs. Living In Peace
Almost sixty percent of Americans (which is really 100% of Americans) believe the Iraq War was the right thing to do.
I'd rather live in a strong peace than die in a weak one. There's not even a contest there. Peace comes through strength. The only peace the weak get is that which they rest in.
I have a question to ask the 35% of "Americans" who believe it was wrong: if war is not the answer, what is? Do we just hide in bomb shelters until we've lost everything and pieces of the American dream are scattered across the bomb-scarred plain, until even the cockroaches are gone?
Or do we get off our lazy, illogical, scared, weak, weenie butts and do something?
According to 58% of Americans, that is indeed what we do.
I'd rather live in a strong peace than die in a weak one. There's not even a contest there. Peace comes through strength. The only peace the weak get is that which they rest in.
I have a question to ask the 35% of "Americans" who believe it was wrong: if war is not the answer, what is? Do we just hide in bomb shelters until we've lost everything and pieces of the American dream are scattered across the bomb-scarred plain, until even the cockroaches are gone?
Or do we get off our lazy, illogical, scared, weak, weenie butts and do something?
According to 58% of Americans, that is indeed what we do.
A Field In Pennsylvania
"Guess what?"
"The jobless numbers are climbing, even though we're 'recovering' and the stimulus is 'working.'"
"Yeah, but I bet you didn't know that--"
"Republicans want Obama to 'change' like he was supposed to by doing something that actually HELPS the economy."
"Oh. Okay, so you do know. Well, you'll never guess what Obama said in reply."
"'We're heading in the right direction'?"
"Wow. I guess this is getting pretty predictable. But I bet you don't know what the Democrats want to do in order to KEEP heading in the right direction."
"Push through another hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars-worth of stimulus?"
"Okay, never mind."
In other news, the Ground Zero mosque and a terrorist organization are in the same funding pool. A key investor in the mosque also happened to be a key investor in Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, or HLF, which is a terror organization that supported the terrorist group Hamas.
Of course, the "investor," Hisham Elzanaty, thought he was donating to an orphanage when he donated to HLF. Well, he is helping create orphans...
And now he's, of course, funding the mosque (not to be confused with the terrorist organization he funded previously). What's wrong with the mosque? We've been over this. It's an issue of national security. A bunch of Muslims go in to "pray," meet, walk two blocks, and bomb whatever we put in place of the World Trade Center (in case they don't already own it anyway). Another issue is: Osama bin Ladin's out there, he looks and says, "Hey, look. That Obama idiot, bless his heart, is a Muslim-friendly, clueless dirtbag. Bombs away! Heck, I might even get a medal, or, hey, a Nobel Peace Prize for this attack." It's an issue of national dignity as well.
And finally, it's an issue of sensitivity. Americans, like the brave souls who saved the White House and crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, are the ones who deserve anything here, like respect. We can respect Muslims and Muslim Americans, too, but Americans should care for Americans first. Terrorists aren't even a close second. If Muslims really were peaceful and respected America, they'd move their "cultural center" a few blocks. But they won't, because this is them pushing the envelope a little bit farther (because, you know, they didn't push it enough on 9/11). If we let them have this, they'll take anything. If we let them have this mosque at Ground Zero, they'll soon take Ground Zero itself. And maybe the Pentagon.
And maybe a field in Pennsylvania.
"The jobless numbers are climbing, even though we're 'recovering' and the stimulus is 'working.'"
"Yeah, but I bet you didn't know that--"
"Republicans want Obama to 'change' like he was supposed to by doing something that actually HELPS the economy."
"Oh. Okay, so you do know. Well, you'll never guess what Obama said in reply."
"'We're heading in the right direction'?"
"Wow. I guess this is getting pretty predictable. But I bet you don't know what the Democrats want to do in order to KEEP heading in the right direction."
"Push through another hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars-worth of stimulus?"
"Okay, never mind."
In other news, the Ground Zero mosque and a terrorist organization are in the same funding pool. A key investor in the mosque also happened to be a key investor in Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, or HLF, which is a terror organization that supported the terrorist group Hamas.
Of course, the "investor," Hisham Elzanaty, thought he was donating to an orphanage when he donated to HLF. Well, he is helping create orphans...
And now he's, of course, funding the mosque (not to be confused with the terrorist organization he funded previously). What's wrong with the mosque? We've been over this. It's an issue of national security. A bunch of Muslims go in to "pray," meet, walk two blocks, and bomb whatever we put in place of the World Trade Center (in case they don't already own it anyway). Another issue is: Osama bin Ladin's out there, he looks and says, "Hey, look. That Obama idiot, bless his heart, is a Muslim-friendly, clueless dirtbag. Bombs away! Heck, I might even get a medal, or, hey, a Nobel Peace Prize for this attack." It's an issue of national dignity as well.
And finally, it's an issue of sensitivity. Americans, like the brave souls who saved the White House and crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, are the ones who deserve anything here, like respect. We can respect Muslims and Muslim Americans, too, but Americans should care for Americans first. Terrorists aren't even a close second. If Muslims really were peaceful and respected America, they'd move their "cultural center" a few blocks. But they won't, because this is them pushing the envelope a little bit farther (because, you know, they didn't push it enough on 9/11). If we let them have this, they'll take anything. If we let them have this mosque at Ground Zero, they'll soon take Ground Zero itself. And maybe the Pentagon.
And maybe a field in Pennsylvania.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Electronics
A new Obama administration rule requires that medical records be digitalized. Those who don't make the switch by 2015 (when, God willing, someone else will be President), of course, must pay a penalty. You don't comply with socialism, you pay a penalty so the government can use more of your money for more socialism. It's a great gig they've got going.
Of course, many small rural hospitals or small community hospitals can't pay for either the transition to electronic records or the fine for not transitioning to electronic records. So they're pretty much screwed, I guess.
Not to mention the fact that people's personal information is at stake. First of all, hackers, et cetera can steal their Social Security numbers. Second of all, I'm sure that if the government wanted a peek at your personal information, all conveniently digitalized, they could get it. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. Maybe not.
I bet that soon, everything that used to have to be on paper will be digitalized. Take the Constitution, for example. All you'd have to do to change it would be to open a Word document and edit it.
And Obama could easily make a fake birth certificate if it was electronic. Just type out the words, "I was born," and make everyone else make the switch to digital birth certificate. No one would be the wiser!
How about all money has to be electronic, too? The government would be able to get their hands on it a lot more easily if it was electronic, because they could just take it right out of your bank account. No more tax forms, the government just takes the money and you don't have to worry about a thing.
Oh, the possibilities for electronics. It makes sense. I mean, the current administration can't even give a speech without them.
;)
Of course, many small rural hospitals or small community hospitals can't pay for either the transition to electronic records or the fine for not transitioning to electronic records. So they're pretty much screwed, I guess.
Not to mention the fact that people's personal information is at stake. First of all, hackers, et cetera can steal their Social Security numbers. Second of all, I'm sure that if the government wanted a peek at your personal information, all conveniently digitalized, they could get it. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. Maybe not.
I bet that soon, everything that used to have to be on paper will be digitalized. Take the Constitution, for example. All you'd have to do to change it would be to open a Word document and edit it.
And Obama could easily make a fake birth certificate if it was electronic. Just type out the words, "I was born," and make everyone else make the switch to digital birth certificate. No one would be the wiser!
How about all money has to be electronic, too? The government would be able to get their hands on it a lot more easily if it was electronic, because they could just take it right out of your bank account. No more tax forms, the government just takes the money and you don't have to worry about a thing.
Oh, the possibilities for electronics. It makes sense. I mean, the current administration can't even give a speech without them.
;)
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Does America Have A PROBLEM With Islam? 0_0
Bobby Gosh asks in in a Time magazine article: Does America have a problem with Islam?
Does Islam have a problem with America?
This is like the liberals who ask, "[Why] do the terrorists hate us?"
Yes. The terrorists do hate us, as evidenced by the fact that they take sick pleasure in blowing us to pieces and knocking down our skyscrapers.
Why do they hate us, you ask?
Well, it's partly (though not completely) because of their religion. Don't try to tell me it's not, because first of all, liberals act like they have no IDEA why the terrorists hate us, but they seem to know with ABSOLUTE certainty that it is NOT because of their religion. "Islam is a religion of peace," they claim, and therefore it is completely illogical that Islam is a reason for terrorism.
