I can only speak for what I have observed on the local market, but I do believe that what I have witnessed is representative of much of the rest of the state and country. As a real estate appraiser, I had a front row seat for the bubble and burst in the real estate market.
Locally, market values began to increase late in 2004, at a rate above typical market cycles. During 2005, home prices in this part of Arizona increased approximately 50%. Heading into 2006, there continued to be some price appreciation but during the year they leveled off. The year 2007 began with fairly level prices but ended with the beginning of the burst already in the rearview mirror.
Since 2007, we have continued to experience declining market values and have not yet found the bottom. To date, it appears that the home and land prices in this area have not only lost the run-up in prices from 2004-2006, but are presently at levels of around 2000-2002, and still in a state of decline. We continue to have an over-supply of listings in almost all categories (land: vacant lots and acreage, homes: from small beginner houses to the large custom homes). Foreclosure activity is present at every level - price and size. Basic economics dictate that as long as there is an over-supply of listings, there will continue to be downward pressure on prices.
Where and when will this slide hit bottom? Under normal conditions, I believe that we already would have bottomed-out and would have begun a gradual recovery in the real estate market. We do not have "normal conditions".
We have a government that is altering just about every aspect of the process. They are offering tax credits, subsidized housing, refinance opportunities where homes are worth less than the loan balance, they are once again sponsoring loans with little to no down payment and accepting transactions where sellers pay the buyers' closing costs. The stated intention is to spur the housing market. The actual result has been a dismal failure.
We have reported unemployment around 9.5%, which represents only those filing unemployment claims, and real unemployment around 16%. We have consumer confidence at a very low level with a high degree of uncertainty as to the future economic outlook. We have national leaders intent on socializing various aspects of our economy and specific industries. The last two years of bailouts and stimulus plans, which have not worked, have the public in a state of confusion to some degree.
This negative atmosphere has dominated much of the housing market. Where there are buyers, they are expecting and receiving bargain prices. With the drastic reductions in home values, many homeowners find themselves upside-down (their home is worth less than the balance of their mortgage). Some are staying and hoping for better times ahead. Others are losing their homes. Some who are experiencing foreclosure have no options due to job loss, etc. Others have given up on a quick turnaround in values and have accepted, that financially, it does not make sense to keep making payments on a bad investment. They choose to walk-away and let the lender have the home back, even though they could continue to make the payments (this is referred to as a "strategic default").
The lenders and investors are encountering staggering losses. Many, if not almost all, properties that they take over in the foreclosure process, are being ultimately sold at a loss to the lender. It is not unusual for a REO property (real estate owned - foreclosure) to be sold by the lender for less than half of the mortgage balance.
That is the current picture of the housing crisis. This is my assessment of the situation.
In my opinion, the downward spiral in prices is self-perpetuating. Actions being taken are having the net effect of causing more actions to be taken. The banks (this will be an all-inclusive term to cover all lenders, investors and the secondary mortgage market - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, plus FHA and the VA) appear to be adopting a mindset of, "just deal with the loss and move the inventory". There is some pressure on the banks to sell the REO properties in their inventory in a short period of time. Holding these assets costs additional money each month. They do not see any advantage in being patient in finding a buyer as the value will be lower three months from now.
Additionally, there are numerous foreclosures needing to be moved by various banks. There are a limited number of buyers, even with historically low interest rates and bargain prices. The banks end up competing with each other for the next buyer to come along. As one bank lowers the asking price on an REO (and this is done on a routine basis - every few weeks), the other banks feel pressure to then lower their REO prices in order to compete. This creates a spiral that has resulted in prices for some properties that are lower than they have ever been in certain developments.
Investors have learned to be patient, the price will be lower, later. Banks have learned to be impatient and many are accepting very low offers. In many portions of the market, which have been heavily affected by foreclosures, lender activity is dominating the market and continues to re-establish new lows for market values. REO sales control the market in some price ranges. If a homeowner needs to sell their home, they are forced to compete with lender-owned properties. This results in non-REO homes being sold in the same price ranges as the REO homes.
Locally, the lowest priced homes appear to have decent activity. Homes that were $350,000 at the beginning of 2006, can be purchased under $200,000. Higher priced homes are rarely selling as there are a very limited number of potential buyers. As there is considerable REO activity in the higher price ranges, these REO listings are basically establishing the market. As the banks continue to drop their asking prices, the market collapses and everyone loses. Currently, there are luxury homes for sale as REO listings with asking prices less than one third of the last sale price for the home. Some vacant lots are less than one fourth of the last sale price. Still, very few takers.
The policy of a continual lowering of asking prices by the banks not only causes their losses to be larger, but also forces the taxpayers to absorb more of the losses as we continue to bail out the various players in the loan process. The competition and pressure among the banks to move inventory has established the unending, downward spiral in prices. The much lower market values, as a result of the REO activity, in turn, causes more people to be upside-down and to end up in foreclosure. The additional REO on the inventory adds more pressure to get it sold, even at more price reductions.
Currently, some of the major players in keeping the market from finding the bottom and leveling off, are the banks - some of the ones who have the most to lose. Until they decide that the prices are already too low and agree to hold steady, we will not see stability. They have the ability to help themselves and the rest of us at the same time. Will they learn patience? It truly is a virtue long forgotten in this market.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Fed to Purchase National Debt
Some are saying that the step announced this week by the FED (Federal Reserve Board) is a measure of desperation. They believe that for the FED to announce that they will begin buying US securities and/or bonds (basically an IOU from the US Government), that it is a last-ditch effort to try to stimulate the US economy.
That may sound like a good plan to you. At this point, you may want anyone to do anything to get things going again. Let the FED buy the debt, after all, it will be bought by someone, it might as well be the Fed.
When a central bank (the FED in the US), which controls the money supply for a nation, buys the debt of the nation, it is called "monetizing the debt" (we will call it MTD). It is correct, that when the US issues IOUs, someone buys that debt in exchange for the stated interest rate they will earn during the term until the debt is paid in full. As the national debt has skyrocketed over the past two years to over $13.3 trillion (which equals over $40,000 for every man, woman and child in our country), the typical buyers of the debt are getting nervous about their investments.
Due to the out-of-control spending in Washington, along with the earmarks, bailouts, and stimulus plans; BO continues to need more cash to fund his agenda. That results in the government issuing more IOUs and needing someone to buy them. In other words, the government prints an IOU on a piece of paper and sells it for however large of a number they chose to write on the bond. The buyer pulls cash out of the money supply and uses it to purchase the IOU.
When the FED told us they would begin buying US debt (MTD), that was an admission that the previous buyers of our debt did not want to buy any more. In the current situation, in order for the US to have additional cash to continue to fund all the social programs, etc., the FED has found it necessary to MTD. This is bad news. To MTD is different than when someone else buys the debt. Others use existing cash to buy the IOUs. The FED prints additional cash to use to MTD. The result is the US prints the IOU on a piece of paper and trades it for a pile of case that the FED just printed on paper. The FED creates new cash. The US takes this cash (laughing about how easy it was to get a pile of money) and throws it into the US economy. This results in more cash in the money supply.
A cause of inflation is the over supply of cash in the money supply. As more cash is added to the supply, the result is that things of value (a home, a car, food, gas, etc.) end up costing more dollars = inflation. A larger supply of cash makes each dollar have less value. This, then, takes more of the dollars to buy the same thing.
As inflation takes root in our economic system, portions of the economy suffer. The more IOUs sold to the FED, the higher the money supply becomes. The FED just announced that they will buy the US debt. As this new policy takes effect, we will begin to see inflation. As inflation becomes more of an issue, the FED will adopt a policy to try to prevent hyper-inflation. Hyper-inflation is the situation where the prices are increasing at an alarming rate and the value of a dollar is dropping as you drive to the store. The FED policy will be that they must pull extra cash out of the money supply to try to lower the rate of inflation.
How will the FED decrease the money supply? They will sell to the public the IOUs they have been holding. With the economy in distress and the US government on the verge of bankruptcy, the FED will have to offer the IOUs at a much higher interest rate than they were getting from the US. When the interest rate gets high enough to attract buyers, it affects the other interest rates in the economy. The FED move will result in higher interest rates that directly affect you and I. The cash paid to buy the IOUs from the FED will be taken from the money supply.
MTD by the FED will lead to inflation and higher interest rates. Both of these will be hard on an already struggling economy.
Since the direction we are headed will lead to further economic crisis, what should we be doing, instead? The answer is, short-term pain will lead to long-term gain. We need the US Government to drastically reduce spending, cancel many social programs, stop pork-barrel projects, reduce the size of the government payroll, reduce burdensome regulations, stop raising taxes, adjust the pay and benefit packages of government employees to no higher than the private sector, stop redistributing the wealth, etc. These steps may cause some temporary pain as the public adjusts to less government benefits and more personal responsibility, but the long term benefits will be a more stable economy and healthy nation.
That may sound like a good plan to you. At this point, you may want anyone to do anything to get things going again. Let the FED buy the debt, after all, it will be bought by someone, it might as well be the Fed.
When a central bank (the FED in the US), which controls the money supply for a nation, buys the debt of the nation, it is called "monetizing the debt" (we will call it MTD). It is correct, that when the US issues IOUs, someone buys that debt in exchange for the stated interest rate they will earn during the term until the debt is paid in full. As the national debt has skyrocketed over the past two years to over $13.3 trillion (which equals over $40,000 for every man, woman and child in our country), the typical buyers of the debt are getting nervous about their investments.
Due to the out-of-control spending in Washington, along with the earmarks, bailouts, and stimulus plans; BO continues to need more cash to fund his agenda. That results in the government issuing more IOUs and needing someone to buy them. In other words, the government prints an IOU on a piece of paper and sells it for however large of a number they chose to write on the bond. The buyer pulls cash out of the money supply and uses it to purchase the IOU.
When the FED told us they would begin buying US debt (MTD), that was an admission that the previous buyers of our debt did not want to buy any more. In the current situation, in order for the US to have additional cash to continue to fund all the social programs, etc., the FED has found it necessary to MTD. This is bad news. To MTD is different than when someone else buys the debt. Others use existing cash to buy the IOUs. The FED prints additional cash to use to MTD. The result is the US prints the IOU on a piece of paper and trades it for a pile of case that the FED just printed on paper. The FED creates new cash. The US takes this cash (laughing about how easy it was to get a pile of money) and throws it into the US economy. This results in more cash in the money supply.
A cause of inflation is the over supply of cash in the money supply. As more cash is added to the supply, the result is that things of value (a home, a car, food, gas, etc.) end up costing more dollars = inflation. A larger supply of cash makes each dollar have less value. This, then, takes more of the dollars to buy the same thing.
As inflation takes root in our economic system, portions of the economy suffer. The more IOUs sold to the FED, the higher the money supply becomes. The FED just announced that they will buy the US debt. As this new policy takes effect, we will begin to see inflation. As inflation becomes more of an issue, the FED will adopt a policy to try to prevent hyper-inflation. Hyper-inflation is the situation where the prices are increasing at an alarming rate and the value of a dollar is dropping as you drive to the store. The FED policy will be that they must pull extra cash out of the money supply to try to lower the rate of inflation.
How will the FED decrease the money supply? They will sell to the public the IOUs they have been holding. With the economy in distress and the US government on the verge of bankruptcy, the FED will have to offer the IOUs at a much higher interest rate than they were getting from the US. When the interest rate gets high enough to attract buyers, it affects the other interest rates in the economy. The FED move will result in higher interest rates that directly affect you and I. The cash paid to buy the IOUs from the FED will be taken from the money supply.
MTD by the FED will lead to inflation and higher interest rates. Both of these will be hard on an already struggling economy.
Since the direction we are headed will lead to further economic crisis, what should we be doing, instead? The answer is, short-term pain will lead to long-term gain. We need the US Government to drastically reduce spending, cancel many social programs, stop pork-barrel projects, reduce the size of the government payroll, reduce burdensome regulations, stop raising taxes, adjust the pay and benefit packages of government employees to no higher than the private sector, stop redistributing the wealth, etc. These steps may cause some temporary pain as the public adjusts to less government benefits and more personal responsibility, but the long term benefits will be a more stable economy and healthy nation.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
On Your Dime
There are several issues in the news that affect your wallet.
1. First Lady Obama (FLO) just took one of her daughters and some close friends to Spain for a private vacation and some "mother-daughter time". Once the story began to gain scrutiny, the story changed to one of FLO needing to keep a promise with a close friend. It seems that FLO has a friend who recently lost a loved-one. FLO had promised her that they would get together for some personal-relationship time, since FLO was not able to attend the funeral. This trip was just the fulfillment of that promise to spend a little time together. (I don't guess she is aware of the corner coffee shop or even that the US has motels that need a little financial boost.)
As you probably know, whenever BO or FLO go somewhere, it is never a small thing. FLO, daughter and friends made the trip on Air Force Two, the Air Force version of a Boeing 757. You are probably, also aware that where either of them go, there is a small army of Secret Service agents that tag along. In this case, it is reported that 70 agents also made the trip to Spain (each of them get a nice per diem when they travel). FLO and the agents do not take tazis or the bus. That means that other planes also made the trip to take vehicles for the motorcade, the communication equipment for the agents, the weapons they would need for protection of FLO, etc.
You may have heard that FLO and party stayed at the "Casa 6" motel. Not so, they reserved 60, yes 60 rooms at a five-star resort, where each room can cost from $600 to $6,000 per night. Yes, they stayed several nights. Just my speculation, but I would imagine that FLO insisted on the cheap rooms and cold cuts and cereal for meals.
We have not been told how many friends went along. We have not been told what this trip cost. We have been assured that FLO would reimburse the government for the cost of two (her and her daughter's) airline tickets, since this was for pleasure and not official business. Whew! That's better, for a minute there, I thought this was probably going to be expensive on the taxpayers back home.
Don't worry about BO and the other daughter not being able to make that trip. As soon as FLO gets back, the whole family will then go on a family vacation.
