"I FEAR THE GIVING OF MANKIND A DEPENDENCE ON ANYTHING FOR SUPPORT IN AGE OR SICKNESS, BESIDES INDUSTRY AND FRUGALITY DURING YOUTH AND HEALTH, TENDS TO FLATTER OUR NATURAL INDOLENCE, TO ENCOURAGE IDLENESS AND PRODIGALITY, AND THEREBY TO PROMOTE AND INCREASE POVERTY, THE VERY EVIL IT WAS INTENDED TO CURE."
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN!
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Oath Keepers
It has been a long standing believe of mine that if our military, police, and fire-fighters protect the peoples rights as defined in the United States Constitution we as a country, in the long run, will be fine. It has been my experience though that some in our military, and policemen especially do what they are told instead of honoring their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and to protect the people against all enemies foreign and domestic. Just think of what happened in New Orleans with hurricane Katrina. Guns were taken, sometimes at the point of a gun, from people who lawfully had a right to own them and were using them for protecting themselves, their families, and their livelihoods from cheating, lying, thieves. Does that sound right to anyone else? To take away peoples right under the Second Amendment to the Constitution to lawfully own a gun and protect themselves and others?
On September 12, 2009 my Nephew went to Washington D.C. along with 1.5 million other people to protest the taking by our own government the rights of its own people. My Nephew brought back a card from a group called Oath Keepers and what follows is the oaths they would like for the Military, Veterans, Police, and Fire-Fighters to keep on the back of their cards. I have not done any kind of research on Oath Keepers but I liked most of what was on this card. If anyone has any information on them let me know. Let me know also what you think of what follows.
OATH KEEPERS
For out brothers and sisters in the Military, Veterans, Police, and Fire-Fighters, who will honor their oath to defend the Constitution.
Guardians of the Republic. . . Honor Your Oath. Join Us
OATHKEEPERS.ORG
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty
6. We will NOT obey order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble ,and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
On September 12, 2009 my Nephew went to Washington D.C. along with 1.5 million other people to protest the taking by our own government the rights of its own people. My Nephew brought back a card from a group called Oath Keepers and what follows is the oaths they would like for the Military, Veterans, Police, and Fire-Fighters to keep on the back of their cards. I have not done any kind of research on Oath Keepers but I liked most of what was on this card. If anyone has any information on them let me know. Let me know also what you think of what follows.
OATH KEEPERS
For out brothers and sisters in the Military, Veterans, Police, and Fire-Fighters, who will honor their oath to defend the Constitution.
Guardians of the Republic. . . Honor Your Oath. Join Us
OATHKEEPERS.ORG
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty
6. We will NOT obey order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble ,and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
Friday, September 18, 2009
A Letter From Upper Representative Bill Nelson of FL, And My Response
September 16, 2009
"Dear XXXXXX,
Most of the calls and mail coming into my office these days are from constituents worried about health care. Regardless of where anyone stands on the specifics of this issue, I think we all can agree the current system is unfair, too costly, and needs to be fixed. President Obama gave some clearer answers in his speech to Congress last week about his views on reform. I found it interesting that what the president described is pretty close to the bill I'm helping prepare as a member of the Senate Finance Committee. I want to tell you basically what this bill does. In essence, it will let folks happy with their insurance keep it, including seniors on Medicare and veterans. It also will create a marketplace--exchanges--where those without coverage, or those who are unhappy with what they have, can get coverage at an affordable price. The bill will hold insurers' feet to the fire by requiring them to cover everyone and preventing them from dropping individuals who get sick. Additionally, it will contain several measures aimed at reducing overall medical and prescription drug costs and eliminating waste and fraud in the system.I still intend to offer several amendments aimed at further improving the legislation. One of my amendments would require drugmakers to provide rebates to Medicare, just like they do to Medicaid. This would save Medicare a ton of money. Further, by eliminating the tax break drugmakers get for TV and other advertising, we would gain another $37 billion over the coming years to help pay for health care reforms.The Senate Finance Committee will begin considering this bill as early as this week. Meantime, please know that I value your continued input."