Islam is a root of terrorism. Why else would they shout, "For Allah!" as they murder thousands of innocent Americans? Why are almost all terrorists Muslims? It's not a coincidence.
The other reason the terrorists hate us is because we are America. We do not approve of stoning adulterers or restricting women's rights. We especially do not approve of bombing anyone we don't like for no good reason.
We are freedom-loving, capitalist, creative, innovative, successful patriots. Liberals, please, don't take offense. I didn't mean you.
And finally, terrorists don't like us because they're psychotic maniacs.
But back to the matter at hand: America's "Islamohpobia." This is the worst fake disease/deficiency ever invented. Even worse than ADHD, ADD, and ODD. This goes beyond making parents who can't discipline their children feel GOOD.
This makes people who can't love America (liberals [and] terrorists) feel RIGHT. It's much worse.
I ask again: Does America have a... a PROBLEM with Islam? Yes and no. America doesn't hate the MAJORITY of Muslims, those who claim they don't practice the extreme interpretations. But we do hate those who, you know... hide a bomb in their pants as a Christmas present, fly planes into buildings, go on shooting sprees, and in general wreak havoc, destruction, death, and mayhem wherever they go, all in the name of Allah.
Yes. I think we have a problem with those people.
I feel bad for average, everyday, non-psycho Muslims. But if they want to live in America, they have to understand that we need to do everything we can to keep it safe, and all the terrorist attacks for many years have been committed by Muslims. If they really are patriotic, as they claim they are... they should have no problem with keeping their country safe.
But really. What kind of questions are we asking? What we really need to know is, does Islam have a problem with America?
Because if it doesn't somebody's got a heck of a lot of explaining to do.
Does Islam have a problem with America?
This is like the liberals who ask, "[Why] do the terrorists hate us?"
Yes. The terrorists do hate us, as evidenced by the fact that they take sick pleasure in blowing us to pieces and knocking down our skyscrapers.
Why do they hate us, you ask?
Well, it's partly (though not completely) because of their religion. Don't try to tell me it's not, because first of all, liberals act like they have no IDEA why the terrorists hate us, but they seem to know with ABSOLUTE certainty that it is NOT because of their religion. "Islam is a religion of peace," they claim, and therefore it is completely illogical that Islam is a reason for terrorism.
Islam is a root of terrorism. Why else would they shout, "For Allah!" as they murder thousands of innocent Americans? Why are almost all terrorists Muslims? It's not a coincidence.
The other reason the terrorists hate us is because we are America. We do not approve of stoning adulterers or restricting women's rights. We especially do not approve of bombing anyone we don't like for no good reason.
We are freedom-loving, capitalist, creative, innovative, successful patriots. Liberals, please, don't take offense. I didn't mean you.
And finally, terrorists don't like us because they're psychotic maniacs.
But back to the matter at hand: America's "Islamohpobia." This is the worst fake disease/deficiency ever invented. Even worse than ADHD, ADD, and ODD. This goes beyond making parents who can't discipline their children feel GOOD.
This makes people who can't love America (liberals [and] terrorists) feel RIGHT. It's much worse.
I ask again: Does America have a... a PROBLEM with Islam? Yes and no. America doesn't hate the MAJORITY of Muslims, those who claim they don't practice the extreme interpretations. But we do hate those who, you know... hide a bomb in their pants as a Christmas present, fly planes into buildings, go on shooting sprees, and in general wreak havoc, destruction, death, and mayhem wherever they go, all in the name of Allah.
Yes. I think we have a problem with those people.
I feel bad for average, everyday, non-psycho Muslims. But if they want to live in America, they have to understand that we need to do everything we can to keep it safe, and all the terrorist attacks for many years have been committed by Muslims. If they really are patriotic, as they claim they are... they should have no problem with keeping their country safe.
But really. What kind of questions are we asking? What we really need to know is, does Islam have a problem with America?
Because if it doesn't somebody's got a heck of a lot of explaining to do.
Monday, August 30, 2010
FOR ALLAH!!!!!!!!!!
Huh? Oh, yeah. The title. Well, Obama said we should put on a full-scale attack, so the title refers to what most terrorists yell as they attack.
Speaking of that, Obama HAS to be a Muslim. All terrorists are. Who cares what the mainstream media says? According to them, there's no such thing as a terrorist anyway (unless the terrorist is a racist, bigoted Republican).
Anyway, Obama has called for a "full-scale attack" to rejuvenate the economy. You mean, the Wall Street takeover and the stimulus weren't full-scale attacks? Well, I'd hate to see a real one, then. Looks like I don't have a choice though. Obama said his administration is "hard at work" trying to find new ways to promote economic recovery. New ways, huh? What, they're going to ambush the economy from behind instead of full-on collision?
And of course, he's trying to guilt Republicans into letting the bill pass. What happened to new ways? Looks like same old same old around here.
This isn't recovery. This is putting the brakes on as you go over a cliff. Yeah, you slow down, maybe even turn around as you skid around, but sooner or later you're going to take the plunge. If only you hadn't put on the brakes, you might have landed in the lake a little ways out from the bottom. But now you're heading, fast, for the rocks.
And brakes don't work in free-fall.
For the last time (not really; I know I'll say this again), the free market needs to be free in order to be the free market, function as the free market, and prosper as the free market. Hence the title and the words "free" market.
But of course, there are no such things as words to liberals, number one because half of them only know gibberish, indefensible statements, and ridiculous accusations, and number two, because those of them that speak English (and no, Ape doesn't count) have rewritten it anyway.
Racist=Republican
Lie=anything Republicans say
Choice=baby-killing
Civil unions=gay marriage
Partisan=Republican
Bigot=Republican
Idiot=Republican
And many more I'm sure you're familiar with, including my favorite:
Christian=Muslim.
Speaking of that, Obama HAS to be a Muslim. All terrorists are. Who cares what the mainstream media says? According to them, there's no such thing as a terrorist anyway (unless the terrorist is a racist, bigoted Republican).
Anyway, Obama has called for a "full-scale attack" to rejuvenate the economy. You mean, the Wall Street takeover and the stimulus weren't full-scale attacks? Well, I'd hate to see a real one, then. Looks like I don't have a choice though. Obama said his administration is "hard at work" trying to find new ways to promote economic recovery. New ways, huh? What, they're going to ambush the economy from behind instead of full-on collision?
And of course, he's trying to guilt Republicans into letting the bill pass. What happened to new ways? Looks like same old same old around here.
This isn't recovery. This is putting the brakes on as you go over a cliff. Yeah, you slow down, maybe even turn around as you skid around, but sooner or later you're going to take the plunge. If only you hadn't put on the brakes, you might have landed in the lake a little ways out from the bottom. But now you're heading, fast, for the rocks.
And brakes don't work in free-fall.
For the last time (not really; I know I'll say this again), the free market needs to be free in order to be the free market, function as the free market, and prosper as the free market. Hence the title and the words "free" market.
But of course, there are no such things as words to liberals, number one because half of them only know gibberish, indefensible statements, and ridiculous accusations, and number two, because those of them that speak English (and no, Ape doesn't count) have rewritten it anyway.
Racist=Republican
Lie=anything Republicans say
Choice=baby-killing
Civil unions=gay marriage
Partisan=Republican
Bigot=Republican
Idiot=Republican
And many more I'm sure you're familiar with, including my favorite:
Christian=Muslim.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Where Are We?
Where are we?
Some might say America. However, as we've learned, that is sadly not the case.
Some might say in the middle of a recession, under the reign of a tyrannic dude in the White House. (He has lost the right to be called President.)
Those people would be right, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Catholics! Where are we? Where's our sense of pride in our faith, where are our morals? Why are we letting B. Hussein speak at our universities, giving honor to a politician who vehemently opposes the notion of the sanctity of life.
What is a Catholic, anyway? We don't live like we should (and I'm not saying I'm a model Catholic). We don't stand up for our beliefs, largely because many of us don't have them. Our church was founded by Jesus Christ! We're powerful! And we need to stand up with that power. We need to protect our brothers and sisters who are slaughtered every day. And we cannot support or endorse someone who supports and endorses this slaughter.
So stand up! Jesus founded this Church, not to let us sit around in pews for an hour a week, but to come closer to Him and to bring the rest of the world closer to Him and the truth. The rest of the world includes unborn children, each with a soul and a story.
So, I ask you, Catholics, one more time:
Where are we?????
Some might say America. However, as we've learned, that is sadly not the case.