2. Have you heard about the Imam from New York? This is the same Muslim cleric who has been pressing for building a mosque at "ground zero". Now that the 13-story mosque has gained official approval from New York City, there appears to just be two small issues to work out. The first appears to be that part of the property needed, they do not own. The second would be finding the $100,000,000 for the construction costs.
Since the BO administration (BOA) is pro-Muslim, they felt is was part their responsibility to help this poor man find the money. So, this week, the State Department revealed that the US (this means you and I) will be funding a multi-nation trip for this Imam to travel around the Middle East raising funds to build a mosque as a symbol of triumph over the USA on 9-11. The trip should be successful since this guy has experience raising funds for Hamas.
You ask, why do I say that BO is pro-Muslim? I would instruct you to go back and see who got the first interview with the new President. Whose side has he taken between Israel and Hamas? Who did he apologize to in his speech from Egypt? Where did he get his elementary education? What religion was his father?
Did you know that BO has instructed the head of NASA to make his number one priority the building-up of the Muslim people's self-image in the Middle East? NASA's most important mission is to make Arabs feel good about themselves. What happened to space flight? Oh, most of that has been canceled by the BOA.
3. On a related topic, it has also been revealed that the US (us) is also funding the construction of mosques in various Arab countries in other parts of the world. Isn't it amazing that the wall between church and state is very clear when it pertains to Christianity, but not so much so for Islam? We actually have our government paying to build places of worship for a religion. Not only that, but it is a religion that believes that all of us infidels should either convert to Islam or be killed.
4. The national debt is approximately $13.3 trillion. That equates to +-$40,000 per man, woman and child in the USA.
5. This week, Congress passed and BO signed another stimulus bill. This one "only" costs $26.1 billion. Much of the money will be used to bail out unions for teacher pensions in various states. This slush fund, with your money, is being used to buy votes for Democrats.
It sort of makes you wonder something. Why did they need another stimulus bill for this purpose? We have been told, repeatedly, over the past couple years, that if they do not pass various stimulus and bail-out bills that teachers will suffer. It's really just for the children! It is the children, single women, minorities and gays that get hit the hardest when they do not pass one of these. Also, why did they need another bail-out bill when there is still over $300 billion unspent from the first stimulus bill. Makes you wonder what they are saving that pot of cash for and which voter block will be rewarded next time?
Rest easy, Big Brother is in charge!
1. First Lady Obama (FLO) just took one of her daughters and some close friends to Spain for a private vacation and some "mother-daughter time". Once the story began to gain scrutiny, the story changed to one of FLO needing to keep a promise with a close friend. It seems that FLO has a friend who recently lost a loved-one. FLO had promised her that they would get together for some personal-relationship time, since FLO was not able to attend the funeral. This trip was just the fulfillment of that promise to spend a little time together. (I don't guess she is aware of the corner coffee shop or even that the US has motels that need a little financial boost.)
As you probably know, whenever BO or FLO go somewhere, it is never a small thing. FLO, daughter and friends made the trip on Air Force Two, the Air Force version of a Boeing 757. You are probably, also aware that where either of them go, there is a small army of Secret Service agents that tag along. In this case, it is reported that 70 agents also made the trip to Spain (each of them get a nice per diem when they travel). FLO and the agents do not take tazis or the bus. That means that other planes also made the trip to take vehicles for the motorcade, the communication equipment for the agents, the weapons they would need for protection of FLO, etc.
You may have heard that FLO and party stayed at the "Casa 6" motel. Not so, they reserved 60, yes 60 rooms at a five-star resort, where each room can cost from $600 to $6,000 per night. Yes, they stayed several nights. Just my speculation, but I would imagine that FLO insisted on the cheap rooms and cold cuts and cereal for meals.
We have not been told how many friends went along. We have not been told what this trip cost. We have been assured that FLO would reimburse the government for the cost of two (her and her daughter's) airline tickets, since this was for pleasure and not official business. Whew! That's better, for a minute there, I thought this was probably going to be expensive on the taxpayers back home.
Don't worry about BO and the other daughter not being able to make that trip. As soon as FLO gets back, the whole family will then go on a family vacation.
2. Have you heard about the Imam from New York? This is the same Muslim cleric who has been pressing for building a mosque at "ground zero". Now that the 13-story mosque has gained official approval from New York City, there appears to just be two small issues to work out. The first appears to be that part of the property needed, they do not own. The second would be finding the $100,000,000 for the construction costs.
Since the BO administration (BOA) is pro-Muslim, they felt is was part their responsibility to help this poor man find the money. So, this week, the State Department revealed that the US (this means you and I) will be funding a multi-nation trip for this Imam to travel around the Middle East raising funds to build a mosque as a symbol of triumph over the USA on 9-11. The trip should be successful since this guy has experience raising funds for Hamas.
You ask, why do I say that BO is pro-Muslim? I would instruct you to go back and see who got the first interview with the new President. Whose side has he taken between Israel and Hamas? Who did he apologize to in his speech from Egypt? Where did he get his elementary education? What religion was his father?
Did you know that BO has instructed the head of NASA to make his number one priority the building-up of the Muslim people's self-image in the Middle East? NASA's most important mission is to make Arabs feel good about themselves. What happened to space flight? Oh, most of that has been canceled by the BOA.
3. On a related topic, it has also been revealed that the US (us) is also funding the construction of mosques in various Arab countries in other parts of the world. Isn't it amazing that the wall between church and state is very clear when it pertains to Christianity, but not so much so for Islam? We actually have our government paying to build places of worship for a religion. Not only that, but it is a religion that believes that all of us infidels should either convert to Islam or be killed.
4. The national debt is approximately $13.3 trillion. That equates to +-$40,000 per man, woman and child in the USA.
5. This week, Congress passed and BO signed another stimulus bill. This one "only" costs $26.1 billion. Much of the money will be used to bail out unions for teacher pensions in various states. This slush fund, with your money, is being used to buy votes for Democrats.
It sort of makes you wonder something. Why did they need another stimulus bill for this purpose? We have been told, repeatedly, over the past couple years, that if they do not pass various stimulus and bail-out bills that teachers will suffer. It's really just for the children! It is the children, single women, minorities and gays that get hit the hardest when they do not pass one of these. Also, why did they need another bail-out bill when there is still over $300 billion unspent from the first stimulus bill. Makes you wonder what they are saving that pot of cash for and which voter block will be rewarded next time?
Rest easy, Big Brother is in charge!
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Comment Moderation
Recently, this blog has been visited by some new readers. I appreciate that they have taken the time to read and comment. But, along with the sincere interest comes those who abuse the opportunity to post comments. Some have posted advertising and use the comment section to post links to their own web sites that have nothing to do with the subject. So, I have deleted their comments and changed the settings so that all new comments are viewed prior to showing up on the blog. I hope you understand and I apologize for the inconvenience of your comments showing up later, rather than immediately. Also, to the new readers, welcome, and I appreciate hearing from you as you feel led.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Live THAT Way!
How now should I live?
To break that question down, further:
1. How? How are you living? Does your lifestyle demonstrate what is truly important to you? Would others understand what motivates you based on what they see in your life?
2. Now? Is there a priority for your life that you feel you will get around to, at some time in the future? Are your so-called priorities worth your time, now? Are they important enough to live for, now?
3. Should? Is there something you know you should do, or something you should change in what you are currently doing? What should you be doing now, that you are not?
4. I? Now it is hitting close to home and getting personal. It is not about what others should do and how and when they should do it. It is about you and me. Salvation is personal. Your walk with God and in this world is unique. "No one else can walk it for you, You have to walk it by yourself." from "The Reverend Mister Black".
5. Live? It is not enough to teach or tell others what is important to you. You have to live it! Your life demonstrates what is really important to you. As has been said, "Your life is an open book." Whether or not you realize it, others are reading your pages. What message is being transmitted?
Let me ask the question another way. Is there something or someone you would die for? Not hypothetically, literally! Is there anything that is so important to you that you would be willing to lay down your life in support of or in defense of? If not, I would have to ask, what is the meaning of your life? How have you found yourself in a position where there is nothing and no one worth your life? How has your life become so important and valuable that it should not and cannot be sacrificed for any cause or person? Or, maybe, you feel that it is your life that others should be willing to die for.
Our lives are but a vapor soon to be forgotten. We, physically, will return to where we came; ashes to ashes, dust to dust. In Gen. 18:27, Abraham acknowledges that he is but ashes and dust. If it were true of him, it is true of you and me. What will you do with your life that will survive your death? What difference will your having been here make to the future or to others?
Each day we gather a little closer to eternity. Some day, we will reach that destination. At that point, in the absence of time, how will your time spent on Earth measure up? Did you matter to anyone other than at the time you were here? Did you make a difference in the life of someone? What did you demonstrate, by your life, that will be an example for others to follow?
Will you die with regrets over those things you should have done, but did not? We have but one period of time in which to live to make a difference. That is right now! Tomorrow is not promised to you. The legacy you leave may be determined today.
Mankind has a history full of examples worthy of following. There are countless ones who gave up their lives for a cause or for the sake of others. This is not to say that your goal is to go out and die for something and hope someone notices how noble you were. Sometimes, when someone gives up their lives, death is not involved. They give up their life in order to serve others. Their sacrifice is a living sacrifice. (Rom 12:1 KJV) "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."
"Reasonable service"? Giving up my life as a sacrifice to God is a "reasonable" service? If that is reasonable, what would be unreasonable? Not doing that would be unreasonable.
If you do not already know what those things are that you would die for, examine your life and your priorities. If you do have an idea as to what is that important to you, make sure that they are of such that will have a lasting effect. When you are through with that self-examination, take a look at your present life. Are you living in such a way as your life-priorities are evident and effectual?
In other words, figure out what message you want others to read from your life and then live in such a manner that they cannot misconstrue that message. Find it and then live that way!
Have you asked, "What does it mean to follow Jesus?" The answer is one step beyond what is described above. Following Jesus is to make the self-examination to see if your life is reflecting God's priorities, not your own. This is where having a lasting effect makes a difference. Seek the Lord to know Him. Find Him and follow. Live THAT way!
To break that question down, further:
1. How? How are you living? Does your lifestyle demonstrate what is truly important to you? Would others understand what motivates you based on what they see in your life?
2. Now? Is there a priority for your life that you feel you will get around to, at some time in the future? Are your so-called priorities worth your time, now? Are they important enough to live for, now?
3. Should? Is there something you know you should do, or something you should change in what you are currently doing? What should you be doing now, that you are not?
4. I? Now it is hitting close to home and getting personal. It is not about what others should do and how and when they should do it. It is about you and me. Salvation is personal. Your walk with God and in this world is unique. "No one else can walk it for you, You have to walk it by yourself." from "The Reverend Mister Black".
5. Live? It is not enough to teach or tell others what is important to you. You have to live it! Your life demonstrates what is really important to you. As has been said, "Your life is an open book." Whether or not you realize it, others are reading your pages. What message is being transmitted?
Let me ask the question another way. Is there something or someone you would die for? Not hypothetically, literally! Is there anything that is so important to you that you would be willing to lay down your life in support of or in defense of? If not, I would have to ask, what is the meaning of your life? How have you found yourself in a position where there is nothing and no one worth your life? How has your life become so important and valuable that it should not and cannot be sacrificed for any cause or person? Or, maybe, you feel that it is your life that others should be willing to die for.
Our lives are but a vapor soon to be forgotten. We, physically, will return to where we came; ashes to ashes, dust to dust. In Gen. 18:27, Abraham acknowledges that he is but ashes and dust. If it were true of him, it is true of you and me. What will you do with your life that will survive your death? What difference will your having been here make to the future or to others?
Each day we gather a little closer to eternity. Some day, we will reach that destination. At that point, in the absence of time, how will your time spent on Earth measure up? Did you matter to anyone other than at the time you were here? Did you make a difference in the life of someone? What did you demonstrate, by your life, that will be an example for others to follow?
Will you die with regrets over those things you should have done, but did not? We have but one period of time in which to live to make a difference. That is right now! Tomorrow is not promised to you. The legacy you leave may be determined today.
Mankind has a history full of examples worthy of following. There are countless ones who gave up their lives for a cause or for the sake of others. This is not to say that your goal is to go out and die for something and hope someone notices how noble you were. Sometimes, when someone gives up their lives, death is not involved. They give up their life in order to serve others. Their sacrifice is a living sacrifice. (Rom 12:1 KJV) "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."
"Reasonable service"? Giving up my life as a sacrifice to God is a "reasonable" service? If that is reasonable, what would be unreasonable? Not doing that would be unreasonable.
If you do not already know what those things are that you would die for, examine your life and your priorities. If you do have an idea as to what is that important to you, make sure that they are of such that will have a lasting effect. When you are through with that self-examination, take a look at your present life. Are you living in such a way as your life-priorities are evident and effectual?
In other words, figure out what message you want others to read from your life and then live in such a manner that they cannot misconstrue that message. Find it and then live that way!
Have you asked, "What does it mean to follow Jesus?" The answer is one step beyond what is described above. Following Jesus is to make the self-examination to see if your life is reflecting God's priorities, not your own. This is where having a lasting effect makes a difference. Seek the Lord to know Him. Find Him and follow. Live THAT way!
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Embryonic Stem Cell Research - New Link
There is a breaking news story out of Australia. Scientists have been working on a DNA project for the past five years. They were able to extract a "really pure DNA" from embryonic stem cells. Their research is showing a direct link to the typical American Demo-cRat voters.
At first, it would appear that the link between the cRats and the stem cells is a stretch, but further analysis shows multi-connections between the two.
The typical cRat voter is sponging off of others in our country. It seems that a majority of cRats fall into one of the following categories: they are collecting welfare that is paid by taxpayers, they belong to a union that is being "bailed out" by taxpayers, they are in the country illegally and are receiving free healthcare and education which are being paid for by the taxpayers, etc. As a family unit becomes dependent upon government to meet their needs, they produce additional generations of sponges. The cRat sponges appear to be reproducing generations of bottom dwellers.
The embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, were extracted from sea sponges. (Yes, it appears that even sponges have embryos.) The scientists have found that the seaSponges share 70% of genes common to seaRats.
This study helps to also explain why so many seaRats seem to have retained too much water on the brain.
At first, it would appear that the link between the cRats and the stem cells is a stretch, but further analysis shows multi-connections between the two.
The typical cRat voter is sponging off of others in our country. It seems that a majority of cRats fall into one of the following categories: they are collecting welfare that is paid by taxpayers, they belong to a union that is being "bailed out" by taxpayers, they are in the country illegally and are receiving free healthcare and education which are being paid for by the taxpayers, etc. As a family unit becomes dependent upon government to meet their needs, they produce additional generations of sponges. The cRat sponges appear to be reproducing generations of bottom dwellers.
The embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, were extracted from sea sponges. (Yes, it appears that even sponges have embryos.) The scientists have found that the seaSponges share 70% of genes common to seaRats.
This study helps to also explain why so many seaRats seem to have retained too much water on the brain.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
I Pledge Allegiance...
How long has it been since you recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag? Without hesitation, could you recite it without error?
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Citizens of the United States of America should be standing, right hand over heart, and reciting this pledge on a regular basis; just as it was done when some of us were young. It seems that much of the pride in our country has diminished over the past few decades, to the point where the Pledge is rarely heard or quoted.
Recently, a story made the news about a high school student's fight to get the Pledge back into the classrooms. He met resistance at every level. He was told that the school would have trouble finding teachers who knew the Pledge. When the controversy gained national attention, the school compromised by allowing the Pledge to be recited, by any students interested, in a hallway prior to the start of school.
What does the Pledge mean?
I, a citizen, make a solemn promise of loyalty (the opposite of treason or treachery) to the Flag (the emblem flown representing our nation) of the United States of America, and to the Republic (the form of government initiated by our Founding Fathers) for which the Flag represents, it is one nation made up of individual states united and not able to be divided, under the protection and guidance of God the Father, and which offers freedom and justice to all.
Did you notice that the Flag represents the Republic, specifically? The Flag has thirteen stripes, one for each of the thirteen colonies. It has 50 stars, one for each of the states. It stands for the individualism of the various states, which have joined together for mutual benefit and formed a Republic form of government. A Republic is a government where the people elect others to represent them and to make the laws whereby we are governed. A Democracy, on the other hand, is a government where the majority of the people rule. Another way it has been explained, a Republic is a nation with the rule of law and a Democracy is a nation with the rule of men.
So, what happens if our country is transformed into a democracy that no longer follows the laws, no longer desires to be under God, or protect the freedom of it's citizens on an equal basis, or meets out justice depending on politics or race? What about the "indivisible" part? When we are being led by people who have the desire to divide and conquer their opposition, who intentionally separate us into groups and classes, who play one race against another, etc.; do we have a united set of states forming one country, any longer?
Part of the problem is the lack of education existing in many of our people. Our enemy has been busy dumbing-down our country. As of this point in time, it is not too late to turn things around. It can begin by you doing what you can do to provide accurate education and information to those around you.
We have help on the way. There is a reader of this blog who has accepted the challenge to use his blog to teach us the Constitution and the period of history surrounding the founding of our country. At the present time, he is working on this project and as soon as he is ready, you will be notified of the address for his blog. As you can imagine, this is quite an undertaking.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Citizens of the United States of America should be standing, right hand over heart, and reciting this pledge on a regular basis; just as it was done when some of us were young. It seems that much of the pride in our country has diminished over the past few decades, to the point where the Pledge is rarely heard or quoted.
Recently, a story made the news about a high school student's fight to get the Pledge back into the classrooms. He met resistance at every level. He was told that the school would have trouble finding teachers who knew the Pledge. When the controversy gained national attention, the school compromised by allowing the Pledge to be recited, by any students interested, in a hallway prior to the start of school.
What does the Pledge mean?
I, a citizen, make a solemn promise of loyalty (the opposite of treason or treachery) to the Flag (the emblem flown representing our nation) of the United States of America, and to the Republic (the form of government initiated by our Founding Fathers) for which the Flag represents, it is one nation made up of individual states united and not able to be divided, under the protection and guidance of God the Father, and which offers freedom and justice to all.
Did you notice that the Flag represents the Republic, specifically? The Flag has thirteen stripes, one for each of the thirteen colonies. It has 50 stars, one for each of the states. It stands for the individualism of the various states, which have joined together for mutual benefit and formed a Republic form of government. A Republic is a government where the people elect others to represent them and to make the laws whereby we are governed. A Democracy, on the other hand, is a government where the majority of the people rule. Another way it has been explained, a Republic is a nation with the rule of law and a Democracy is a nation with the rule of men.
So, what happens if our country is transformed into a democracy that no longer follows the laws, no longer desires to be under God, or protect the freedom of it's citizens on an equal basis, or meets out justice depending on politics or race? What about the "indivisible" part? When we are being led by people who have the desire to divide and conquer their opposition, who intentionally separate us into groups and classes, who play one race against another, etc.; do we have a united set of states forming one country, any longer?
Part of the problem is the lack of education existing in many of our people. Our enemy has been busy dumbing-down our country. As of this point in time, it is not too late to turn things around. It can begin by you doing what you can do to provide accurate education and information to those around you.
We have help on the way. There is a reader of this blog who has accepted the challenge to use his blog to teach us the Constitution and the period of history surrounding the founding of our country. At the present time, he is working on this project and as soon as he is ready, you will be notified of the address for his blog. As you can imagine, this is quite an undertaking.
Monday, August 2, 2010
The Inflation Bubble
Remember the good ol' days when the value of your home actually increased with the passing of time? During bad economic periods, values remained fairly stagnant. The rest of the time appreciation put added net worth in your wallet.
The normal cycles gave way to the abnormal towards the end of 2004 and lasted into 2006. During that time frame, values went ballistic. There were "bidding wars" for homes where the asking price set the low end of the bids even though it was 50% higher than the same home one year earlier. The demand for homes caused a rapid, upward spiral in prices. Once this began, we were bombarded, on almost a daily basis, with the warnings of "the bubble is going to burst!"
"The bubble", what did they mean? The bubble was the artificially high home prices which were increasing at rates around 5% per month. This was not realistic or sustainable as to the rate of increase or the level of prices. Despite the warnings, the temptation to get in the game and make quick bucks off of flipping houses was irresistible for many. The ignoring of "unrealistic" and "unsustainable" bubble warnings fueled the hot air that continued to expand the bubble.
The bubble was the appearance of substance which did not exist. It took on a life of its own but all that was under it was vapor. In 2006, the artificial expansion popped and the substance vaporized. The bubble burst, just as prophesied. Now, for approaching four years, the balloon has been flying around the room, backwards. In many areas, we have not only lost the bubble appreciation, but we have landed in a crater. At the present time, we still cannot see the bottom.
In at least America, we have another bubble. As opposed to the housing bubble, where the numbers were growing by artificial means, this new bubble is suppressing the numbers by artificial means. We have an inflation bubble.
Our government is printing extra paper money by the trillions of dollars. They are preparing to print another trillion dollars that can be thrown into the economic system. To make matters even worse, we as a country are also borrowing trillions of dollars. What is the reason we are adding so much additional cash to the economy? The cash has become the new "hot air". We have an artificially propped-up economy. The more the Feds throw cash at the recession, the worse it seems to get. So; instead of stepping back and observing that if we keep doing what we have done, we will continue to get more of the same results, only worse; they devise another program to inject more cash into the system.
The real economy remains on a slippery slope, finding itself sinking ever deeper and deeper into the abyss. But, on the surface, even though things aren't real good we expect to cycle out of this recession just as we have done so many times in the past. This notion that we are walking on solid, economical ground and that things are beginning to recover, is truly only a pin-prick away from a bursting bubble.
We cannot inject trillions of paper dollars into a struggling economy without the ultimate, resulting inflation. The more money the Feds add to the money supply, the bigger the bubble and the louder the "pop" will be down the road. Paper dollars are being used to prop up an artificial floor in order to give the appearance that the platform is the actual economic picture of the country. It is not!
Based on recent and current policy, inflation must happen. Inflation will be the result of too much cash in the money supply. Each dollar will be worth less and less, and it will take more and more of them to buy the same item. This is inflation. Things will cost more than they do right now.
I believe that inflation is inevitable at this point. The only question is how bad will it be. There are those warning of "hyper-inflation". I don't know about you, but I do not like that sound of that! Other countries have experienced hyper-inflation. The loaf of bread that used to cost two dollars now requires a stack of money. Folks, we do not want to go there!
On a national level, we have to STOP pumping dollars down a black hole. Our country has taxed and spent, borrowed and spent, and just plain spent and spent. It seems that they do not know any other solution other than let's spend some more.
If the housing bubble had burst in March of 2005, the housing crisis would be a distant memory by now. Instead, it grew substantially larger prior to it's collapse. Our inflation bubble can be dealt with now with the pain that will accompany a burst of it's size, or we can continue to inflate the bubble with more dollars and let it burst later with even more drastic results.
You could look at the housing bubble as an inflation bubble, only on the scale where one industry was affected. It took more dollars to buy the same thing of value. Now take that same example and apply it across the board, affecting our whole economy and all industry.
Personally, prepare for inflation. You might want to reconsider your investments, if you have some. It might be wise to own some thing of value rather than paper value. Become as self-sufficient as you are able to accomplish. Prepare your personal finances for harder times. Be wise in your spending and purchases.
You might be thinking, if you are still reading this, "enough with the doomsday forecasts!" I hope I am wrong and that our wise government will lead us to the land of prosperity. But, there are no signs on the horizon to cause me to believe that is the direction they are taking us. Practically every thing they are doing has the strong potential to hurt our economy.
Just remember this warning, "The bubble is going to burst!"
The normal cycles gave way to the abnormal towards the end of 2004 and lasted into 2006. During that time frame, values went ballistic. There were "bidding wars" for homes where the asking price set the low end of the bids even though it was 50% higher than the same home one year earlier. The demand for homes caused a rapid, upward spiral in prices. Once this began, we were bombarded, on almost a daily basis, with the warnings of "the bubble is going to burst!"
"The bubble", what did they mean? The bubble was the artificially high home prices which were increasing at rates around 5% per month. This was not realistic or sustainable as to the rate of increase or the level of prices. Despite the warnings, the temptation to get in the game and make quick bucks off of flipping houses was irresistible for many. The ignoring of "unrealistic" and "unsustainable" bubble warnings fueled the hot air that continued to expand the bubble.
The bubble was the appearance of substance which did not exist. It took on a life of its own but all that was under it was vapor. In 2006, the artificial expansion popped and the substance vaporized. The bubble burst, just as prophesied. Now, for approaching four years, the balloon has been flying around the room, backwards. In many areas, we have not only lost the bubble appreciation, but we have landed in a crater. At the present time, we still cannot see the bottom.
In at least America, we have another bubble. As opposed to the housing bubble, where the numbers were growing by artificial means, this new bubble is suppressing the numbers by artificial means. We have an inflation bubble.
Our government is printing extra paper money by the trillions of dollars. They are preparing to print another trillion dollars that can be thrown into the economic system. To make matters even worse, we as a country are also borrowing trillions of dollars. What is the reason we are adding so much additional cash to the economy? The cash has become the new "hot air". We have an artificially propped-up economy. The more the Feds throw cash at the recession, the worse it seems to get. So; instead of stepping back and observing that if we keep doing what we have done, we will continue to get more of the same results, only worse; they devise another program to inject more cash into the system.
The real economy remains on a slippery slope, finding itself sinking ever deeper and deeper into the abyss. But, on the surface, even though things aren't real good we expect to cycle out of this recession just as we have done so many times in the past. This notion that we are walking on solid, economical ground and that things are beginning to recover, is truly only a pin-prick away from a bursting bubble.
We cannot inject trillions of paper dollars into a struggling economy without the ultimate, resulting inflation. The more money the Feds add to the money supply, the bigger the bubble and the louder the "pop" will be down the road. Paper dollars are being used to prop up an artificial floor in order to give the appearance that the platform is the actual economic picture of the country. It is not!
Based on recent and current policy, inflation must happen. Inflation will be the result of too much cash in the money supply. Each dollar will be worth less and less, and it will take more and more of them to buy the same item. This is inflation. Things will cost more than they do right now.
I believe that inflation is inevitable at this point. The only question is how bad will it be. There are those warning of "hyper-inflation". I don't know about you, but I do not like that sound of that! Other countries have experienced hyper-inflation. The loaf of bread that used to cost two dollars now requires a stack of money. Folks, we do not want to go there!
On a national level, we have to STOP pumping dollars down a black hole. Our country has taxed and spent, borrowed and spent, and just plain spent and spent. It seems that they do not know any other solution other than let's spend some more.
If the housing bubble had burst in March of 2005, the housing crisis would be a distant memory by now. Instead, it grew substantially larger prior to it's collapse. Our inflation bubble can be dealt with now with the pain that will accompany a burst of it's size, or we can continue to inflate the bubble with more dollars and let it burst later with even more drastic results.
You could look at the housing bubble as an inflation bubble, only on the scale where one industry was affected. It took more dollars to buy the same thing of value. Now take that same example and apply it across the board, affecting our whole economy and all industry.
Personally, prepare for inflation. You might want to reconsider your investments, if you have some. It might be wise to own some thing of value rather than paper value. Become as self-sufficient as you are able to accomplish. Prepare your personal finances for harder times. Be wise in your spending and purchases.
You might be thinking, if you are still reading this, "enough with the doomsday forecasts!" I hope I am wrong and that our wise government will lead us to the land of prosperity. But, there are no signs on the horizon to cause me to believe that is the direction they are taking us. Practically every thing they are doing has the strong potential to hurt our economy.