Response:
I sincerely appreciate your e-mail regarding your position on our health care. I am printing it out as I type this as I find that it may come in handy when you are up for re-election. I have just a few simple questions for you though. Will you, sir be keeping your insurance our getting on board with what you want the rest of us little people to have? You state in your e-mail: "I think we all can agree the current system is unfair, too costly, and needs to be fixed." You went on to say that, "I found it interesting that what the president described is pretty close to the bill I'm helping prepare as a member of the Senate Finance Committee" and "In essence, it will let folks happy with their insurance keep it, including seniors on Medicare and veterans." Do you lead me to believe, sir that our "current system is unfair, too costly, and needs to be fixed" on the one hand but you will let folks happy with their "unfair", "costly" insurance keep it? That is an ill that is too grave to face why with all of those poor seniors and veterans that will be allowed to keep such an unjust, costly system. Surely you, a person of such high moral character would not allow a travesty of this kind to occur. One more question for you sir; If I do not want to carry health insurance, will I be forced to buy it? If not will I be penalized on my taxes a certain amount of money, say something like $3500? As my upper representative in Congress I look forward to your response, if you find it worthy of one.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
This Just In: Read the Post Below Befor This One
Obama helps strengthen General Electric-Putin ties
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
09/17/09 2:06 PM EDT
Reuters reports an interesting nugget in the wake of President Barack Obama's decision to grant Vladimir Putin his wish and kill the Eastern European missile shield:
Shortly after the pullback on the shield programme was announced, Russia's government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley as well as TPG, one of the world's largest private equity firms
General Electric may be the company with the closest ties to the Obama administration (if not, GE is second only to Goldman Sachs), and here we see the company benefiting from an abrupt foreign policy change made by President Obama. But GE isn't the only company benefiting. Reuters paints the broader picture:
"U.S. companies have arguably lost out to some European companies in joint ventures, and better diplomacy will likely improve the chances for investors in the strategic sectors of the Russian economy," said Carlo Gallo, senior Russia analyst at London-based consultancy Control Risks.
GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama.
Now what about all of those arguments saying republicans are in bed with big biz? Looks like they all are, but we smart people knew that didn't we?
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
09/17/09 2:06 PM EDT
Reuters reports an interesting nugget in the wake of President Barack Obama's decision to grant Vladimir Putin his wish and kill the Eastern European missile shield:
Shortly after the pullback on the shield programme was announced, Russia's government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley as well as TPG, one of the world's largest private equity firms
General Electric may be the company with the closest ties to the Obama administration (if not, GE is second only to Goldman Sachs), and here we see the company benefiting from an abrupt foreign policy change made by President Obama. But GE isn't the only company benefiting. Reuters paints the broader picture:
"U.S. companies have arguably lost out to some European companies in joint ventures, and better diplomacy will likely improve the chances for investors in the strategic sectors of the Russian economy," said Carlo Gallo, senior Russia analyst at London-based consultancy Control Risks.
GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama.
Now what about all of those arguments saying republicans are in bed with big biz? Looks like they all are, but we smart people knew that didn't we?
Who Does Our President Align Himself With?
Today September 17, 2009 marks the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland and how does our President mark the occasion of this day to our Polish allies? He kills the missile defense shield that would protect them and other close allies of ours. Look at this headline from the UK: Dismay in Europe as Obama ditches missile defence
President Obama dismayed America's allies in Europe and angered his political opponents at home today when he formally ditched plans to set up a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The project had been close to the heart of Mr Obama's predecessor, President Bush, who had argued before leaving office in January that it was needed to defend against long-range ballistic missile attacks from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.
But it had hobbled relations with Russia, which considered it both a security threat and an unnecessary political provocation in its own backyard.