Some might say in the middle of a recession, under the reign of a tyrannic dude in the White House. (He has lost the right to be called President.)
Those people would be right, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Catholics! Where are we? Where's our sense of pride in our faith, where are our morals? Why are we letting B. Hussein speak at our universities, giving honor to a politician who vehemently opposes the notion of the sanctity of life.
What is a Catholic, anyway? We don't live like we should (and I'm not saying I'm a model Catholic). We don't stand up for our beliefs, largely because many of us don't have them. Our church was founded by Jesus Christ! We're powerful! And we need to stand up with that power. We need to protect our brothers and sisters who are slaughtered every day. And we cannot support or endorse someone who supports and endorses this slaughter.
So stand up! Jesus founded this Church, not to let us sit around in pews for an hour a week, but to come closer to Him and to bring the rest of the world closer to Him and the truth. The rest of the world includes unborn children, each with a soul and a story.
So, I ask you, Catholics, one more time:
Where are we?????
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Silly Democrats, tricks are for... oh, never mind. You trick people all the time.
There's the race card trick.
There's the partisan card trick.
And apparently, they're still clinging to the Bush trick. You'd think they thought we were a BIT smarter than that. (However, seeing as how they think we're stupid enough to pull an elaborate, conspiratorial prank on, electing them is also stupid, in their eyes, because they think we're stupid.) So about the Bush trick. House Minority Leader (and hopefully Speaker of the House come November) John Boehner is proposing that Obama fire his economics team. I agree. And he can resign while he's at it.
But of course Joe Biden is saying, "So that's you're plan? Fire Obama's economics team?" I actually think it's a great plan, and would help "point this economy in the right direction." (Except, unlike previous claims that certain actions have done just that, we will see some recovery, LONG-TERM RECOVERY, from doing this and other things Boehner mentioned.)
The other things sound suspiciously like things Bush did while in office, however. But I believe that that is not viewed as a bad thing anymore.
Still, I believe that "by comparison" judgment is wrong. So Republicans better get some new ideas, too. Which I'm sure they will, since they tend to, you know, THINK.
Oh, here's one! How about Obama fires his wife? Because I'm sick of her sitting on a stage in a schmancy dress telling us what schmucks we are for being such schfat, carbon-schpewing jerks.
There's the race card trick.
There's the partisan card trick.
And apparently, they're still clinging to the Bush trick. You'd think they thought we were a BIT smarter than that. (However, seeing as how they think we're stupid enough to pull an elaborate, conspiratorial prank on, electing them is also stupid, in their eyes, because they think we're stupid.) So about the Bush trick. House Minority Leader (and hopefully Speaker of the House come November) John Boehner is proposing that Obama fire his economics team. I agree. And he can resign while he's at it.
But of course Joe Biden is saying, "So that's you're plan? Fire Obama's economics team?" I actually think it's a great plan, and would help "point this economy in the right direction." (Except, unlike previous claims that certain actions have done just that, we will see some recovery, LONG-TERM RECOVERY, from doing this and other things Boehner mentioned.)
The other things sound suspiciously like things Bush did while in office, however. But I believe that that is not viewed as a bad thing anymore.
Still, I believe that "by comparison" judgment is wrong. So Republicans better get some new ideas, too. Which I'm sure they will, since they tend to, you know, THINK.
Oh, here's one! How about Obama fires his wife? Because I'm sick of her sitting on a stage in a schmancy dress telling us what schmucks we are for being such schfat, carbon-schpewing jerks.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
In Search Of Truth
Lies, hypocrisy, where does it end? We need some good, honest, everyday hardworking people in our government. Everything is arbitrary, nothing is what it seems, but at least people flip-flop consistently. I guess it's easy to tell what party controls the government, isn't it? Read on and you'll see what I mean.
Freedom of religion apparently only applies to Muslims. Just to prevent further confusion, I think they should outlaw Christianity already and declare Islam the national religion and get it over with. Honestly.
The imam who supports both the Ground Zero mosque and the terrorist organization Hamas (not to be confused with each other) is being payed by the feds (aka by the taxpayers) to spread messages of religious freedom and Islam as the Religion of Peace throughout the world. I guess 9/11 just didn't get the job done.
I actually don't see the problem with building a Muslim place of worship near Ground Zero. I mean, Ground Zero already IS a Muslim place of worship. In fact, the ultimate act of Muslim worship was COMMITTED by Muslims when they crashed PLANES into the World Trade Center. Anyone remember that?
So yeah, we PAY a Muslim to spread "religious peace" (it wouldn't surprise me if we paid Obama to spread bull--oh, wait, we do), but in Utah, it is religious discrimination to pu crosses on the side of the road.
Well, what else would they have us put there? Maybe we could get some stimulus funds and put up some SIGNS for them.
Really? Because last time I checked, crosses on the side of the road tend to convey mourning and respect for the dead, not a demand that everyone become Christian and burn the non-believers.
Who's the "reasonable observer"? Is he an American? Does he know what crosses on the side of the road usually stand for? Does he know what the word "death" means? Or is the reasonable observer a blind man on a unicycle from the Himalayas? If so, the ruling makes perfect sense.
If people put crosses as grave markers, that doesn't mean everyone at the funeral or he city or whoever owns the cemetery "endorses Christianity."
I notice no one worries about the "reasonable observer" worrying about atheists getting preferential treatment from the UHP. We need to get that imam to Utah.
And about the trooper who died being portrayed as a Christian, well, the crosses were only erected with permission from the family. It's really none of American Atheists, Inc.'s business whether a trooper is portrayed as Christian. The families are fine with it. Oh, wait, I forgot. Liberals don't believe in families. Or troopers. Or roads. (Cars drive on them and ruin the environment. However, they also provide them with a useless venue for stimulus funds, so they're a bit torn on that issue.) They only care about doing everything they can to smear Christianity because they know they're wrong and they know they're bitter about it.
Funny thing, even though Christmas has been "widely embraced as a secular holiday," the liberals are trying to end that, too. Remember the campaign a while back to change Christmas trees to "holiday trees"? Yeah.
So the left is trying to eradicate Christianity, and why? Well, so the Muslims can take over, of course.
In fact, almost 1 in 5 Americans believe B. Hussein is Muslim. But that was the poll taken BEFORE his remarks on the Ground Zero mosque.
Time magazine conducted a survey AFTER the remarks, and 24% of the 1,002 adults surveyed think he is a Muslim.
I think he is a Muslim, a terrorist, and on top of that, here illegally. Of course, a statement from the White House testifies to B. Hussein's Christianity, saying
You can say all you want. The truth is: Anyone can fake being one thing and actually be another. (Caution: between-the-lines subtext zone.)
And of course he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve. After all, he lies about it every day. I honestly don't care what they say anymore. I've been lied to enough. I remember being a little kid and finding out that there was a debate about global warming, that it wasn't an undisputable fact. I remember finding out that cutting down trees and using electricity wasn't considered bad by everyone. I remember finding out that I couldn't trust anyone but God and I'd have to find the truth for myself. And the truth I've found is: Whatever the case, Obama is not what he seems. (Actually, he's not what he PRETENDS to be. To me, he's everything he seems. The truth is still elusive for some, though, but they'll come around.)
Speaking of B. Hussein's hypocrisy, this may interest some people.
So he's using our money to fund fundraisers for his party? And liberals get angry when corporations endorse candidates. But when the President uses taxpayer money to travel the country (not on one of his many vacations, but on a political campaigning spree), liberals have no problem with it at all. Of course not.
And they didn't respond to requests for information. So much for transparency. Where can you get a good cup of truth nowadays?
Not only is he wasting our money to raise money for candidates we won't even vote for if we've learned anything this year, but he's damaging the precious environment he holds so dear. Well, as long as it's not a CORPORATION destroying the environment, it's all good.
Not only that, but most people who pay taxes are Republicans. That's just an assumption, but my evidence is that Democrats have no qualms about raising taxes, and they support welfare, because a lot of them are on it. Republicans don't do these things because they know what it's like to work and pay taxes. But it's just a theory.
Anyway, let's just say, hypothetically, that more Republicans pay taxes than Democrats. So Republicans are fotting the bill for the Democratic president to campaign for Democrats. Hard-working people are paying for the President to campaign for people with no respect for or UNDERSTANDING of their hard work, paying for the President to campaign for his own party members, who will just take more money from them after they've paid to have the President get those people elected.