Just remember this warning, "The bubble is going to burst!"
Saturday, July 31, 2010
When are Rights, Wrong? - Part 2
1st Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Last night the issue was freedom of speech. Tonight, it is freedom of religion. The first amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, addresses what Congress cannot do. Neither this one nor the following amendments were designed to give the citizens rights. It was understood that the citizens already had their rights - "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." (Declaration of Independence). The Bill of Rights was deemed necessary as a way to spell out specific areas where the Federal Government cannot go. The list of rights, in the first eight amendments was also not meant to be all-inclusive. Amendment 9 - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparge others retained by the people."
The Constitution gives the three branches of the Federal Government certain and specific responsibilities and authority. Whatever was not given, by the Constitution, to the Federal Government, was reserved to the various state governments or to the people.
The first amendment states that Congress cannot pass any law that has to do with the establishment of a religion. In other words, in the United States, there is not to be any specific religion that is sponsored by Congress. There can be no "National Religion". It goes on to instruct Congress that they cannot pass any law to prohibit the free exercise of religion, by the people.
The "wall of separation between religion and government" is not a part of the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that there can be no religious activities on public property or as a part of government functions. This notion of "the wall" was invented later in our history and has now grown to a point where only rarely is there any form of religion associated with any level of government or any other public entity, such as public schools.
Washington, the ACLU, atheist organizations and others have been busy over the past 50 years getting religion out of public view. We have heard of a church in Phoenix being prohibited from ringing their church bells. We have heard of cities prohibiting home Bible studies in residential neighborhoods. The trend has been more regulation to restrict the free exercise of religion. This is, of course, with some exceptions.
A notable exception, across the country, is found with the Islam religion. For some reason, it seems that Muslims are being granted more freedom and flexibility than the Christian churches. Have you ever heard of a Muslim gathering being cancelled due to city restrictions on their activities? Have you ever heard of Muslims being told that they cannot announce the daily calls to prayer over loud speakers? Why are Muslims being granted special rules as pertain to airport security screening? Would you ever think, for a second, that you could cover your face when your photo is being taken for your "photo ID" or your driver's license?
Why are so many trying so hard to bend over backwards to placate and appease the Muslims? Because, after all, aren't they "the religion of peace"? If you doubt that, just look at the middle east. See how well they play with their neighbors in Israel. Learn from their example of reaching across the aisle, between the tribes, in Iraq. Notice how, when they decide to blow people to pieces, how careful they are to not hurt fellow Muslims. Listen to how much love there is between Iran and the Jews. Peace, peace, as far as the eye can see!
Also, pay no attention to the things their leaders say, such as: wanting to wipe Israel off of the map, believing that all Christians should be killed, seeing the United States as the great Satan and Israel as the little Satan, cheering as they watched the twin towers crumble on 9/11, and their tremendous respect for the females in their society. Remember "honor killings"?
The Islam religion, along with their Sharia Law, is not conducive to co-mingling with Christian religions or the Jews. How many Islam religious leaders in the U.S. loudly and adamantly spoke out against the acts of terrorism conducted on American soil on 9/11, or any of the others since? When some Muslim does speak out, he is so rare that it gets a lot of attention.
Freedom of religion has close ties to freedom of speech. How tolerant should we be in the United States to a religion that promotes terrorist acts, preaches the elimination of Israel, believes that all Infidels (whoever does not receive the Islam faith) should be killed? As we discussed last night, how far can people go in what they say before they have crossed the line and left Constitutionally protected territory?
We, in America, appear to be granting special favors to a "religion" that favors the fundamental transformation of our country from the basics it was founded upon to an unrecognizable nation. They are anti-capitalists, anti-Christian promoters of violence. They view women as property. They prey on the poor and uneducated to entice them to become suicide bombers. Are you aware that leaving the religion of Islam is punishable by death? Why are they set on building a 13-story mosque next to "ground zero" in NY City? Why is NY City allowing them to proceed?
What about this religion fits into this country, the way it was founded? This kind of "peace" we do not need!
So, should we rewrite Amendment One? Is there a way to deal with the fastest growing religion in the world? No, the Bill of Rights are just fine, as written. We need to apply the same conclusion we reached last night. They are not free to promote the destruction of the United States. They cannot teach that non-believers should all be killed. They cannot get away with hate speech any more than anyone else. If they are found to be promoting or teaching the over-throw of America, the killing of those who disagree, etc.; they should be treated the same way a right-wing, black guy or left-wing white guy would be treated. It should be treated as criminal behavior. There should be arrests and prosecution and punishment.
If they want to be here, fine, just get along and fit in. If you believe different than me, fine, just respect my faith and actually be a religion of peace. Muslims have no right to diminish the rights of non-Muslims. If they promote doing so, then they must be stopped with the full force of the law, backed by our Constitution. They do not have a level of rights that supersedes mine!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Last night the issue was freedom of speech. Tonight, it is freedom of religion. The first amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, addresses what Congress cannot do. Neither this one nor the following amendments were designed to give the citizens rights. It was understood that the citizens already had their rights - "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." (Declaration of Independence). The Bill of Rights was deemed necessary as a way to spell out specific areas where the Federal Government cannot go. The list of rights, in the first eight amendments was also not meant to be all-inclusive. Amendment 9 - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparge others retained by the people."
The Constitution gives the three branches of the Federal Government certain and specific responsibilities and authority. Whatever was not given, by the Constitution, to the Federal Government, was reserved to the various state governments or to the people.
The first amendment states that Congress cannot pass any law that has to do with the establishment of a religion. In other words, in the United States, there is not to be any specific religion that is sponsored by Congress. There can be no "National Religion". It goes on to instruct Congress that they cannot pass any law to prohibit the free exercise of religion, by the people.
The "wall of separation between religion and government" is not a part of the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that there can be no religious activities on public property or as a part of government functions. This notion of "the wall" was invented later in our history and has now grown to a point where only rarely is there any form of religion associated with any level of government or any other public entity, such as public schools.
Washington, the ACLU, atheist organizations and others have been busy over the past 50 years getting religion out of public view. We have heard of a church in Phoenix being prohibited from ringing their church bells. We have heard of cities prohibiting home Bible studies in residential neighborhoods. The trend has been more regulation to restrict the free exercise of religion. This is, of course, with some exceptions.
A notable exception, across the country, is found with the Islam religion. For some reason, it seems that Muslims are being granted more freedom and flexibility than the Christian churches. Have you ever heard of a Muslim gathering being cancelled due to city restrictions on their activities? Have you ever heard of Muslims being told that they cannot announce the daily calls to prayer over loud speakers? Why are Muslims being granted special rules as pertain to airport security screening? Would you ever think, for a second, that you could cover your face when your photo is being taken for your "photo ID" or your driver's license?
Why are so many trying so hard to bend over backwards to placate and appease the Muslims? Because, after all, aren't they "the religion of peace"? If you doubt that, just look at the middle east. See how well they play with their neighbors in Israel. Learn from their example of reaching across the aisle, between the tribes, in Iraq. Notice how, when they decide to blow people to pieces, how careful they are to not hurt fellow Muslims. Listen to how much love there is between Iran and the Jews. Peace, peace, as far as the eye can see!
Also, pay no attention to the things their leaders say, such as: wanting to wipe Israel off of the map, believing that all Christians should be killed, seeing the United States as the great Satan and Israel as the little Satan, cheering as they watched the twin towers crumble on 9/11, and their tremendous respect for the females in their society. Remember "honor killings"?
The Islam religion, along with their Sharia Law, is not conducive to co-mingling with Christian religions or the Jews. How many Islam religious leaders in the U.S. loudly and adamantly spoke out against the acts of terrorism conducted on American soil on 9/11, or any of the others since? When some Muslim does speak out, he is so rare that it gets a lot of attention.
Freedom of religion has close ties to freedom of speech. How tolerant should we be in the United States to a religion that promotes terrorist acts, preaches the elimination of Israel, believes that all Infidels (whoever does not receive the Islam faith) should be killed? As we discussed last night, how far can people go in what they say before they have crossed the line and left Constitutionally protected territory?
We, in America, appear to be granting special favors to a "religion" that favors the fundamental transformation of our country from the basics it was founded upon to an unrecognizable nation. They are anti-capitalists, anti-Christian promoters of violence. They view women as property. They prey on the poor and uneducated to entice them to become suicide bombers. Are you aware that leaving the religion of Islam is punishable by death? Why are they set on building a 13-story mosque next to "ground zero" in NY City? Why is NY City allowing them to proceed?
What about this religion fits into this country, the way it was founded? This kind of "peace" we do not need!
So, should we rewrite Amendment One? Is there a way to deal with the fastest growing religion in the world? No, the Bill of Rights are just fine, as written. We need to apply the same conclusion we reached last night. They are not free to promote the destruction of the United States. They cannot teach that non-believers should all be killed. They cannot get away with hate speech any more than anyone else. If they are found to be promoting or teaching the over-throw of America, the killing of those who disagree, etc.; they should be treated the same way a right-wing, black guy or left-wing white guy would be treated. It should be treated as criminal behavior. There should be arrests and prosecution and punishment.
If they want to be here, fine, just get along and fit in. If you believe different than me, fine, just respect my faith and actually be a religion of peace. Muslims have no right to diminish the rights of non-Muslims. If they promote doing so, then they must be stopped with the full force of the law, backed by our Constitution. They do not have a level of rights that supersedes mine!
Friday, July 30, 2010
When are Rights, Wrong?
1st Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
When we claim to possess the right of "freedom of speech", are there limits as to what we can say? You have probably heard the same thing I have, "You do not have the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Sounds reasonable and makes sense.
It also sounds reasonable to expect that some conversations would cross the line as to protected speech. If a group of people were planning a crime - say, killing someone; would law enforcement have to wait until they actually attempted to carry out the murder before they could step in and file charges? Is a discussion about an intent to commit a crime, a crime?
How about someone attempting to insight violence? Can you stand on your soapbox, on the street corner and preach to the crowd that they should go and commit crimes? How far can "hate speech" be taken before it crosses the line of becoming a criminal act?
Our country now has a category of criminal behavior categorized as "hate crimes". We have watched, at least on TV, someone burning the American flag. We have seen the photos of protesters at soldiers funerals with signs stating that God hates soldiers, etc. There are the "works of art" showing Jesus in sinful acts, etc. All of these, we are told, are protected under the first amendment as freedom of expression, which they say is a part of freedom of speech.
So, if a white guy promoted the murder of black people, what would that be called? Is it freedom of speech, a hate crime, or just plain criminal? Since "justice is blind" and does not see or weigh the color of skin of the accused or the victim, what is wrong for one race is also wrong for any other - right?
If I were a racist and openly encouraged the murder of people of another race, I believe that I would spend a long time behind bars; and, in my opinion, rightly so. So, how is it that the following statements could be made in public, filmed, and broadcast on national television; and nothing happens?
"I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em... You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!" yelled Minister King Samir Shabazz, aka Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther Party's Philadelphia leader.
Is this kind of rhetoric protected under freedom of speech? Is this just another one of those "expressions" that the rest of us have to put up with, or is this criminal behavior? When a black man stands on the street and yells to other black men that they need to go kill white people and their babies, in order for the black men to ever be free; that has crossed the line. This is not the expression of opinion, it is the promotion of murder. If I, as a white, did what he, as a black, did; the blacks would be marching in the streets demanding that I be punished. If he, as a black, did what he, as a black, did; and he were arrested, the blacks would be marching in the streets demanding that he not be punished.
Folks, we have a problem here! If a white person paints the "n" word on something in the public view, that is called a hate crime. But we have this angry, black man, who clearly has an aggressive nature, calling white people "crackers"; and no one seems to have an issue with that. How could that be racist or a hate crime? It was committed by a "black". We all know that only "whites" are racist. Everyone else of any other race is characterized as being a victim of the whites and it is understandable when they lash out.
Is the right, wrong? Should "freedom of speech" be restricted? The answer lies in another common sense saying, "Your rights end at the point where they would begin infringing upon someone else's rights." If we each have equal rights, then I do not have the right to trample on your rights - even if it is only in my speech.
Just as we do not have the right to promote the overthrow of our government by violent means, we should not have the right to promote the overthrow of another's life by violent means. If this man is not held accountable for this type of speech, the line will be pushed further. If you tell someone to go kill someone, and they do, you are also guilty of a crime. So, why would the same act, on your part, not be a crime if that person decided to ignore you and not kill someone. You committed the same offense either way.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
When we claim to possess the right of "freedom of speech", are there limits as to what we can say? You have probably heard the same thing I have, "You do not have the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Sounds reasonable and makes sense.
It also sounds reasonable to expect that some conversations would cross the line as to protected speech. If a group of people were planning a crime - say, killing someone; would law enforcement have to wait until they actually attempted to carry out the murder before they could step in and file charges? Is a discussion about an intent to commit a crime, a crime?
How about someone attempting to insight violence? Can you stand on your soapbox, on the street corner and preach to the crowd that they should go and commit crimes? How far can "hate speech" be taken before it crosses the line of becoming a criminal act?
Our country now has a category of criminal behavior categorized as "hate crimes". We have watched, at least on TV, someone burning the American flag. We have seen the photos of protesters at soldiers funerals with signs stating that God hates soldiers, etc. There are the "works of art" showing Jesus in sinful acts, etc. All of these, we are told, are protected under the first amendment as freedom of expression, which they say is a part of freedom of speech.
So, if a white guy promoted the murder of black people, what would that be called? Is it freedom of speech, a hate crime, or just plain criminal? Since "justice is blind" and does not see or weigh the color of skin of the accused or the victim, what is wrong for one race is also wrong for any other - right?
If I were a racist and openly encouraged the murder of people of another race, I believe that I would spend a long time behind bars; and, in my opinion, rightly so. So, how is it that the following statements could be made in public, filmed, and broadcast on national television; and nothing happens?