Full Story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6838058.ece
How about this headline and article: Polish PM wouldn't take U.S. calls
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed today that he declined last night to take a call from the U.S. informing him of the decision to scrap planned missile-defense bases in his country.
Two U.S.-based sources close to the Polish government said Thursday that Tusk also rejected a call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — on the grounds that, as the head of the government, he should speak to the president.
Full Story: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Polish_PM_wouldnt_take_US_calls.html?showall
All of you ask yourself this question: Who is Obama pleasing with this deal? Our allies in Europe do not like the idea. Russia does. Where was PM Putin on September 10 2009? Why he was in Venezuela with another one of Obama's dear friends Hugo Chavez.
And what were they discussing? Hugo Chavez wants to join the nuclear energy club and is looking to Russia for help in getting started. The socialist president is closely allied with Iran and defends its nuclear program.
Here is that article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hk9wRad6D4mpLEA24Ag1XNyXGW0gD9AO5IFO1
So why is it that our President turns on our democratic-republican allies, and embraces socialist like Chavez, Putin, Castro, etc. etc. etc?
President Obama dismayed America's allies in Europe and angered his political opponents at home today when he formally ditched plans to set up a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The project had been close to the heart of Mr Obama's predecessor, President Bush, who had argued before leaving office in January that it was needed to defend against long-range ballistic missile attacks from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.
But it had hobbled relations with Russia, which considered it both a security threat and an unnecessary political provocation in its own backyard.
Full Story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6838058.ece
How about this headline and article: Polish PM wouldn't take U.S. calls
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed today that he declined last night to take a call from the U.S. informing him of the decision to scrap planned missile-defense bases in his country.
Two U.S.-based sources close to the Polish government said Thursday that Tusk also rejected a call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — on the grounds that, as the head of the government, he should speak to the president.
Full Story: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Polish_PM_wouldnt_take_US_calls.html?showall
All of you ask yourself this question: Who is Obama pleasing with this deal? Our allies in Europe do not like the idea. Russia does. Where was PM Putin on September 10 2009? Why he was in Venezuela with another one of Obama's dear friends Hugo Chavez.
And what were they discussing? Hugo Chavez wants to join the nuclear energy club and is looking to Russia for help in getting started. The socialist president is closely allied with Iran and defends its nuclear program.
Here is that article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hk9wRad6D4mpLEA24Ag1XNyXGW0gD9AO5IFO1
So why is it that our President turns on our democratic-republican allies, and embraces socialist like Chavez, Putin, Castro, etc. etc. etc?
House Passes Sweeping Student-Loan-Market Overhaul
Another huge step towards fascism here in America happened today. While everyone was talking healthcare the house today voted to "end private-lender involvement in the student-loan market, establishing the federal government as the sole provider of college loans."
From the Wall Street Journal:
Similar to the continuing efforts at overhauling health care, the changes to the federal government's higher-education policies would have a serious effect on the bottom line for private-sector players currently serving the marketplace. The House vote was 253-to-171, largely along party lines. Under the legislation, all lenders would be cut out of the market for originating loans. There would still be a role for private banks and lenders to bid for a limited number of contracts to service the loans after they are made by the government. (Private banks they say, ya right.)
For companies like SLM Corp., better known as Sallie Mae, the proposed changes are already having an impact. This week, Fitch Ratings downgraded Sallie Mae to triple-B-plus status and called its outlook negative. Sallie Mae's shares were recently trading down more than 2% at $9.
Full Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125321217589620383.html
Here is another good article on this subject written a few days before passage of this power grab bill: The Quietest Trillion: Congratulations. You're about to own $100 billion a year in student loans.
The Obama plan calls for the U.S. Department of Education to move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80% on July 1, 2010, when private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans. The remaining 20% of the market that is now completely private will likely shrink further as lenders try to comply with regulations Congress created last year. Starting next summer, taxpayers will have to put up roughly $100 billion per year to lend to students.