Speaking of money and working, jobless claims are at the highest they've been since November. That's the highest in almost a year. Looks like the stimulus is really working.
So if it's working so well, 1) why are there so many jobless claims, and 2) WHY does B. Hussein feel the need to pass a jobs bill? I've had about enough of his bills.
In fact, I've had about enough of everything! I need truth! I need something besides B. Hussein's monotonous rhetoric.
Of course he pulls the partisan card. Whenever he wants his way, he blames Republicans by calling them partisan. Which is actually very, very partisan. Has he ever called Democrats partisan? I sense some discrimination going on here.
The stimulus, all throughout the healthcare debate, the Wall Street overhaul... he's called them partisan so many times that I almost wish someone would call Republicans racist, just for a change of pace.
"Um, Mr. President, your fly's down."
Obama: "You partisan bigot! This is not the time for politics! The election's over!"
Seriously, that's getting old. How about this:
"Um, Mr. President, you have a ketchup stain on your shirt."
B. Hussein: "I believe this is the time to step above the walls created by racism and embrace a new beginning for you, for me, for America. I ask only that Republicans join me in this endeavor, though I doubt they will. Still, Allah, er, I mean, God bless them and God bless America."
B. Hussein's supporters in the media and elsewhere: "Racist! We have reached a civil rights milestone, yet still there are some on the right--mainly white Christian conservative males--how will not rest until blacks and other minorities are wiped out completely. All those who disagree with the Anointed One... er... the President should have their tongues sawed off with rusty nails and should be locked up, or burned alive! We owe black people for the years of misfortune we caused them. Down with whites! Down with Republicans! What's that? Yes, I know, but no one knows about the President's white half. It's a secret!"
Yes, I yearn for good old-fashioned cries of racism. I assume they'll get tired of the partisan card after a while... Well, all except Obama, who is somewhat tone-deaf (or conniving and devious) politically.
Ooops. How rude. That was racist. Or was it partisan?
No. I've got it. It was a covert endorsement of Christianity.
Shhhhhhh.
Freedom of religion apparently only applies to Muslims. Just to prevent further confusion, I think they should outlaw Christianity already and declare Islam the national religion and get it over with. Honestly.
The imam who supports both the Ground Zero mosque and the terrorist organization Hamas (not to be confused with each other) is being payed by the feds (aka by the taxpayers) to spread messages of religious freedom and Islam as the Religion of Peace throughout the world. I guess 9/11 just didn't get the job done.
I actually don't see the problem with building a Muslim place of worship near Ground Zero. I mean, Ground Zero already IS a Muslim place of worship. In fact, the ultimate act of Muslim worship was COMMITTED by Muslims when they crashed PLANES into the World Trade Center. Anyone remember that?
So yeah, we PAY a Muslim to spread "religious peace" (it wouldn't surprise me if we paid Obama to spread bull--oh, wait, we do), but in Utah, it is religious discrimination to pu crosses on the side of the road.
Well, what else would they have us put there? Maybe we could get some stimulus funds and put up some SIGNS for them.
The 14 crosses erected along Utah roads to commemorate fallen state Highway Patrol troopers convey a state preference for Christianity and are a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.
Really? Because last time I checked, crosses on the side of the road tend to convey mourning and respect for the dead, not a demand that everyone become Christian and burn the non-believers.
A three-judge panel from Denver's 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its 38-page ruling that a "reasonable observer" would conclude that the state and the Utah Highway Patrol were endorsing Christianity with the cross memorials.
"This may lead the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP," the justices wrote.
Who's the "reasonable observer"? Is he an American? Does he know what crosses on the side of the road usually stand for? Does he know what the word "death" means? Or is the reasonable observer a blind man on a unicycle from the Himalayas? If so, the ruling makes perfect sense.
If people put crosses as grave markers, that doesn't mean everyone at the funeral or he city or whoever owns the cemetery "endorses Christianity."
American Atheists, Inc., the Texas-based group that sued to have the crosses removed from state property, argued that the crosses could imply that the trooper who died there was a Christian.
I notice no one worries about the "reasonable observer" worrying about atheists getting preferential treatment from the UHP. We need to get that imam to Utah.
And about the trooper who died being portrayed as a Christian, well, the crosses were only erected with permission from the family. It's really none of American Atheists, Inc.'s business whether a trooper is portrayed as Christian. The families are fine with it. Oh, wait, I forgot. Liberals don't believe in families. Or troopers. Or roads. (Cars drive on them and ruin the environment. However, they also provide them with a useless venue for stimulus funds, so they're a bit torn on that issue.) They only care about doing everything they can to smear Christianity because they know they're wrong and they know they're bitter about it.
"Unlike Christmas, which has been widely embraced as a secular holiday ... there is no evidence in this case that the cross has been widely embraced by non-Christians as a secular symbol of death," they said.
Funny thing, even though Christmas has been "widely embraced as a secular holiday," the liberals are trying to end that, too. Remember the campaign a while back to change Christmas trees to "holiday trees"? Yeah.
So the left is trying to eradicate Christianity, and why? Well, so the Muslims can take over, of course.
In fact, almost 1 in 5 Americans believe B. Hussein is Muslim. But that was the poll taken BEFORE his remarks on the Ground Zero mosque.
Time magazine conducted a survey AFTER the remarks, and 24% of the 1,002 adults surveyed think he is a Muslim.
I think he is a Muslim, a terrorist, and on top of that, here illegally. Of course, a statement from the White House testifies to B. Hussein's Christianity, saying
"President Obama is a committed Christian, and his faith is an important part of his daily life," the statement read. "He prays every day, he seeks a small circle of Christian pastors to give him spiritual advice and counseling, he even receives a daily devotional that he uses each morning. The president's Christian faith is a part of who he is, but not a part of what the public or the media is focused on everyday.
"The poll's findings are not surprising given the scope of the issues we are focused on -- a recovering economy, bringing troops home from Iraq, putting health care and financial reform implementation in place. The president's strong Christian faith is what guides him through these challenges but he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve."
You can say all you want. The truth is: Anyone can fake being one thing and actually be another. (Caution: between-the-lines subtext zone.)
And of course he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve. After all, he lies about it every day. I honestly don't care what they say anymore. I've been lied to enough. I remember being a little kid and finding out that there was a debate about global warming, that it wasn't an undisputable fact. I remember finding out that cutting down trees and using electricity wasn't considered bad by everyone. I remember finding out that I couldn't trust anyone but God and I'd have to find the truth for myself. And the truth I've found is: Whatever the case, Obama is not what he seems. (Actually, he's not what he PRETENDS to be. To me, he's everything he seems. The truth is still elusive for some, though, but they'll come around.)
Speaking of B. Hussein's hypocrisy, this may interest some people.
President Obama's fundraising spree across the country to help his party retain power isn't just reaping millions of dollars for Democratic candidates -- it's also said to be costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
And it's leaving a massive carbon footprint, too.
One analyst estimated Obama's five-state, three-day tour cost taxpayers about $2 million.
On top of that, the carbon footprint, or pollution generated by the travel, probably matched "something of a size-32 shoe," said Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union, a group that promotes smaller government and fewer taxes.
Obama began his cross-country dash on Monday, taking his GOP-bashing message to Wisconsin and Los Angeles. On Tuesday he went to Seattle, and on Wednesday to Miami for a total of nine fundraising events.
Taken together, it's an 8,000-mile, fossil fuel-burning odyssey that, by pairing official events each day with political ones, allows him to bill taxpayers for most of the cost of the trip -- a tradition that long predates the current president.
"Whenever a president travels, the tab can run up for taxpayers," Sepp told FoxNews.com.
The White House did not respond to an e-mail seeking information.
So he's using our money to fund fundraisers for his party? And liberals get angry when corporations endorse candidates. But when the President uses taxpayer money to travel the country (not on one of his many vacations, but on a political campaigning spree), liberals have no problem with it at all. Of course not.
And they didn't respond to requests for information. So much for transparency. Where can you get a good cup of truth nowadays?
Not only is he wasting our money to raise money for candidates we won't even vote for if we've learned anything this year, but he's damaging the precious environment he holds so dear. Well, as long as it's not a CORPORATION destroying the environment, it's all good.
Not only that, but most people who pay taxes are Republicans. That's just an assumption, but my evidence is that Democrats have no qualms about raising taxes, and they support welfare, because a lot of them are on it. Republicans don't do these things because they know what it's like to work and pay taxes. But it's just a theory.