"I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em... You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!" yelled Minister King Samir Shabazz, aka Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther Party's Philadelphia leader.
Is this kind of rhetoric protected under freedom of speech? Is this just another one of those "expressions" that the rest of us have to put up with, or is this criminal behavior? When a black man stands on the street and yells to other black men that they need to go kill white people and their babies, in order for the black men to ever be free; that has crossed the line. This is not the expression of opinion, it is the promotion of murder. If I, as a white, did what he, as a black, did; the blacks would be marching in the streets demanding that I be punished. If he, as a black, did what he, as a black, did; and he were arrested, the blacks would be marching in the streets demanding that he not be punished.
Folks, we have a problem here! If a white person paints the "n" word on something in the public view, that is called a hate crime. But we have this angry, black man, who clearly has an aggressive nature, calling white people "crackers"; and no one seems to have an issue with that. How could that be racist or a hate crime? It was committed by a "black". We all know that only "whites" are racist. Everyone else of any other race is characterized as being a victim of the whites and it is understandable when they lash out.
Is the right, wrong? Should "freedom of speech" be restricted? The answer lies in another common sense saying, "Your rights end at the point where they would begin infringing upon someone else's rights." If we each have equal rights, then I do not have the right to trample on your rights - even if it is only in my speech.
Just as we do not have the right to promote the overthrow of our government by violent means, we should not have the right to promote the overthrow of another's life by violent means. If this man is not held accountable for this type of speech, the line will be pushed further. If you tell someone to go kill someone, and they do, you are also guilty of a crime. So, why would the same act, on your part, not be a crime if that person decided to ignore you and not kill someone. You committed the same offense either way.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Remember November!
The next election is less than 100 days from now. Do not take it for granted that the cRats will be swept from office by a bunch of iCans riding in on white horses. (For any Libs that might read this, "white horses" is not a racial comment, that phrase refers to the "good guys", just as the good guy in the old western movie was usually wearing a white hat.)
Not only is it not a "lock" that the iCans will gain some level of power in D.C., it is not even sure they will win their individual seats. The problem lies with two issues: first, too many iCans are honestly iCan'ts. We seem to send to Washington people who are too timid or lack the backbone necessary to stand firm or lack the gumption for a good fight. Second, iCan'ts seem to attack their own harder than they do the enemy. We are known for political cannibalism.
The McCain and Hayworth primary in Arizona is a prime example of this. Many have commented that McCain might be President if the last campaign, against Obama, had of been fought as hard as he is fighting to defeat a Conservative. This primary has been down and dirty, no-punches-held! McCain, it is reported, has spent around $10,000,000 so far in this primary. Much of that money, it is also reported, has been transferred from his failed presidential campaign. Yep, the rough-and-tough Senator from AZ went through the last campaign saving up money, instead of using everything he had to defeat the foe.
Now is a call to action. If there is a way to help a true conservative win the primary and then the general, step up and do what you can. Not everyone can send money to a campaign, but most can do something. Call their offices and see how you can volunteer your time and service. Folks, this is important!
Not only is it not a "lock" that the iCans will gain some level of power in D.C., it is not even sure they will win their individual seats. The problem lies with two issues: first, too many iCans are honestly iCan'ts. We seem to send to Washington people who are too timid or lack the backbone necessary to stand firm or lack the gumption for a good fight. Second, iCan'ts seem to attack their own harder than they do the enemy. We are known for political cannibalism.
The McCain and Hayworth primary in Arizona is a prime example of this. Many have commented that McCain might be President if the last campaign, against Obama, had of been fought as hard as he is fighting to defeat a Conservative. This primary has been down and dirty, no-punches-held! McCain, it is reported, has spent around $10,000,000 so far in this primary. Much of that money, it is also reported, has been transferred from his failed presidential campaign. Yep, the rough-and-tough Senator from AZ went through the last campaign saving up money, instead of using everything he had to defeat the foe.
Now is a call to action. If there is a way to help a true conservative win the primary and then the general, step up and do what you can. Not everyone can send money to a campaign, but most can do something. Call their offices and see how you can volunteer your time and service. Folks, this is important!
Saturday, July 24, 2010
FENA - Fair Elections Now Act
FENA - Fair Elections Now Act (S.752, H.R.1826)
A "bipartisan" bill in various committees in Congress. The sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill are 23 Senators (22-D, 1-I) and 154 Representatives (151-D, 3-R). You can rest assured that it will be good for the country if both parties are supporting these bills. Want to know who some of these co-sponsors are: Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), etc.
Below is the partial list of organizations that have endorsed the legislation:
Campus Progress - Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest - Change Congress - Chesapeake Climate Change Action Network - Common Cause - Consumer Watchdog - Corporate Accountability International - DEMOS - Democracy Matters - Dolores Huerta Foundation -
Friends of the Earth - Greenpeace - Healthcare Now - Hip Hop Caucus - League of Conservation Voters - League of Young Voters - Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund - MoveOn.org - NAACP - National Organization for Women - Natural Resources Defense Council - People For the American Way - Progressive Future - Rock the Vote - Sierra Club - SEIU.
It is being promoted as a way to fund political campaigns for the US Senate and US House of Representatives. The stated objective is to free up the incumbents to do the work of Congress instead of having to spend so much of their time raising money for the next fight.
Most of the above information comes from the website (as well as some of what is below):
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/
A video that is against the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZVQD0rAGkk&feature=related
So how would it work and what would it cost?
1. For a candidate for the House to qualify, they would have to raise contributions of $50,000 and from 1,500 supporters with each giving no more than $100. Senators would have to have 2,000 donations plus an additional 500 for each congressional district in their state, of $100 or less.
2. Qualified candidates for the House would each receive $900,000 (40% for primary and 60% for general elections). Senate candidates would each get $1,250,000 + $250,000 for each congressional district.
3. In addition to the above amounts, they would also receive matching funds for additional contributions of up to $100 each. For each dollar contributed, they would get $4 in matching funds. This amount is "strictly limited" to three times what they got for the primary and another three times what they got for the general. There appears to be a provision for additional matching funds to match what an opponent, who is not in public funding, is spending on their campaign.
4. Participating candidates will also receive a break on media advertising. They get a 20% reduction from the "lowest broadcast rates". Also, House candidates who win their primary will get a voucher for $100,000 to cover media expenses. Senate candidates would get $100,000 per legislative district. These vouchers can be exchanged for cash with their political parties.
5. Candidates could still set up PACs which could raise money.
6. The COST to fund this would come from "a small fee on large government contractors" for the Senate campaigns. For the House, the funds would come from 10% of revenue generated from the auction of "unused broadcast spectrum."
7. The estimated cost (apparently calculated by the politicians) would be $700,000,000 to $850,000,000 per year.
_________________
My thoughts and questions:
Three Republicans, in my opinion, do not make this extremely bipartisan. It is clearly a liberal agenda item. It is backed, almost exclusively, by Democrats in D.C. and left-wing groups. The two lists, above, have some familiar names - some that we on the Right are not particularly fond of - for some strange and biased reasons.
If the purpose was to let the elected politicians sit at their desk and work on running our lives, instead of going to fund raisers where they could get corrupted - heaven forbid, then why is the whole plan geared around how much they can personally raise in contributions? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? If the purpose was to keep special interest groups out of politics, then why are they each allowed to form PACs (political action committees) to raise more funds?
This also seems like a very expensive way of trying to get our leaders to stay on the job and lead. In the meantime, we would be funding everyone who could qualify to run against them. Is there another purpose of making sure these other guys don't do any fund-raising dinners, either?
Just a minor item - I thought that "matching" meant "one-for-one"? What is this, raise $1 and get another $4 of matching funds?
As to the discounts they would receive on advertising, how is that supposed to work? Will this law force the media to sell political ads for 20% less than their lowest ad prices? How can they do that? (That is a problem, unless by the time this would go into effect, the government has taken control of the media companies - then it should be no problem.) How can Big Brother force you to sell your product for 80% of your price? Will they make up the difference or just mandate that the media outlets absorb the loss? This would also set up a bias in advertising pricing between those qualified for 'Fair Elections"funding and those who are in Unfair Elections.
As to the cost, charging government contractors an additional fee, which would be used to fund the Senate campaigns is just a little deceitful! Think about it. A contractor bids on a project to do work or supply a product for the government. He knows that there will be "a small fee" tacked onto his bid to cover these Senate campaign costs. Does he just take the lumps or does he increase his bid to cover the added costs? I would think he would raise the bid amount. Then, when he is awarded the bid and gets the contract, the government pays him the awarded amount of the bid and he turns around and pays the government back for funding the campaigns. The contractor did not pay these costs, the government did. Do not forget that the government spends our money - yours and mine. In other words, we the taxpayers would be funding the Senate campaigns.
As to the House campaigns, no problemo here! This money will be generated from the government selling unused airwaves. What a racket! Makes you pity the poor sap who buys this air from the government. How could we be better off than to fund this from selling something that is just extra? Well, if this extra spectrum has value and the government has the authority to sell it, someone will buy it. So, is it that buyer who then funds the House campaigns? No, once again, it is you and I. How? If the government sells something that belongs to the government (you and I) but then gives the money to candidates in campaigns, instead of using the money for legitimate expenses of the government, they will have to turn around and collect that money from us to pay those bills. Candidates win, we lose, again!
Now, here is the grand deception. They are telling us that this will just be a little expensive and even though we now know better, someone else will be paying for the cost. Don't worry, nothing to see here! The total is expected to stay under $850,000,000 per year. In my book, that would take a lot of "small fees" and sold spectrum. But, as with most government estimates, you cannot trust them.
I ran the math, myself. These numbers are based on the following:
1. All of the politicians running for these offices qualify for these funds. That each Senator and Representative enters this program and that from each party (only two-Rep. and Dem.) that there are three candidates running in the primary who are in the program.
2. It is based on each candidate qualifying for the maximum in matching funds, excluding the extra funds to match some other politician's spending.
3. These numbers do not include the money each candidate raises during the campaign.
4. The "per year" numbers recognize that House races are every two years and 1/3 of the Senators run every two years.
For the House races, the total cost would be $8,961,000,000 for each election cycle. That is almost nine billion dollars. It equals $4,480,500,000 each year. It equals $10,300,000 per year, per House seat.
For the Senate races, the total cost would be $56,810,000,000 (over $56 billion) for each cycle of electing all 100 Senators. This equals $9,468,333,333 per year and $94,683,333 per year, per Senate seat.
When I add these two, annual figures together, I get $13,948,833,333 per year; not $850,000,000. For the total cost not to exceed this projected amount, offered by the government, there could only be approximately 100 candidates who qualify and use the public funding.
Remember, if all of the politicians qualified and used this plan, the average annual cost to the U.S. taxpayers would be almost $14 billion. Also, you would have to be a fool to believe that after footing this bill, the citizens would be getting open, fair elections not corrupted by special interests or big money contributors. I don't know about you, but if I ran for Senate and used this plan for "Fair Elections", I could run one fine campaign on $568,000,000 of your money.
A "bipartisan" bill in various committees in Congress. The sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill are 23 Senators (22-D, 1-I) and 154 Representatives (151-D, 3-R). You can rest assured that it will be good for the country if both parties are supporting these bills. Want to know who some of these co-sponsors are: Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), etc.
Below is the partial list of organizations that have endorsed the legislation:
Campus Progress - Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest - Change Congress - Chesapeake Climate Change Action Network - Common Cause - Consumer Watchdog - Corporate Accountability International - DEMOS - Democracy Matters - Dolores Huerta Foundation -
Friends of the Earth - Greenpeace - Healthcare Now - Hip Hop Caucus - League of Conservation Voters - League of Young Voters - Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund - MoveOn.org - NAACP - National Organization for Women - Natural Resources Defense Council - People For the American Way - Progressive Future - Rock the Vote - Sierra Club - SEIU.
It is being promoted as a way to fund political campaigns for the US Senate and US House of Representatives. The stated objective is to free up the incumbents to do the work of Congress instead of having to spend so much of their time raising money for the next fight.
Most of the above information comes from the website (as well as some of what is below):
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/
A video that is against the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZVQD0rAGkk&feature=related
So how would it work and what would it cost?
1. For a candidate for the House to qualify, they would have to raise contributions of $50,000 and from 1,500 supporters with each giving no more than $100. Senators would have to have 2,000 donations plus an additional 500 for each congressional district in their state, of $100 or less.
2. Qualified candidates for the House would each receive $900,000 (40% for primary and 60% for general elections). Senate candidates would each get $1,250,000 + $250,000 for each congressional district.
3. In addition to the above amounts, they would also receive matching funds for additional contributions of up to $100 each. For each dollar contributed, they would get $4 in matching funds. This amount is "strictly limited" to three times what they got for the primary and another three times what they got for the general. There appears to be a provision for additional matching funds to match what an opponent, who is not in public funding, is spending on their campaign.
4. Participating candidates will also receive a break on media advertising. They get a 20% reduction from the "lowest broadcast rates". Also, House candidates who win their primary will get a voucher for $100,000 to cover media expenses. Senate candidates would get $100,000 per legislative district. These vouchers can be exchanged for cash with their political parties.
5. Candidates could still set up PACs which could raise money.
6. The COST to fund this would come from "a small fee on large government contractors" for the Senate campaigns. For the House, the funds would come from 10% of revenue generated from the auction of "unused broadcast spectrum."
7. The estimated cost (apparently calculated by the politicians) would be $700,000,000 to $850,000,000 per year.
_________________
My thoughts and questions:
Three Republicans, in my opinion, do not make this extremely bipartisan. It is clearly a liberal agenda item. It is backed, almost exclusively, by Democrats in D.C. and left-wing groups. The two lists, above, have some familiar names - some that we on the Right are not particularly fond of - for some strange and biased reasons.