Full Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405154157021052.html
From the Wall Street Journal:
Similar to the continuing efforts at overhauling health care, the changes to the federal government's higher-education policies would have a serious effect on the bottom line for private-sector players currently serving the marketplace. The House vote was 253-to-171, largely along party lines. Under the legislation, all lenders would be cut out of the market for originating loans. There would still be a role for private banks and lenders to bid for a limited number of contracts to service the loans after they are made by the government. (Private banks they say, ya right.)
For companies like SLM Corp., better known as Sallie Mae, the proposed changes are already having an impact. This week, Fitch Ratings downgraded Sallie Mae to triple-B-plus status and called its outlook negative. Sallie Mae's shares were recently trading down more than 2% at $9.
Full Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125321217589620383.html
Here is another good article on this subject written a few days before passage of this power grab bill: The Quietest Trillion: Congratulations. You're about to own $100 billion a year in student loans.
The Obama plan calls for the U.S. Department of Education to move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80% on July 1, 2010, when private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans. The remaining 20% of the market that is now completely private will likely shrink further as lenders try to comply with regulations Congress created last year. Starting next summer, taxpayers will have to put up roughly $100 billion per year to lend to students.
Full Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405154157021052.html
White House Collects Web Users Data
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16/obama-wh-collects-web-users-data/
The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.
Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.
"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.
Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to "crawl and archive" all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost.
Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to "social media" and to public comments "received by the president or immediate staff."
Thanks JEF for sending me the article.
The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.
Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.
"The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example," he said.
Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to "crawl and archive" all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost.
Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to "social media" and to public comments "received by the president or immediate staff."
Thanks JEF for sending me the article.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
March On Washington D.C. 9-12-09
Here are some pictures of all the patriots that marched on Washington D.C. I would like to personally thank everyone that went, you spent your time and your money to make a difference and try to restore this country to its former glory. Estimates from the British press (can't trust too much media over here in this country) is between a million and two million people. More than Obama's inaguration, and guess what, you left it clean. The last two are my personal favorites.>
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
ACORN Scandal! ! ! Now Go Figure!
Even though this is ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) I was still shocked when I heard Glenn Beck playing this on the radio this morning. This is video of the blatant and disturbing corruption at the Baltimore, Maryland ACORN office. Going undercover and posing as a couple who are a pimp and a prostitute, these ACORN advisor gives them tips on tax fraud and how to keep underage sex slaves under the radar of the government, all with a smile. Remember, this is the group that Obama said he'd call them in to help 'shape the agenda' of the next presidency of the United States. Have you had enough yet America? Ready to get off your asses and do something? Well there are TEA Parties all across the United States this weekend Saturday Sept. 12. Oh, but wait, ya, you have plans this weekend right? Time to do what is right, as John Adams said "The science of government is my duty to study, more that all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take place of, indeed to exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy." I, like a lot of people, HATE politics but damn it in the times we are living in IT IS MY DUTY AS AN AMERICAN TO STUDY IT AND HELP SAVE OUR REPUBLIC. What will you do?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Dave Ramsey On The Cash for Clunkers Program
"With all the buzz about Cash for Clunkers, it’s easy to think that it was a great way for people to get a better set of wheels. But was it really? No way! Cash for Clunkers was simply a way for broke people to buy cars that they really couldn't afford. It was a bad idea on multiple levels. But before digging into that, let’s take a little history lesson.
About a decade ago, a fair housing program was started, called a sub-prime lending market. The idea behind it was that everyone “needed” to own a home—including broke people. The government decided to start a program to reinvest in communities, which allowed pretty much anyone to borrow money to buy a house. Lending companies charged high interest rates, causing already struggling families to go even further into debt.