Anyway, let's just say, hypothetically, that more Republicans pay taxes than Democrats. So Republicans are fotting the bill for the Democratic president to campaign for Democrats. Hard-working people are paying for the President to campaign for people with no respect for or UNDERSTANDING of their hard work, paying for the President to campaign for his own party members, who will just take more money from them after they've paid to have the President get those people elected.
Speaking of money and working, jobless claims are at the highest they've been since November. That's the highest in almost a year. Looks like the stimulus is really working.
So if it's working so well, 1) why are there so many jobless claims, and 2) WHY does B. Hussein feel the need to pass a jobs bill? I've had about enough of his bills.
In fact, I've had about enough of everything! I need truth! I need something besides B. Hussein's monotonous rhetoric.
Of course he pulls the partisan card. Whenever he wants his way, he blames Republicans by calling them partisan. Which is actually very, very partisan. Has he ever called Democrats partisan? I sense some discrimination going on here.
The stimulus, all throughout the healthcare debate, the Wall Street overhaul... he's called them partisan so many times that I almost wish someone would call Republicans racist, just for a change of pace.
"Um, Mr. President, your fly's down."
Obama: "You partisan bigot! This is not the time for politics! The election's over!"
Seriously, that's getting old. How about this:
"Um, Mr. President, you have a ketchup stain on your shirt."
B. Hussein: "I believe this is the time to step above the walls created by racism and embrace a new beginning for you, for me, for America. I ask only that Republicans join me in this endeavor, though I doubt they will. Still, Allah, er, I mean, God bless them and God bless America."
B. Hussein's supporters in the media and elsewhere: "Racist! We have reached a civil rights milestone, yet still there are some on the right--mainly white Christian conservative males--how will not rest until blacks and other minorities are wiped out completely. All those who disagree with the Anointed One... er... the President should have their tongues sawed off with rusty nails and should be locked up, or burned alive! We owe black people for the years of misfortune we caused them. Down with whites! Down with Republicans! What's that? Yes, I know, but no one knows about the President's white half. It's a secret!"
Yes, I yearn for good old-fashioned cries of racism. I assume they'll get tired of the partisan card after a while... Well, all except Obama, who is somewhat tone-deaf (or conniving and devious) politically.
Ooops. How rude. That was racist. Or was it partisan?
No. I've got it. It was a covert endorsement of Christianity.
Shhhhhhh.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Anchor Babies: Now They Care
It's interesting that the only time you can get liberals to defend babies is if they're non-citizen babies. Sure, American babies don't have a right to live, but Mexican babies have the right not only to live but to be U.S. citizens just for being born here.
What if we suddenly found out that Osama bin Ladin was born here? His parents weren't citizens (that I know of... 0_0), but according to Democrats, he should be a citizen if his first breath was taken here on American soil. What if Osama bin Ladin had a kid (like any girl would ever marry [or whatever it is psychotic terrorists do to join in loving unity] him) in America??? What would liberals do then? Automatically give ciizenship to the son of a terrorist?
Generally, the way to become a citizen from a previous status of non-citizen is to (I know this sounds crazy) apply for citizenship, get papers signed, get a green card, whatever.
Being born here doesn't guarantee citizenship.
But, while we're on that subject, even if that were true, Obama still wouldn't be a citizen. So if they're doing this for him, they should give it up (they should give it up anyway).
Having your children be automatically citizens is an exclusive right of Americans. If ANYONE can be an American, the American will cease to exist.
There is a bright side to this. We have liberals recorded now on tape defending babies. I never thought I'd see the day, since baby-killing is the one thing they never flip-flop (aka cover up their psychotic beliefs with a false reversion of position) on.
For another thing, illegal immigrants DO NOT have the right to be here in the first place, so if they had a baby on U.S. soil, they should be punished for being here, not rewarded.
That was what Harry Reid was saying in '93, but of course he's flip-flopped since then, since the Messiah has ordered the Democratic masses to be friendly to immigrants. Muslim immigrants especially. In fact, Muslims get a green card and a free ticket to Manhattan.
What if we suddenly found out that Osama bin Ladin was born here? His parents weren't citizens (that I know of... 0_0), but according to Democrats, he should be a citizen if his first breath was taken here on American soil. What if Osama bin Ladin had a kid (like any girl would ever marry [or whatever it is psychotic terrorists do to join in loving unity] him) in America??? What would liberals do then? Automatically give ciizenship to the son of a terrorist?
Generally, the way to become a citizen from a previous status of non-citizen is to (I know this sounds crazy) apply for citizenship, get papers signed, get a green card, whatever.
Being born here doesn't guarantee citizenship.
But, while we're on that subject, even if that were true, Obama still wouldn't be a citizen. So if they're doing this for him, they should give it up (they should give it up anyway).
Having your children be automatically citizens is an exclusive right of Americans. If ANYONE can be an American, the American will cease to exist.
There is a bright side to this. We have liberals recorded now on tape defending babies. I never thought I'd see the day, since baby-killing is the one thing they never flip-flop (aka cover up their psychotic beliefs with a false reversion of position) on.
For another thing, illegal immigrants DO NOT have the right to be here in the first place, so if they had a baby on U.S. soil, they should be punished for being here, not rewarded.
That was what Harry Reid was saying in '93, but of course he's flip-flopped since then, since the Messiah has ordered the Democratic masses to be friendly to immigrants. Muslim immigrants especially. In fact, Muslims get a green card and a free ticket to Manhattan.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Do You See What I See?
How can we not see the truth?
I'm listening to B. Hussein talking in Ohio, streaming live from FOXNews.com. Wow. This guy just doesn't quit, does he? That's the issue with stupid people: they're stupid enough to think they're smart and keep doing the stupid things they're doing. It's sort of a vicious cycle. No one knows why God created stupid people, but with them around, I suppose we know why there are smart people.
I'd like to raise a question: what came first, stupid people or smart people? Liberals or stupidity? I'm not going to be like the liberals and act like I know everything about creation, et cetera. I'm just asking out of curiosity what people think about the origin of the liberal and all the psychological and mental disorders associated with liberalism. :)
Anyway, in all seriousness, I honestly believe that B. Hussein is a terrorist. I refuse to compare him to Osama bin Ladin any more because he is worse. When bin Ladin attacks, you know it. It's like getting struck by lightning. That's that. Something big, powerful, and painful.
When B. Hussein attacks, it's like boiling a frog live, slowly raising the temperature until we're completely screwed without realizing it. He is worse because what he does directly impacts every American and will haunt us forever even if the legislation is repealed. When B. Hussein strikes, he has the media behind him, he has Congress behind him, he has "Americans" behind him. He disrespects life, disrespects America and the free market system, he disrespects Americans with opinions aligned with those expressed in that one paper, what's it called... ah, yes, the U.S. Constitution.
Listening to him talk, I see a communist, a liar, a conniving, devious terrorist. I see someone who wants to abolish the free market and knows how to sugar-coat that wish.
I see a terrorist in someone's backyard (not the ones from Gitmo who are already there).
If I ever met with President Obama, I cannot say whether or not I would shake his hand. Would it be immature or patriotic not to? I know how it would be portrayed, of course.
Possible responses with handshake:
1. Pleased to meet you, Mr. bin Ladin.
2. Are you enjoying your stay in America so far, sir?
3. So, have you finished drafting the new Constitution?
4. Something in Arabic.
Obama's arguments for everything he does always include a sob story or two. Well, there are sob stories on both sides. They prove nothing but that the world is imperfect and you can't please everyone. Which seems to be his other argument. "Can't please everyone, so I might as well destroy America while I'm at it."
You know how they fool us? They go after the kindergartners. They teach them about sex, so then they have sex as soon as they're old enough and realize how great abortion is. They teach us how houses, paper, and toilets are bad and we're destroying our Earth, thus creating mindless little soldier-bots to do their bidding. It's evil with a cute face. Ever seen the commercials with little kids talking about saving Earth? Yeah. They teach them that they're no greater than the apes, thus convincing them they are liberals. They teach them to accept gays and shun and/or challenge Christianity. They teach them evolution. They teach them that big corporations are bad, bad, bad. And of course the kids believe it because, after all, they learned it in school.
So what is the answer? Move to North Korea where people are saner? Dig yourself a grave? (Make sure you don't uproot any trees to do it, though.) The answer is to stand and fight. Revolt!