If the purpose was to let the elected politicians sit at their desk and work on running our lives, instead of going to fund raisers where they could get corrupted - heaven forbid, then why is the whole plan geared around how much they can personally raise in contributions? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? If the purpose was to keep special interest groups out of politics, then why are they each allowed to form PACs (political action committees) to raise more funds?
This also seems like a very expensive way of trying to get our leaders to stay on the job and lead. In the meantime, we would be funding everyone who could qualify to run against them. Is there another purpose of making sure these other guys don't do any fund-raising dinners, either?
Just a minor item - I thought that "matching" meant "one-for-one"? What is this, raise $1 and get another $4 of matching funds?
As to the discounts they would receive on advertising, how is that supposed to work? Will this law force the media to sell political ads for 20% less than their lowest ad prices? How can they do that? (That is a problem, unless by the time this would go into effect, the government has taken control of the media companies - then it should be no problem.) How can Big Brother force you to sell your product for 80% of your price? Will they make up the difference or just mandate that the media outlets absorb the loss? This would also set up a bias in advertising pricing between those qualified for 'Fair Elections"funding and those who are in Unfair Elections.
As to the cost, charging government contractors an additional fee, which would be used to fund the Senate campaigns is just a little deceitful! Think about it. A contractor bids on a project to do work or supply a product for the government. He knows that there will be "a small fee" tacked onto his bid to cover these Senate campaign costs. Does he just take the lumps or does he increase his bid to cover the added costs? I would think he would raise the bid amount. Then, when he is awarded the bid and gets the contract, the government pays him the awarded amount of the bid and he turns around and pays the government back for funding the campaigns. The contractor did not pay these costs, the government did. Do not forget that the government spends our money - yours and mine. In other words, we the taxpayers would be funding the Senate campaigns.
As to the House campaigns, no problemo here! This money will be generated from the government selling unused airwaves. What a racket! Makes you pity the poor sap who buys this air from the government. How could we be better off than to fund this from selling something that is just extra? Well, if this extra spectrum has value and the government has the authority to sell it, someone will buy it. So, is it that buyer who then funds the House campaigns? No, once again, it is you and I. How? If the government sells something that belongs to the government (you and I) but then gives the money to candidates in campaigns, instead of using the money for legitimate expenses of the government, they will have to turn around and collect that money from us to pay those bills. Candidates win, we lose, again!
Now, here is the grand deception. They are telling us that this will just be a little expensive and even though we now know better, someone else will be paying for the cost. Don't worry, nothing to see here! The total is expected to stay under $850,000,000 per year. In my book, that would take a lot of "small fees" and sold spectrum. But, as with most government estimates, you cannot trust them.
I ran the math, myself. These numbers are based on the following:
1. All of the politicians running for these offices qualify for these funds. That each Senator and Representative enters this program and that from each party (only two-Rep. and Dem.) that there are three candidates running in the primary who are in the program.
2. It is based on each candidate qualifying for the maximum in matching funds, excluding the extra funds to match some other politician's spending.
3. These numbers do not include the money each candidate raises during the campaign.
4. The "per year" numbers recognize that House races are every two years and 1/3 of the Senators run every two years.
For the House races, the total cost would be $8,961,000,000 for each election cycle. That is almost nine billion dollars. It equals $4,480,500,000 each year. It equals $10,300,000 per year, per House seat.
For the Senate races, the total cost would be $56,810,000,000 (over $56 billion) for each cycle of electing all 100 Senators. This equals $9,468,333,333 per year and $94,683,333 per year, per Senate seat.
When I add these two, annual figures together, I get $13,948,833,333 per year; not $850,000,000. For the total cost not to exceed this projected amount, offered by the government, there could only be approximately 100 candidates who qualify and use the public funding.
Remember, if all of the politicians qualified and used this plan, the average annual cost to the U.S. taxpayers would be almost $14 billion. Also, you would have to be a fool to believe that after footing this bill, the citizens would be getting open, fair elections not corrupted by special interests or big money contributors. I don't know about you, but if I ran for Senate and used this plan for "Fair Elections", I could run one fine campaign on $568,000,000 of your money.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
The Continental Divide
On April 25 of this year, I posted an article "Irreconcilable Differences". The current article is in follow-up to that posting. If you did not read the first part or do not remember it, here is a link that will take you directly to the earlier article:
http://thehousetop.blogspot.com/2010/04/irreconcilable-differences.html
Running north and south through North America and the United States is a line that is referred to as the Continental Divide. This is not a line arbitrarily drawn on a map, it is a line that designates the high point in elevation which separates, from east or west, which ocean rainfall will eventually flow towards. The Continental Divide runs up the Rocky Mountain range. Though it designates a physical divide in our nation, it could represent an image of the present political and social divide that grips the same country.
The United States has long endured issues and beliefs which have divided us as citizens. These could be our chosen religious beliefs, our unchosen race or gender, our financial status, slavery, volunteer or draft military, the war in Vietnam, our political affiliation, our stand on abortion, whether or not there should be a designated hitter, etc. These have ranged from trivial to serious, but we have survived as the UNITED States.
How did our forefathers hold us together? One answer to that question is, barely! The most serious fracture resulted in the Civil War. Prior to the breakout of war, the Southern States withdrew from the Union. The U.S. of A. was not just on the verge of falling apart, it was already falling apart. The seriousness of the situation led to four years of fighting among ourselves and death to around 620,000 Americans.
Prior to that war, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech as he was selected to be the Republican candidate for the Senate seat for Illinois in 1858. This speech has become known as the "House Divided" speech. The following is the first paragraph of that speech:
"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South."
Lincoln was not original in the use of the phrase, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." This is scriptural, from:
(Mat 12:25 KJV) "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".
Also, just eight years prior to Lincoln's speech, during Senate debate on the Compromise of 1850, Sam Houston said, "A nation divided against itself cannot stand."
So, are Houston, Lincoln and Jesus right? Can a nation, with serious division, continue to stand? I would have to take Lincoln's following comments as an appropriate answer to this question. His comments have been slightly altered to reflect our current divide:
"I believe this government cannot endure permanently half" (socialism, ignoring Constitutional limits on Federal Government, over spending, over taxation, dependency on government for daily needs [and some wants]) "and half" (desiring to be free men, with limited government, strictly following the Constitution, a nation of laws [not popular opinion], personal responsibility, capitalism, opportunity, free markets, and the basic liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights). "I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."
Lincoln's wisdom proved to be correct. The Union survived, although with great loss and cost, and it became all one thing. I imagine that if Abraham Lincoln were making his speech today, he just might foresee another great divide on the horizon and attempt to warn us of such a national disaster.
I still believe what was written in the article "Irreconcilable Differences". Although the concept of actually splitting the nation was not meant to be taken totally serious, to some degree, I do believe that if it were feasible and the citizens were in agreement, it might be a solution to the problem. I honestly cannot see that ever happening, just as I cannot imagine the present two sides coming together with a compromise that makes both sides content.
So, where does that leave us? We can look forward and see several possible scenarios. Much hinges on the elections this November. If the Democrats maintain control of both Houses of Congress, along with the President; we, as a country, will continue sliding to the Left. The Socialist (if not Communist) agenda will continue to be rammed down the throat of the American public and by the time another election rolls around, it will be extremely difficult to reverse the damage done.
If Republicans gain control of at least the House of Representatives (assuming those same Republicans get and keep a backbone once they are submerged into the corruption and power of Washington) they should be able to put a stop (if only temporarily) to at least some of the Leftist agenda. While President Obama sits in the Oval Office, we are not safe and we cannot rest. This scenario only buys a small window of time to slow down the Leftists. The future would then rest on the following election and who ends up being President for the next term.
We have a continental divide - will we be socialists or will we be FREE? Where is there room for compromise? The two cannot co-exist, they are mutually exclusive.
Those of us on the Right have a narrow window of opportunity. If we fail to grab hold and take full advantage of November's election, our nation will (I am afraid) complete it's transformation into becoming a socialist country - the USSA - United Socialist States of America. The Leftists recognize what is at stake in this election - the rest of their agenda and pushing the country so far that recovery may be impossible. Failing to take control of the House will be unforgivable by the following generations.
Lincoln foresaw the looming crisis and that destiny hung in the balance. He understood that they too had irreconcilable differences that would not be solved by negotiation. We, too, are diametrically opposed.
How will our looming crisis play out?
Remember, they were at war with us but we were not at war with them!
http://thehousetop.blogspot.com/2010/04/irreconcilable-differences.html
Running north and south through North America and the United States is a line that is referred to as the Continental Divide. This is not a line arbitrarily drawn on a map, it is a line that designates the high point in elevation which separates, from east or west, which ocean rainfall will eventually flow towards. The Continental Divide runs up the Rocky Mountain range. Though it designates a physical divide in our nation, it could represent an image of the present political and social divide that grips the same country.
The United States has long endured issues and beliefs which have divided us as citizens. These could be our chosen religious beliefs, our unchosen race or gender, our financial status, slavery, volunteer or draft military, the war in Vietnam, our political affiliation, our stand on abortion, whether or not there should be a designated hitter, etc. These have ranged from trivial to serious, but we have survived as the UNITED States.
How did our forefathers hold us together? One answer to that question is, barely! The most serious fracture resulted in the Civil War. Prior to the breakout of war, the Southern States withdrew from the Union. The U.S. of A. was not just on the verge of falling apart, it was already falling apart. The seriousness of the situation led to four years of fighting among ourselves and death to around 620,000 Americans.
Prior to that war, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech as he was selected to be the Republican candidate for the Senate seat for Illinois in 1858. This speech has become known as the "House Divided" speech. The following is the first paragraph of that speech:
"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South."
Lincoln was not original in the use of the phrase, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." This is scriptural, from:
(Mat 12:25 KJV) "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".
Also, just eight years prior to Lincoln's speech, during Senate debate on the Compromise of 1850, Sam Houston said, "A nation divided against itself cannot stand."
So, are Houston, Lincoln and Jesus right? Can a nation, with serious division, continue to stand? I would have to take Lincoln's following comments as an appropriate answer to this question. His comments have been slightly altered to reflect our current divide:
"I believe this government cannot endure permanently half" (socialism, ignoring Constitutional limits on Federal Government, over spending, over taxation, dependency on government for daily needs [and some wants]) "and half" (desiring to be free men, with limited government, strictly following the Constitution, a nation of laws [not popular opinion], personal responsibility, capitalism, opportunity, free markets, and the basic liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights). "I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."
Lincoln's wisdom proved to be correct. The Union survived, although with great loss and cost, and it became all one thing. I imagine that if Abraham Lincoln were making his speech today, he just might foresee another great divide on the horizon and attempt to warn us of such a national disaster.
I still believe what was written in the article "Irreconcilable Differences". Although the concept of actually splitting the nation was not meant to be taken totally serious, to some degree, I do believe that if it were feasible and the citizens were in agreement, it might be a solution to the problem. I honestly cannot see that ever happening, just as I cannot imagine the present two sides coming together with a compromise that makes both sides content.
So, where does that leave us? We can look forward and see several possible scenarios. Much hinges on the elections this November. If the Democrats maintain control of both Houses of Congress, along with the President; we, as a country, will continue sliding to the Left. The Socialist (if not Communist) agenda will continue to be rammed down the throat of the American public and by the time another election rolls around, it will be extremely difficult to reverse the damage done.
If Republicans gain control of at least the House of Representatives (assuming those same Republicans get and keep a backbone once they are submerged into the corruption and power of Washington) they should be able to put a stop (if only temporarily) to at least some of the Leftist agenda. While President Obama sits in the Oval Office, we are not safe and we cannot rest. This scenario only buys a small window of time to slow down the Leftists. The future would then rest on the following election and who ends up being President for the next term.
We have a continental divide - will we be socialists or will we be FREE? Where is there room for compromise? The two cannot co-exist, they are mutually exclusive.
Those of us on the Right have a narrow window of opportunity. If we fail to grab hold and take full advantage of November's election, our nation will (I am afraid) complete it's transformation into becoming a socialist country - the USSA - United Socialist States of America. The Leftists recognize what is at stake in this election - the rest of their agenda and pushing the country so far that recovery may be impossible. Failing to take control of the House will be unforgivable by the following generations.
Lincoln foresaw the looming crisis and that destiny hung in the balance. He understood that they too had irreconcilable differences that would not be solved by negotiation. We, too, are diametrically opposed.
How will our looming crisis play out?
Remember, they were at war with us but we were not at war with them!
Saturday, July 10, 2010
BizarrObama World
I cannot believe it, but things are actually getting more strange by the week. Every time I think that BO and his buddies have pulled the most outrageous thing so far, they take it further. Here are some of the items that hit some of the news sources this week:
1. BO wanted an extreme liberal to run the government's medicare system, which will include the new health care plan recently signed into law. The choice is so vocal about his beliefs and positions that the consensus was that he could not get confirmed by the Senate, even with cRat control. So, BO used a special power of the President. When Congress went home for a summer break, he just appointed the guy.
A president is allowed to appoint someone to a Federal position, if he deems it necessary to get the position filled and Congress is not in session. BO doing this is nothing new. What is bizarro about this appointment is the person appointed.
His positions about medicare and health care: he said, when asked about rationing being in the health care law (remember the accusation by Palin of there being "death panels"), "It is not a question of whether there will be rationing, it is only will we ration with our eyes open." When asked another question about the health care plan, he said, "Healthcare is redistribution." His view of our new and improved health care plan is basically a system to "spread the wealth around" (quoting BO).
2. You may remember seeing the video from the 2008 election cycle of two New Black Panther thugs standing in front of the doors to a polling place, dressed in black para-military uniforms, pounding police batons in their hands, and shouting racial things at white people who wanted to go in and vote. Their goal was to intimidate as many whites as possible to keep them from voting. It worked.
They were charged with voter intimidation, went to trial, were found guilty, and released. A Department of Justice lawyer who was prosecuting these two men and who had obtained a guilty verdict against them, recently quit his job and went public with the following story about how these two racists got away with their crimes. After the verdict, he said that he was told, from the very "top" (whether he meant BO or the Attorney General, I am not sure, but I would imagine the AG would have discussed such a controversial move with BO before making it happen), that the government's charges against these two were being dropped.