Basically, this was a program designed to encourage broke people to buy houses. Most people didn’t even know it existed until it unraveled and became the number-one cause of our recent recession. The government took those stupid loans back and securitized them, which created the financial mess last fall. Helping broke people buy houses didn’t turn out to be a great government program. Guess what? Helping broke people buy brand-new cars—and now home appliances—will turn out just as bad.
The Cash for Clunkers program was designed exactly for people who should not take advantage of the program. You trade your $2,000 clunker in for a brand-new, shiny $20,000 car, and the only way you can afford it is with a high-interest payment. That just means you really couldn’t afford it to begin with. Doesn’t this sound like the sub-prime mortgage problem all over again?
When you drive that new car off the lot, you’re immediately going to lose $4,500. The worst car accidents happen on the showroom floor. New cars go down in value like a rock. The government thinks it’s going to save the American auto industry by putting broke people into cars they can’t pay for. It’s going to come back to bite them—and the rest of us—in the form of taxes galore.
Another bad thing about this program is that we, the taxpayers, are paying for the new cars! It’s morally wrong of the government to take money away from us—against our will—in the form of taxes and give that money to someone else to buy a stupid car they can’t afford in the first place! This is theft, plain and simple.
Cash for Clunkers is a program that redistributes wealth in the name of the environment, and it’s going to be a curse on the car dealer and the manufacturer that carries the paper. It’s going to hurt the broke person who bought a car he couldn’t afford. And it’s already a problem for our country, because it’s adding dollars to the national debt.
There’s always a twist with government programs like this. They try to think of creative ways to help people, but the situation usually ends up worse than it did before they “helped.” In the end, I should decide what to do with my own money. If I want to buy you a car, I will! And if you can’t buy a car without actually paying for the whole thing, then you’re better off keeping your “clunker.”
So good riddance to a really bad program that has done more damage than good."
About a decade ago, a fair housing program was started, called a sub-prime lending market. The idea behind it was that everyone “needed” to own a home—including broke people. The government decided to start a program to reinvest in communities, which allowed pretty much anyone to borrow money to buy a house. Lending companies charged high interest rates, causing already struggling families to go even further into debt.
Basically, this was a program designed to encourage broke people to buy houses. Most people didn’t even know it existed until it unraveled and became the number-one cause of our recent recession. The government took those stupid loans back and securitized them, which created the financial mess last fall. Helping broke people buy houses didn’t turn out to be a great government program. Guess what? Helping broke people buy brand-new cars—and now home appliances—will turn out just as bad.
The Cash for Clunkers program was designed exactly for people who should not take advantage of the program. You trade your $2,000 clunker in for a brand-new, shiny $20,000 car, and the only way you can afford it is with a high-interest payment. That just means you really couldn’t afford it to begin with. Doesn’t this sound like the sub-prime mortgage problem all over again?
When you drive that new car off the lot, you’re immediately going to lose $4,500. The worst car accidents happen on the showroom floor. New cars go down in value like a rock. The government thinks it’s going to save the American auto industry by putting broke people into cars they can’t pay for. It’s going to come back to bite them—and the rest of us—in the form of taxes galore.
Another bad thing about this program is that we, the taxpayers, are paying for the new cars! It’s morally wrong of the government to take money away from us—against our will—in the form of taxes and give that money to someone else to buy a stupid car they can’t afford in the first place! This is theft, plain and simple.
Cash for Clunkers is a program that redistributes wealth in the name of the environment, and it’s going to be a curse on the car dealer and the manufacturer that carries the paper. It’s going to hurt the broke person who bought a car he couldn’t afford. And it’s already a problem for our country, because it’s adding dollars to the national debt.
There’s always a twist with government programs like this. They try to think of creative ways to help people, but the situation usually ends up worse than it did before they “helped.” In the end, I should decide what to do with my own money. If I want to buy you a car, I will! And if you can’t buy a car without actually paying for the whole thing, then you’re better off keeping your “clunker.”
So good riddance to a really bad program that has done more damage than good."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)