Join a tea party. Sign a petition. Get a job. Run for office. Teach your children. Load your guns. Grab your pitchforks. Light your torches. Shout the truth. Fight for freedom. Make up more motivational three-word sentences!
It will soon be too late. They'll take our guns, our freedom, our rights, our money, our jobs, our torches and pitchforks, our voices, our children. Our hope. Our faith.
Without hope how can we fight back? We cannot be crushed or defeated. It's now or never, because if we don't act now...
Ve iz scrood.
I'm listening to B. Hussein talking in Ohio, streaming live from FOXNews.com. Wow. This guy just doesn't quit, does he? That's the issue with stupid people: they're stupid enough to think they're smart and keep doing the stupid things they're doing. It's sort of a vicious cycle. No one knows why God created stupid people, but with them around, I suppose we know why there are smart people.
I'd like to raise a question: what came first, stupid people or smart people? Liberals or stupidity? I'm not going to be like the liberals and act like I know everything about creation, et cetera. I'm just asking out of curiosity what people think about the origin of the liberal and all the psychological and mental disorders associated with liberalism. :)
Anyway, in all seriousness, I honestly believe that B. Hussein is a terrorist. I refuse to compare him to Osama bin Ladin any more because he is worse. When bin Ladin attacks, you know it. It's like getting struck by lightning. That's that. Something big, powerful, and painful.
When B. Hussein attacks, it's like boiling a frog live, slowly raising the temperature until we're completely screwed without realizing it. He is worse because what he does directly impacts every American and will haunt us forever even if the legislation is repealed. When B. Hussein strikes, he has the media behind him, he has Congress behind him, he has "Americans" behind him. He disrespects life, disrespects America and the free market system, he disrespects Americans with opinions aligned with those expressed in that one paper, what's it called... ah, yes, the U.S. Constitution.
Listening to him talk, I see a communist, a liar, a conniving, devious terrorist. I see someone who wants to abolish the free market and knows how to sugar-coat that wish.
I see a terrorist in someone's backyard (not the ones from Gitmo who are already there).
If I ever met with President Obama, I cannot say whether or not I would shake his hand. Would it be immature or patriotic not to? I know how it would be portrayed, of course.
Possible responses with handshake:
1. Pleased to meet you, Mr. bin Ladin.
2. Are you enjoying your stay in America so far, sir?
3. So, have you finished drafting the new Constitution?
4. Something in Arabic.
Obama's arguments for everything he does always include a sob story or two. Well, there are sob stories on both sides. They prove nothing but that the world is imperfect and you can't please everyone. Which seems to be his other argument. "Can't please everyone, so I might as well destroy America while I'm at it."
You know how they fool us? They go after the kindergartners. They teach them about sex, so then they have sex as soon as they're old enough and realize how great abortion is. They teach us how houses, paper, and toilets are bad and we're destroying our Earth, thus creating mindless little soldier-bots to do their bidding. It's evil with a cute face. Ever seen the commercials with little kids talking about saving Earth? Yeah. They teach them that they're no greater than the apes, thus convincing them they are liberals. They teach them to accept gays and shun and/or challenge Christianity. They teach them evolution. They teach them that big corporations are bad, bad, bad. And of course the kids believe it because, after all, they learned it in school.
So what is the answer? Move to North Korea where people are saner? Dig yourself a grave? (Make sure you don't uproot any trees to do it, though.) The answer is to stand and fight. Revolt!
Join a tea party. Sign a petition. Get a job. Run for office. Teach your children. Load your guns. Grab your pitchforks. Light your torches. Shout the truth. Fight for freedom. Make up more motivational three-word sentences!
It will soon be too late. They'll take our guns, our freedom, our rights, our money, our jobs, our torches and pitchforks, our voices, our children. Our hope. Our faith.
Without hope how can we fight back? We cannot be crushed or defeated. It's now or never, because if we don't act now...
Ve iz scrood.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Loopholes
(Quotes from FOXNews.com)
When the Democrats want to find a loophole, there tends to be one.
When Republicans are being unconstitutionally prohibited from enforcing immigration laws that will help keep our country safe, alas! No loopholes are to be found.
For example, the Democrats found that there is no provision in the healthcare bill, or, gasp, the almighty executive order, that would prohibit federal funding of abortion in high-risk insurance pools.
Of course, abortion in these cases would be prohibited unless the life of the mother was in danger, or in the case of rape or incest. Which leaves room for the "health" of the mother, or if the baby has an even conceivable possibility of minor deformities. Which is code for "we cover abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever." You are either for or against abortion. If you're for it at all, you're for it. At all is a modifier, but the meaning is the same.
It doesn't matter what you tell the public. The executive order cannot trump a law. The insistence that you don't cover abortion except in certain cases is not true. YOU STILL COVER ABORTION. Innocent babies still die, no matter how you label it. If I was getting aborted, I wouldn't care if my abortion was termed "covered" or not. The outcome is still the same. And if you support any abortion at all, any abortion at all is supported.
Now for the Republicans' issue. Instead of cracking down on immigration to keep our country safe, the Democrats are engaging in petty squabble over perfectly legitimate legislation. "Well, I have a lot of illegal immigrants on hand right now who can tell you just how illegitimate this law seems to them, how it's impacting their lives and families, how it's making living in America harder for them, illegal immigrants who could tell you just how unfair this monstrosity of a law this really is. Oh, what's that? The immigrants don't speak English? Can we get a translator up here? Ah, yes, thank you. Now, according to our translator, this illegal immigrant thinks that it's not fair that he can't get a job, according to Arizona's law, just because he illegally moved his family here and is now mooching off the taxpayers. He says he applauds Judge Bolton's decision to let him get a job and protect him from racial profiling by invasive officers." Well, then. (Just in case it's not too clear, that's a make-believe scenario.)
Well, it only makes sense to block the toughest parts of a law whose aim is to crack down on illegal immigration, right?
And of course they should be able to get a job. I mean, they're just law-abiding citizens like the rest of us. (Except they don't pay taxes, they aren't citizens, and they broke the law by setting foot in this country. But other than that, yeah, I'm totally happy to remain unemployed for the sake of a drug-smuggling, pot-smoking vagrant who has no intention of respecting the American dream other than to steal it. It's all good.)
There is no reason to oppose any part of this law other than nothing more than a blatant contempt for the American way of life. Borders are there for a reason. Once they become meaningless, once our very identities as Americans become meaningless because anyone can be an American easily (and untaxedly), there will be no more America. At least then Obama can be our President legally.
Get this: the Mexican government applauds the decision (imagine that). Kind of like when Fidel Castro praised Barack Hussein Obama. Wonder what our old buddy Fidel thinks of this? Or is he already on the White House staff?
Yeah, no. It's a step over the line (and the border).
Of course, unless you take "disregarding" to mean "disregarding". If the court "by no means" disregards Arizona's interests in controlling the immigration problem, why are they not allowing Arizona to control the immigration problem?
And if Arizona's interests are consistent with those of the federal government, what's the problem? It is, actually, in the public interest to enforce "preempted laws". The feds are too busy bailing out Wall Street and need a bit of help. And who better to help them than the BORDER STATE with the biggest immigration problem? If they won't let Arizona help, won't let them enforce the laws, who do they expect to get it done? Alaska? How many illegal immigrants from Mexico do you think cross into Alaska every year? I've got a pretty good guess. Maybe Michigan or Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana, Washington or Oregon? How about Maine? I think they'd do a GREAT job addressing the illegal immigrant problem. I mean, they're in such a prime position to deal with drug traffickers and smugglers from Mexico, don't you think? Hey, let's ask Canada to help!
Or maybe we could let a state pass an effective law to help solve their immigration problem. If Arizona's law isn't what the feds and the courts are looking for, do they have a better plan? Maybe they could make it illegal for a police station to have more than two Latinos in custody the way they do (or at least did) with young Arab men on the airlines (pre-9/11 and possibly post-9/11). That seemed to work well!
If the Arizona law is preempted by federal law, then there shouldn't be a problem. It should be at most helpful, at the least harmless. Correction: it IS at most helpful, at the least harmless. To say there's "nothing wrong" with it is an understatement. It's what the feds should have been doing all along. The federal program should encourage the passage of laws like this if it's immigration they really care about.
Wait a minute. They do care about immigration. Or, rather, immigrants. They think they should get jobs, raise families, get healthcare--all without paying taxes (because only law-abiding citizens do stuff like that). In some ways, the illegal immigrant is more protected, revered, and benefited than the U.S. citizen. If that doesn't scare you... you must be a Democrat.