I thought that charges were typically dropped prior to court proceedings when it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to get a conviction, not after having a conviction.
The reason that charges were being dropped and these to thugs were being set free is that the DOJ will not prosecute blacks for such crimes.
One of these two New Black Panther members was also caught on video during a rally in 2009. In his talk, where he was yelling into a microphone on a street with many people around, he said, "I hate white people, all of them...if you want peace, you (meaning black men) will have to kill some crackers (white people) and some of their cracker babies."
Isn't it reassuring that our Department of Justice is more concerned about keeping this guy on the street than it is in honest voting or insuring that racial discrimination is not tolerated?
3. Have you heard about the spy swap? The U.S. captured around 11 spies from Russia. Well, since we would not want to make a big show about Russia getting caught spying on us and having trials, we made a deal. We traded the 11 spies back to Russia in exchange for Russia releasing four Russians that they held in prison, who they claim spied for us.
4. The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Arizona. They want to stop our new anti-illegal immigration law from going into effect later this month. Their suit basically charges that AZ has no right to enforce a Federal law that they have chosen to ignore. They say that local law enforcement officers do not have a right to question anyone about their legal status, even when stopping them for other crimes.
Since bank robbery is also a Federal crime, maybe we should stop searching for the robbers and just let the FBI do the job. Also, what is the big deal about asking to see papers for non-citizens? It happens to be Federal law that they are required to carry papers at all times while they are in our country. The conclusion must be that even though they must carry papers, no one is allowed to ask to see those papers. If you ask, you are a racist!
As of today, AZ is fighting seven different legal challenges to our new law. All of this taking place even before the law has taken effect.
5. The last is not the least bizarro. The director of NASA gave an interview to Arab television while he was on a trip to Arab countries. When asked why the director of NASA was in Arab countries, he answered that the president had instructed him (the head of NASA!!!!) to make it his top priority to reach out to the Muslim nations and make them feel good about themselves for their past contribution to science and math.
First, what part of "Space" does Arabia fit into? Second, what part of "Space" involves physco-babel, self-esteem for foreigners? Third, what science and math contributions?
BO and his buddies are making the USA a laughing-stock to the rest of the world. They must be sitting back and having one belly-laugh after another at BO and his gross incompetence and even grosser arrogance.
How on earth (or space) did we get here? How could this guy ever get elected dog catcher, much less president. Just wondering, is there something wrong with his neck that makes his big nose stick up in the air whenever he is in public? How did we get here? We were asleep at the voter wheel for decades. We were negligent at PTA meetings. We were glad to let government take over some of our responsibilities. We accepted Federal money, which always came with strings attached. We were content to let others stand up and fight against the wrongs imposed upon us by our government. We did not fight when others had their rights stripped away. We were negligent in researching candidates pasts and positions. We believed what the media fed us on the nightly news. We were not diligent in checking out the public schools to make sure our children were not being indoctrinated. We let unions take too much control. We were shy when it came to making sure various races were treated equal and no race gained favor. We fell for the propaganda that divided and conquered us.
Also, we did not realize that while we were not at war with them, they were at war with us.
1. BO wanted an extreme liberal to run the government's medicare system, which will include the new health care plan recently signed into law. The choice is so vocal about his beliefs and positions that the consensus was that he could not get confirmed by the Senate, even with cRat control. So, BO used a special power of the President. When Congress went home for a summer break, he just appointed the guy.
A president is allowed to appoint someone to a Federal position, if he deems it necessary to get the position filled and Congress is not in session. BO doing this is nothing new. What is bizarro about this appointment is the person appointed.
His positions about medicare and health care: he said, when asked about rationing being in the health care law (remember the accusation by Palin of there being "death panels"), "It is not a question of whether there will be rationing, it is only will we ration with our eyes open." When asked another question about the health care plan, he said, "Healthcare is redistribution." His view of our new and improved health care plan is basically a system to "spread the wealth around" (quoting BO).
2. You may remember seeing the video from the 2008 election cycle of two New Black Panther thugs standing in front of the doors to a polling place, dressed in black para-military uniforms, pounding police batons in their hands, and shouting racial things at white people who wanted to go in and vote. Their goal was to intimidate as many whites as possible to keep them from voting. It worked.
They were charged with voter intimidation, went to trial, were found guilty, and released. A Department of Justice lawyer who was prosecuting these two men and who had obtained a guilty verdict against them, recently quit his job and went public with the following story about how these two racists got away with their crimes. After the verdict, he said that he was told, from the very "top" (whether he meant BO or the Attorney General, I am not sure, but I would imagine the AG would have discussed such a controversial move with BO before making it happen), that the government's charges against these two were being dropped.
I thought that charges were typically dropped prior to court proceedings when it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to get a conviction, not after having a conviction.
The reason that charges were being dropped and these to thugs were being set free is that the DOJ will not prosecute blacks for such crimes.
One of these two New Black Panther members was also caught on video during a rally in 2009. In his talk, where he was yelling into a microphone on a street with many people around, he said, "I hate white people, all of them...if you want peace, you (meaning black men) will have to kill some crackers (white people) and some of their cracker babies."
Isn't it reassuring that our Department of Justice is more concerned about keeping this guy on the street than it is in honest voting or insuring that racial discrimination is not tolerated?
3. Have you heard about the spy swap? The U.S. captured around 11 spies from Russia. Well, since we would not want to make a big show about Russia getting caught spying on us and having trials, we made a deal. We traded the 11 spies back to Russia in exchange for Russia releasing four Russians that they held in prison, who they claim spied for us.
4. The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Arizona. They want to stop our new anti-illegal immigration law from going into effect later this month. Their suit basically charges that AZ has no right to enforce a Federal law that they have chosen to ignore. They say that local law enforcement officers do not have a right to question anyone about their legal status, even when stopping them for other crimes.
Since bank robbery is also a Federal crime, maybe we should stop searching for the robbers and just let the FBI do the job. Also, what is the big deal about asking to see papers for non-citizens? It happens to be Federal law that they are required to carry papers at all times while they are in our country. The conclusion must be that even though they must carry papers, no one is allowed to ask to see those papers. If you ask, you are a racist!
As of today, AZ is fighting seven different legal challenges to our new law. All of this taking place even before the law has taken effect.
5. The last is not the least bizarro. The director of NASA gave an interview to Arab television while he was on a trip to Arab countries. When asked why the director of NASA was in Arab countries, he answered that the president had instructed him (the head of NASA!!!!) to make it his top priority to reach out to the Muslim nations and make them feel good about themselves for their past contribution to science and math.
First, what part of "Space" does Arabia fit into? Second, what part of "Space" involves physco-babel, self-esteem for foreigners? Third, what science and math contributions?
BO and his buddies are making the USA a laughing-stock to the rest of the world. They must be sitting back and having one belly-laugh after another at BO and his gross incompetence and even grosser arrogance.
How on earth (or space) did we get here? How could this guy ever get elected dog catcher, much less president. Just wondering, is there something wrong with his neck that makes his big nose stick up in the air whenever he is in public? How did we get here? We were asleep at the voter wheel for decades. We were negligent at PTA meetings. We were glad to let government take over some of our responsibilities. We accepted Federal money, which always came with strings attached. We were content to let others stand up and fight against the wrongs imposed upon us by our government. We did not fight when others had their rights stripped away. We were negligent in researching candidates pasts and positions. We believed what the media fed us on the nightly news. We were not diligent in checking out the public schools to make sure our children were not being indoctrinated. We let unions take too much control. We were shy when it came to making sure various races were treated equal and no race gained favor. We fell for the propaganda that divided and conquered us.
Also, we did not realize that while we were not at war with them, they were at war with us.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Free Men!
"Our unalterable resolution would be to be free." Samuel Adams, 1776
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people..." John Adams, 1775
"To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business...To know his rights..." Thomas Jefferson, 1818
"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." Samuel Adams, 1775
"Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge." James Wilson, 1790
"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty." Fisher Ames, 1788
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry, 1775
(The above quotes were found on Founder's Quote Daily, published by the "PatriotPost.us".)
At what price is Liberty? That must be answered on an individual basis. Maybe the question would be best asked, at what price is your liberty, to you? This is not a flippant question and the answer should likewise be thought out, understood and heartfelt.
The question should be thought out as your future depends on your answer. Without proper and adequate understanding of Liberty, what it would mean to be without it and what it would take to preserve the same, you are not equipped to render a committed and intelligent response. Without your answer being from the heart, you will likely shrink back once opposition and difficulty must be overcome in order to be free.
What is your personal value of being free? As, free, I am referring to the freedoms expressed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the Constitution. The value others determined for themselves, in the past, is clear. To them, this was not an exercise in theory. They pledged themselves and all they had to the cause of obtaining and preserving freedom. They were not only willing to pay the ultimate price, they paid it down to their last drop of blood. For most, this was not a demonstration of glory, but a miserable ending in an isolated location.
Who, today, do you hear speak words about liberty like those written above? "Give me liberty or give me death!" That level of commitment resulted in liberty. If they had been any less committed, we would all still be speaking English. Oh, wait a second...anyway, you get the point.
Currently, "What is the price for your liberty?", is not an academic concept. Liberty is disappearing, step-by-step, in America on a daily basis. Your bondage is the object of your government's agenda. One of our founding fathers warned us that once we give up our liberty, we will not be able to get it back again.
Read, study, learn, seek to understand the concept of Liberty. You may ask, why is being free so important? Isn't living and living in peace more important than fighting all the time to attempt to be more free? Until you can answer those questions, you are not ready to be free. Another patriot told those who did not understand the value of freedom that he hopes that the chains of their bondage would rest lightly on them.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Comprehensive Government Reform
"Everyone agreed..."
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are too big to fail!
We must pass the TARP funds by Friday or the national economy will collapse!
Wall Street firms are too big to fail!
We must pass the Stimulus Bill to create or save four million jobs!
Global warming will kill the polar bears, melt the ice caps, flood coastal cities and basically kill everyone and everything forever!
We must bail out Europe so they do not fail!
We must reject our support of Israel!
We must fight wars passively!
We must not have the means to defend ourselves!
We must take over General Motors and Chrysler!
We must bail out all of the union pension fund accounts!
We must pass a national takeover of our health care system!
Due to the oil spill, we must pass Cap and Trade controls!
Due to spending, we must raise taxes on everyone and everything!
Due to Arizona, we must pass comprehensive immigration reform!
We must pass a bill for the takeover of our financial sector!
We must not close the border with Mexico!
We must not let common sense measures take place to improve the oil spill!
We must blame everything that we do not like on G.W. Bush!
We must not question terrorists for information they may have!
We must not call terrorists, terrorists!
We must not fight to win our wars!
We must not obey our Constitution!
We must use Executive authority to grant blanket amnesty to illegal aliens!
We must use Czars that are only accountable to Obama!
We must socialize America!
We must restrict freedom of speech!
We must pass the "Fairness Doctrine" to limit conservative talk radio!
We must expand gun control!
We must control everyone and everything!
We must redistribute the wealth!
We must spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow!
We must.......
We are watching, on a daily basis, the utter destruction of America as we have known it. The war to destroy the Republic (anyway, what is left of it) is coming from within, not from foreign soil. The above list is a partial accounting of what has happened in the past two years. These measures have not helped save America or it's economy or our way of life, they are designed to systematically disable capitalism and to restrict liberty. They will ultimately, if not reversed very soon, destroy the greatness of our nation.
We did not and do not need the above government interference and regulation. What we do need is less government, less taxes, less regulation; and more freedom, encouragement and opportunity to pursue the happiness guaranteed to each citizen.
What we desperately need is comprehensive reform of our government! It begins with the election, this year. We the people must send the professional politicians back home and take control back of an out-of-control Washington. They have awakened a sleeping giant that has been busy living their private lives across America. They wanted CHANGE, they are going to get it!
Remember, they were at war with us, but we were not at war with them! That has changed! Winning is everything! If the Right does not win control of Congress this year, the losses will be irreversible two to four years down the road.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are too big to fail!
We must pass the TARP funds by Friday or the national economy will collapse!
Wall Street firms are too big to fail!
We must pass the Stimulus Bill to create or save four million jobs!
Global warming will kill the polar bears, melt the ice caps, flood coastal cities and basically kill everyone and everything forever!
We must bail out Europe so they do not fail!
We must reject our support of Israel!
We must fight wars passively!
We must not have the means to defend ourselves!
We must take over General Motors and Chrysler!
We must bail out all of the union pension fund accounts!
We must pass a national takeover of our health care system!
Due to the oil spill, we must pass Cap and Trade controls!
Due to spending, we must raise taxes on everyone and everything!
Due to Arizona, we must pass comprehensive immigration reform!
We must pass a bill for the takeover of our financial sector!
We must not close the border with Mexico!
We must not let common sense measures take place to improve the oil spill!
We must blame everything that we do not like on G.W. Bush!
We must not question terrorists for information they may have!
We must not call terrorists, terrorists!
We must not fight to win our wars!
We must not obey our Constitution!
We must use Executive authority to grant blanket amnesty to illegal aliens!
We must use Czars that are only accountable to Obama!
We must socialize America!
We must restrict freedom of speech!
We must pass the "Fairness Doctrine" to limit conservative talk radio!
We must expand gun control!
We must control everyone and everything!
We must redistribute the wealth!
We must spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow!
We must.......
We are watching, on a daily basis, the utter destruction of America as we have known it. The war to destroy the Republic (anyway, what is left of it) is coming from within, not from foreign soil. The above list is a partial accounting of what has happened in the past two years. These measures have not helped save America or it's economy or our way of life, they are designed to systematically disable capitalism and to restrict liberty. They will ultimately, if not reversed very soon, destroy the greatness of our nation.