"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," said Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona. I hate to break it to you, Jan, but there's no such thing as a "citizen" anymore.
Great idea. I just hope he doesn't get a lawsuit filed against him by the President of the United Stataes.
Honestly, I cannot comprehend this. First of all, the Arizona law is perfectly legit, and that's an understatement. It's constitutional, it follows federal regulations, and has great potential to impact the illegal immigration situtation in America in a very positive way.
Second, the President should not file a lawsuit against an individual state for an individual state law. It is just wrong. It's communism, that's what it is.
Third and finally, doesn't Obama have better things to do? Like, I don't know, murder innocent babies, pass socialist reform bills, take over Wall Street, bow to foreign royalty, have lunch with Bill Ayers... that kind of thing? Does he really have time to file a lawsuit against a legitimate and beneficial piece of legislation that corresponds with federal regulations and aids the feds and the American people in conquering illegal immigration?
Maybe he had time for the lawsuit on his vacation.
I have the highest respect for the highest office in America. I do not have respect for anyone who refuses to respect that office. B. Hussein, as I am going to start calling him, is questionably legally (he is possibly an illegal immigrant himself) and constitutionally (socialism, murder, communism, lying [he hasn't raped anyone yet, but we can still impeach him]) the President of these United States. He is not the ultimate authority; the Constitution is. And as a Christian and a minor, I will respect authority.
But I'm sure B. Hussein will find a loophole in the Constitution (presumably one he makes himself as he shreds it) that will allow him to continue his undeserved tenure as President of the United States of America.
When the Democrats want to find a loophole, there tends to be one.
When Republicans are being unconstitutionally prohibited from enforcing immigration laws that will help keep our country safe, alas! No loopholes are to be found.
For example, the Democrats found that there is no provision in the healthcare bill, or, gasp, the almighty executive order, that would prohibit federal funding of abortion in high-risk insurance pools.
The high-risk program, called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, was meant to help those denied coverage over pre-existing conditions until the broader provisions of the law go into effect in 2014. The law set aside $5 billion in federal subsidies for the program, which is supposed to be either administered by the state or the Health and Human Services Department.
Of course, abortion in these cases would be prohibited unless the life of the mother was in danger, or in the case of rape or incest. Which leaves room for the "health" of the mother, or if the baby has an even conceivable possibility of minor deformities. Which is code for "we cover abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever." You are either for or against abortion. If you're for it at all, you're for it. At all is a modifier, but the meaning is the same.
It doesn't matter what you tell the public. The executive order cannot trump a law. The insistence that you don't cover abortion except in certain cases is not true. YOU STILL COVER ABORTION. Innocent babies still die, no matter how you label it. If I was getting aborted, I wouldn't care if my abortion was termed "covered" or not. The outcome is still the same. And if you support any abortion at all, any abortion at all is supported.
Now for the Republicans' issue. Instead of cracking down on immigration to keep our country safe, the Democrats are engaging in petty squabble over perfectly legitimate legislation. "Well, I have a lot of illegal immigrants on hand right now who can tell you just how illegitimate this law seems to them, how it's impacting their lives and families, how it's making living in America harder for them, illegal immigrants who could tell you just how unfair this monstrosity of a law this really is. Oh, what's that? The immigrants don't speak English? Can we get a translator up here? Ah, yes, thank you. Now, according to our translator, this illegal immigrant thinks that it's not fair that he can't get a job, according to Arizona's law, just because he illegally moved his family here and is now mooching off the taxpayers. He says he applauds Judge Bolton's decision to let him get a job and protect him from racial profiling by invasive officers." Well, then. (Just in case it's not too clear, that's a make-believe scenario.)
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state's attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy.
Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.
Well, it only makes sense to block the toughest parts of a law whose aim is to crack down on illegal immigration, right?
And of course they should be able to get a job. I mean, they're just law-abiding citizens like the rest of us. (Except they don't pay taxes, they aren't citizens, and they broke the law by setting foot in this country. But other than that, yeah, I'm totally happy to remain unemployed for the sake of a drug-smuggling, pot-smoking vagrant who has no intention of respecting the American dream other than to steal it. It's all good.)
There is no reason to oppose any part of this law other than nothing more than a blatant contempt for the American way of life. Borders are there for a reason. Once they become meaningless, once our very identities as Americans become meaningless because anyone can be an American easily (and untaxedly), there will be no more America. At least then Obama can be our President legally.
Get this: the Mexican government applauds the decision (imagine that). Kind of like when Fidel Castro praised Barack Hussein Obama. Wonder what our old buddy Fidel thinks of this? Or is he already on the White House staff?
Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa told reporters that the injunction was a "first step in the right direction."
Yeah, no. It's a step over the line (and the border).
"The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."
Of course, unless you take "disregarding" to mean "disregarding". If the court "by no means" disregards Arizona's interests in controlling the immigration problem, why are they not allowing Arizona to control the immigration problem?
And if Arizona's interests are consistent with those of the federal government, what's the problem? It is, actually, in the public interest to enforce "preempted laws". The feds are too busy bailing out Wall Street and need a bit of help. And who better to help them than the BORDER STATE with the biggest immigration problem? If they won't let Arizona help, won't let them enforce the laws, who do they expect to get it done? Alaska? How many illegal immigrants from Mexico do you think cross into Alaska every year? I've got a pretty good guess. Maybe Michigan or Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana, Washington or Oregon? How about Maine? I think they'd do a GREAT job addressing the illegal immigrant problem. I mean, they're in such a prime position to deal with drug traffickers and smugglers from Mexico, don't you think? Hey, let's ask Canada to help!
Or maybe we could let a state pass an effective law to help solve their immigration problem. If Arizona's law isn't what the feds and the courts are looking for, do they have a better plan? Maybe they could make it illegal for a police station to have more than two Latinos in custody the way they do (or at least did) with young Arab men on the airlines (pre-9/11 and possibly post-9/11). That seemed to work well!
If the Arizona law is preempted by federal law, then there shouldn't be a problem. It should be at most helpful, at the least harmless. Correction: it IS at most helpful, at the least harmless. To say there's "nothing wrong" with it is an understatement. It's what the feds should have been doing all along. The federal program should encourage the passage of laws like this if it's immigration they really care about.
Wait a minute. They do care about immigration. Or, rather, immigrants. They think they should get jobs, raise families, get healthcare--all without paying taxes (because only law-abiding citizens do stuff like that). In some ways, the illegal immigrant is more protected, revered, and benefited than the U.S. citizen. If that doesn't scare you... you must be a Democrat.
"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," said Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona. I hate to break it to you, Jan, but there's no such thing as a "citizen" anymore.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He planned to hold the sweep regardless of the ruling.
Arpaio, known for his tough stance against illegal immigration, plans to send out about 200 deputies and volunteers who will be looking for traffic violators, people wanted on criminal warrants and others. He has used that tactic before to arrest dozens of people, many of them illegal immigrants.
"We don't wait. We just do it," he said. "If there's a new law out, we're going to enforce it."
Great idea. I just hope he doesn't get a lawsuit filed against him by the President of the United Stataes.
Honestly, I cannot comprehend this. First of all, the Arizona law is perfectly legit, and that's an understatement. It's constitutional, it follows federal regulations, and has great potential to impact the illegal immigration situtation in America in a very positive way.
Second, the President should not file a lawsuit against an individual state for an individual state law. It is just wrong. It's communism, that's what it is.
Third and finally, doesn't Obama have better things to do? Like, I don't know, murder innocent babies, pass socialist reform bills, take over Wall Street, bow to foreign royalty, have lunch with Bill Ayers... that kind of thing? Does he really have time to file a lawsuit against a legitimate and beneficial piece of legislation that corresponds with federal regulations and aids the feds and the American people in conquering illegal immigration?
Maybe he had time for the lawsuit on his vacation.
I have the highest respect for the highest office in America. I do not have respect for anyone who refuses to respect that office. B. Hussein, as I am going to start calling him, is questionably legally (he is possibly an illegal immigrant himself) and constitutionally (socialism, murder, communism, lying [he hasn't raped anyone yet, but we can still impeach him]) the President of these United States. He is not the ultimate authority; the Constitution is. And as a Christian and a minor, I will respect authority.
But I'm sure B. Hussein will find a loophole in the Constitution (presumably one he makes himself as he shreds it) that will allow him to continue his undeserved tenure as President of the United States of America.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Such Improper, Innappropriate Opinions Will Be Dealt With Accordingly
Since when do you have to change your beliefs to pass a class? Since never. In fact, Jennifer Keeton, 24, pursuing a degree in school counseling at Augusta State University, has been informed that unless she changes her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct," she will not even be given the opportunity to fail. She will be expelled.
So, what, anyone who wants a job has to be a liberal now? That doesn't make sense at all. Liberals don't get jobs.
And who the heck would want a liberal counseling their kids? I think someone who views homosexuality and transgender issues from a conservative Christian vantage point can provide the best counseling of all to these types of people, if that's what's worrying everyone. What's going to help a kid more, giving them an alternative to the tough lifestyle they've CHOSEN, or saying, "you poor, misunderstood soul"? Counselors are supposed to help people solve problems and feel better, not deepen their senses of conviction that they're helpless victims of an unalterable fact.
She has been asked to take part in a "remediation plan." Oh, right. What are they going to do, strap her to a chair in a murky basement and brainwash her with a hair dryer? Or will they sit her down and address her problematic belief system? Or they could just use duct tape.
Or, or, maybe they could let an American student with a dream have her own opinion and not expel her for it. Any takers? Yeah...
It's not as if she's a hater. Most conservatives I know have no hatred toward the PEOPLE, just the lifestyle. The only haters here are the ones vowing to expel a student for her opinions.
Homosexuality is a choice, a behavior, as is altering yourself. You can choose. You can always choose.
Unless you're talking about your beliefs, in which case you don't have a choice.
So, what, anyone who wants a job has to be a liberal now? That doesn't make sense at all. Liberals don't get jobs.
And who the heck would want a liberal counseling their kids? I think someone who views homosexuality and transgender issues from a conservative Christian vantage point can provide the best counseling of all to these types of people, if that's what's worrying everyone. What's going to help a kid more, giving them an alternative to the tough lifestyle they've CHOSEN, or saying, "you poor, misunderstood soul"? Counselors are supposed to help people solve problems and feel better, not deepen their senses of conviction that they're helpless victims of an unalterable fact.
She has been asked to take part in a "remediation plan." Oh, right. What are they going to do, strap her to a chair in a murky basement and brainwash her with a hair dryer? Or will they sit her down and address her problematic belief system? Or they could just use duct tape.
Or, or, maybe they could let an American student with a dream have her own opinion and not expel her for it. Any takers? Yeah...
It's not as if she's a hater. Most conservatives I know have no hatred toward the PEOPLE, just the lifestyle. The only haters here are the ones vowing to expel a student for her opinions.
Homosexuality is a choice, a behavior, as is altering yourself. You can choose. You can always choose.
Unless you're talking about your beliefs, in which case you don't have a choice.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The deficit for this year is going to be 1.47 TRILLION DOLLARS.
(I didn't title this post because no term can grasp the atrocity of our government right now. But I might seem "unprofessional" if I don't follow general writing guidelines in an article about the government... yeah, somehow I don't think unprofessionalism is MY problem. So I won't title this. [Actually, I forgot the title. **wink**])
That's over one fourth of Bush's accumulated debt over EIGHT YEARS. Let's just hope we aren't stupid enough to give this idiot that long.
The government borrows 41% of the money it spends (41 cents/dollar). That's crazy. We owe almost half of everything we spend to... well, I'm guessing mostly China. You know what would be a good idea? All the other nations of the world should form a borrowing pool for the United States government. They could pool their money and we could just draw from that pool whenever. And pay them back sometime, possibly.
Or, or, here's an idea: How about the government learns how to run a country? Yeah, I like that plan better.
The Office of Management and Budget forecasts still-high unemployment rates by the time the next election comes around.
And the best part is, we're actually doing better than expected this year. However, next year, if we spend the projected $1.42 trillion, it'll be about $150 billion more than expected.
Of course, nowadays that's a pretty inconsequential number.
OMB Director Peter Orszag stated that the numbers represent a "fiscal situation that requires attention."
Is he just now figuring that out?
Well, kudos.
That's "better than expected."
You know, Obama kind of ran on "hope" and "change." Well, the economy's forecast looks not-so-hopeful. And I guess we were all misguided in the notion that Obama's "change" was a positive thing. I guess he forgot to specify. Must have slipped his mind.
Meanwhile, he's blowing ours.
(I didn't title this post because no term can grasp the atrocity of our government right now. But I might seem "unprofessional" if I don't follow general writing guidelines in an article about the government... yeah, somehow I don't think unprofessionalism is MY problem. So I won't title this. [Actually, I forgot the title. **wink**])
That's over one fourth of Bush's accumulated debt over EIGHT YEARS. Let's just hope we aren't stupid enough to give this idiot that long.
The government borrows 41% of the money it spends (41 cents/dollar). That's crazy. We owe almost half of everything we spend to... well, I'm guessing mostly China. You know what would be a good idea? All the other nations of the world should form a borrowing pool for the United States government. They could pool their money and we could just draw from that pool whenever. And pay them back sometime, possibly.
Or, or, here's an idea: How about the government learns how to run a country? Yeah, I like that plan better.
The Office of Management and Budget forecasts still-high unemployment rates by the time the next election comes around.
And the best part is, we're actually doing better than expected this year. However, next year, if we spend the projected $1.42 trillion, it'll be about $150 billion more than expected.
Of course, nowadays that's a pretty inconsequential number.
OMB Director Peter Orszag stated that the numbers represent a "fiscal situation that requires attention."
Is he just now figuring that out?
Well, kudos.
That's "better than expected."
You know, Obama kind of ran on "hope" and "change." Well, the economy's forecast looks not-so-hopeful. And I guess we were all misguided in the notion that Obama's "change" was a positive thing. I guess he forgot to specify. Must have slipped his mind.
Meanwhile, he's blowing ours.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The Free[k] Market: The Countdown Begins/Ends
Obama today signed into law an enormaous financial overhaul that officially turned us socialist. The countdown from when we were unofficially socialist (the day the stimulus passed, the day Obama was elected... there is dispute over the actual start of the countdown) to when we officially, legally became socialist has ended.
For all future generations: America became socialist on Wednesday, July 21, 2010. Most people will never know, though, because the media will never tel them and liberals will never consent to cutting down a bunch of trees to make new history books.
As Obama signed this bill into law, he pledged, "There will be no more tax-funded bailouts -- period."
The countdown begins today as to how long it takes for him to break that promise (and then, of course, tell us how he's "not REALLY breaking the promise, because...").
The government's "consumer protection" program enables them to do what they please with private business under the guise of "helping the consumer." In addition, the government is going to "help consumers make better decisions." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what "help" means in this case.
The government also has new powers to break up any companies that threaten the economy. According to them.
Basically, the government has almost total control over the free market transforming it into "the freak market." Named for those who reign over it.
Somehow I don't consider it a privelege that I was able to witness America's regressional transformation into socialism.
And once Obama and the Democrats do away with term limits, I'll be able to witness our switch to communism, too.
Every time Obama pulls a stunt like this, I get caught in wishful thinking: It can't possibly get worse.
It does.
So I will never underestimate a Democrat again.
But hey! If we take back Congress, we can at least hinder them long enough to find a President.
Things are getting out of control without one.
For all future generations: America became socialist on Wednesday, July 21, 2010. Most people will never know, though, because the media will never tel them and liberals will never consent to cutting down a bunch of trees to make new history books.
As Obama signed this bill into law, he pledged, "There will be no more tax-funded bailouts -- period."
The countdown begins today as to how long it takes for him to break that promise (and then, of course, tell us how he's "not REALLY breaking the promise, because...").
The government's "consumer protection" program enables them to do what they please with private business under the guise of "helping the consumer." In addition, the government is going to "help consumers make better decisions." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what "help" means in this case.
The government also has new powers to break up any companies that threaten the economy. According to them.
Basically, the government has almost total control over the free market transforming it into "the freak market." Named for those who reign over it.
Somehow I don't consider it a privelege that I was able to witness America's regressional transformation into socialism.
And once Obama and the Democrats do away with term limits, I'll be able to witness our switch to communism, too.
Every time Obama pulls a stunt like this, I get caught in wishful thinking: It can't possibly get worse.
It does.
So I will never underestimate a Democrat again.
But hey! If we take back Congress, we can at least hinder them long enough to find a President.
Things are getting out of control without one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)