We did not and do not need the above government interference and regulation. What we do need is less government, less taxes, less regulation; and more freedom, encouragement and opportunity to pursue the happiness guaranteed to each citizen.
What we desperately need is comprehensive reform of our government! It begins with the election, this year. We the people must send the professional politicians back home and take control back of an out-of-control Washington. They have awakened a sleeping giant that has been busy living their private lives across America. They wanted CHANGE, they are going to get it!
Remember, they were at war with us, but we were not at war with them! That has changed! Winning is everything! If the Right does not win control of Congress this year, the losses will be irreversible two to four years down the road.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
A Final Parting!
You may have heard those words before. They are usually associated with bad or sad news. This article is no exception. I have bad news!
Today, I went to the barber shop for a haircut. A new barber was there and she cut my hair. As she was not familiar with me and my desires, she would ask me questions as she went. As I was paying attention to what she was doing and where she was working, I was waiting to make sure she did not ignore the top of my head. My experience had been, recently, that my regular barber would finish without even touching the top of my head. I have no idea why, because she still wanted a full $10 fee. As I was able to do maintenance at home, this was not a big deal; but, this time I wanted the barber to make sure my top hairs were not too long. I am not a real big fan of the "comb-over" look.
When she finished the sides and back, before I could say anything, she asked me, "Do you want me to do something about the fuzz on top?" WHAT?! "FUZZ"?! I wanted my HAIR cut!
Well, not to hurt her feelings (remember, she is new), I answered, "Yes." The next thing I knew, she was using electric clippers to buzz my fuzz. Yep, the top hair is totally gone, now, both of them!
I used to have hair above my side part. Today, I parted with the part. Nothing for a good four inches across the top. When I got home and looked in the mirror, I realized that I now have a "Dan-do".
Today, I went to the barber shop for a haircut. A new barber was there and she cut my hair. As she was not familiar with me and my desires, she would ask me questions as she went. As I was paying attention to what she was doing and where she was working, I was waiting to make sure she did not ignore the top of my head. My experience had been, recently, that my regular barber would finish without even touching the top of my head. I have no idea why, because she still wanted a full $10 fee. As I was able to do maintenance at home, this was not a big deal; but, this time I wanted the barber to make sure my top hairs were not too long. I am not a real big fan of the "comb-over" look.
When she finished the sides and back, before I could say anything, she asked me, "Do you want me to do something about the fuzz on top?" WHAT?! "FUZZ"?! I wanted my HAIR cut!
Well, not to hurt her feelings (remember, she is new), I answered, "Yes." The next thing I knew, she was using electric clippers to buzz my fuzz. Yep, the top hair is totally gone, now, both of them!
I used to have hair above my side part. Today, I parted with the part. Nothing for a good four inches across the top. When I got home and looked in the mirror, I realized that I now have a "Dan-do".
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Not So Fast!
Have you ever been sucked into agreement through sly wording, manipulation, or mob rule? Have you noticed how some people, who are trying to gain advantage or push an agenda, try to make it sound like he has total consensus? He will begin his pitch with something like, "Everyone agrees...", or "The experts all agree...".
This is the way Al Gore begins many of his speeches, something like, "There is complete consensus among scientists that climate change (i.e. global warming) is a serious threat."
"Everyone agrees that the health care system is broken..."
When the argument begins with "everyone agrees"; but you do not, it puts you at a considerable disadvantage because the stage has been set that the "fact" is unanimous and you are the only one who has not seen the light, yet.
Well, it recently dawned on me that this same technique is being used on all of us and no one seems to be challenging the premise. Have you heard this statement, "Everyone agrees that the immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed."
Take a step back and ask the question, is the U.S. immigration system broken? Is it broken and in need of total retooling, or is there another problem? It seems that many of us have bought the premise that the system is broken and we must pass another law (comprehensive immigration reform with amnesty for illegals already here) in order to get a handle on the problems we are facing.
I believe that we are being fed another manipulative line. The Left and many on the Right are all singing the same tune. All we hear is that the immigration system is broken and the only argument is on what needs to be done to fix the system. One thing that everyone agrees on is that we have a problem, but what is the problem? We have immigration laws already on the books. We have several guest worker programs that worked for many years. We have some who legally come to America through the current system.
The real problem is the lack of political will in Washington to enforce the current laws. Politicians realize that the citizens would not accept a general amnesty for those who broke the laws unless they can include this as a part of a broader solution to "the problem".
We could complete an adequate fence on the Mexican border. We could train and fund an adequate number of border agents to properly guard our border. We have the technology to use along the border to detect those who attempt to cross. We could increase the number of workers allowed under guest worker programs. We could enforce the laws that target those who hire illegal aliens. We could deny those here illegally from obtaining taxpayer funded benefits. None of this takes another law or changing a broken system. All it takes is the political will to enforce the laws and build the fence.
Next time you hear, "Everyone agrees...", tell them, "Not so fast!" It's OK to be disagreeable!
This is the way Al Gore begins many of his speeches, something like, "There is complete consensus among scientists that climate change (i.e. global warming) is a serious threat."
"Everyone agrees that the health care system is broken..."
When the argument begins with "everyone agrees"; but you do not, it puts you at a considerable disadvantage because the stage has been set that the "fact" is unanimous and you are the only one who has not seen the light, yet.
Well, it recently dawned on me that this same technique is being used on all of us and no one seems to be challenging the premise. Have you heard this statement, "Everyone agrees that the immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed."
Take a step back and ask the question, is the U.S. immigration system broken? Is it broken and in need of total retooling, or is there another problem? It seems that many of us have bought the premise that the system is broken and we must pass another law (comprehensive immigration reform with amnesty for illegals already here) in order to get a handle on the problems we are facing.
I believe that we are being fed another manipulative line. The Left and many on the Right are all singing the same tune. All we hear is that the immigration system is broken and the only argument is on what needs to be done to fix the system. One thing that everyone agrees on is that we have a problem, but what is the problem? We have immigration laws already on the books. We have several guest worker programs that worked for many years. We have some who legally come to America through the current system.
The real problem is the lack of political will in Washington to enforce the current laws. Politicians realize that the citizens would not accept a general amnesty for those who broke the laws unless they can include this as a part of a broader solution to "the problem".
We could complete an adequate fence on the Mexican border. We could train and fund an adequate number of border agents to properly guard our border. We have the technology to use along the border to detect those who attempt to cross. We could increase the number of workers allowed under guest worker programs. We could enforce the laws that target those who hire illegal aliens. We could deny those here illegally from obtaining taxpayer funded benefits. None of this takes another law or changing a broken system. All it takes is the political will to enforce the laws and build the fence.
Next time you hear, "Everyone agrees...", tell them, "Not so fast!" It's OK to be disagreeable!
Garbage Can
Much is happening on the political stage, so much so that it is time for another episode of the trash can.
1. Border Security - Currently, in Pinal County jail in AZ, there are illegal aliens from seven different Arab (or Muslim) countries.
2. Abortion - Over the past six years, the US government has handed over $2.3 billion of your tax dollars to Planned Parenthood. They were recently audited and could only account for how and where $657 million was spent. The other $1.6 billion has apparently disappeared.
3. Army - June 14th was the 235th anniversary of the US Army. First year was 1775.
4. Taxes - Obama just pledged millions of your tax money to Gaza for building homes, etc.
5. Obama's friends - William (Bill) Ayers is one of Obama's friends. This guy, along with the Weather Underground organization, launched an attack on the U.S. in the 1960's and 1970's. Mr. Ayers was charged with some bombings but got away with it due to a technical error in court proceedings. Back at that time, there were around 250,000,000 people in the U.S. Their goal was to take over the U.S. and to "re-educate" the masses. They were prepared to eliminate (kill) 10% of the population that they believed would not be re-educated. That is 25,000,000 citizens that they were willing to kill in order to eliminate any resistance to their goals. This information is from an interview with a former FBI agent who infiltrated the group.
6. Obama's friends - Van Jones, another Obama associate, recently claimed that he believes the U.S. is at a turning point, right now. The radical Left believes America is tipping over in a direction that the radicals desire.
7. Illegal Immigration - The Secretary of the Department of Labor made a TV commercial encouraging employees, both "documented and undocumented" to contact the DOL if they believe they have been treated unfairly in wages. In other words, our Federal Government is offering to help illegal aliens sue employers.
8. Illegal Immigration - Jon Kyl, Senator from AZ, told a crowd that he had had the opportunity to meet, one-on-one, with Obama concerning the open border between AZ and Mexico. Kyl told the crowd that Obama explained why he was not going to secure the border. He said that if he secures the border then the Republicans would have no reason to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. So, Obama is holding us all hostage to open borders and illegal immigration, on purpose, in order for him to have leverage to get passed his amnesty plan.
9. Dollars - For the year of 2009, the U.S. has 2.8 million millionaires.
10. Illegal Immigration - A plan has come to light in Washington. Obama has sent a plan to the Department of Homeland Security, laying out how he is considering a "blanket amnesty" to all illegal aliens in our country, done by an Executive Order. This is what he is considering as a way to get millions of additional Democrat voters signed up, if Congress fails to pass a Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill.
So, this is the "Change" we have been waiting for?
1. Border Security - Currently, in Pinal County jail in AZ, there are illegal aliens from seven different Arab (or Muslim) countries.
2. Abortion - Over the past six years, the US government has handed over $2.3 billion of your tax dollars to Planned Parenthood. They were recently audited and could only account for how and where $657 million was spent. The other $1.6 billion has apparently disappeared.
3. Army - June 14th was the 235th anniversary of the US Army. First year was 1775.
4. Taxes - Obama just pledged millions of your tax money to Gaza for building homes, etc.
5. Obama's friends - William (Bill) Ayers is one of Obama's friends. This guy, along with the Weather Underground organization, launched an attack on the U.S. in the 1960's and 1970's. Mr. Ayers was charged with some bombings but got away with it due to a technical error in court proceedings. Back at that time, there were around 250,000,000 people in the U.S. Their goal was to take over the U.S. and to "re-educate" the masses. They were prepared to eliminate (kill) 10% of the population that they believed would not be re-educated. That is 25,000,000 citizens that they were willing to kill in order to eliminate any resistance to their goals. This information is from an interview with a former FBI agent who infiltrated the group.
6. Obama's friends - Van Jones, another Obama associate, recently claimed that he believes the U.S. is at a turning point, right now. The radical Left believes America is tipping over in a direction that the radicals desire.
7. Illegal Immigration - The Secretary of the Department of Labor made a TV commercial encouraging employees, both "documented and undocumented" to contact the DOL if they believe they have been treated unfairly in wages. In other words, our Federal Government is offering to help illegal aliens sue employers.
8. Illegal Immigration - Jon Kyl, Senator from AZ, told a crowd that he had had the opportunity to meet, one-on-one, with Obama concerning the open border between AZ and Mexico. Kyl told the crowd that Obama explained why he was not going to secure the border. He said that if he secures the border then the Republicans would have no reason to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. So, Obama is holding us all hostage to open borders and illegal immigration, on purpose, in order for him to have leverage to get passed his amnesty plan.
9. Dollars - For the year of 2009, the U.S. has 2.8 million millionaires.
10. Illegal Immigration - A plan has come to light in Washington. Obama has sent a plan to the Department of Homeland Security, laying out how he is considering a "blanket amnesty" to all illegal aliens in our country, done by an Executive Order. This is what he is considering as a way to get millions of additional Democrat voters signed up, if Congress fails to pass a Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill.
So, this is the "Change" we have been waiting for?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Danger - South of the Border
A recent news story on FOX News has brought to the light a story that had little attention. As the Sheriff of Pinal County, Paul Babeu, told FOX that violence has spilled over the border resulting in setting aside Buenos Aires Wild Life Reserve, as "OFF LIMITS" to Americans.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this area was closed to Americans in October of 2006. The area is located along 80 miles of the border with Mexico and south of Interstate 8.
Along the south side of I-8, signs warn Americans to stay out of that portion of Arizona due to potential violence by armed Mexicans who smuggle drugs and humans through the area on a regular basis.
Sheriff Babeu stated that his department does not have the staff, funds or arms necessary to combat the Mexican drug cartels who are now controlling a portion of Arizona. He continues to plead for help from the Obama administration, but no help has been given. In fact, the promised fence along the border was suspended by Obama.
"It's literally out of control," said Babeu.
Recently, a private group of citizens placed hidden cameras in the area south of Interstate 8, in Arizona. They filmed smugglers with machine guns leading groups of Mexicans loaded with drugs. These films were made many miles from the border as the groups approached I-8.
Yes, there is danger south of the border, but the border is now Interstate 8, ninety miles into Arizona.
The above photo is Arizona's lovely Sonoran Desert, after illegal immigration.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The Coming Jewish Ghetto
How many times will the Jewish people be confined to ghettos?
How did this all start? Why are the Jews under constant persecution from just about everyone else? From Old Testament times the "chosen people" have had trouble maintaining a homeland. They were exiled to Egypt, dominated by the Romans, scattered abroad with no place to call home. They spent centuries without the the right to call Israel - the place God promised to them - their home. In recent history, while scattered among the nations, they endured the wrath of the Nazis. Those who escaped or survived were rewarded with an international solution in the late 1940's. Israel was re-established as the nation for the homeland of the Jews. This was the fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy. Jews from around the world migrated to Israel - their home.
Around 1516, in Venice, the Jews were required to live in a certain area. This is the first use of the ghetto as a description for a containment of the Jews. As Hitler began his hate-filled persecution of the Jews in Europe, during the 1930's and into the 1940's; they were rounded up and forced to live in crowded conditions in various cities in walled areas referred to as ghettos. This time, the cure from the ghetto was worse than the disease. As concentration camps could handle the volume of humankind who were relegated to their confines, the "final solution" was being exercised as fast as the gas chambers, mass executions, starvation, disease, and ovens could deal with the sheer masses.
Arising from the Holocaust, a people began to go "home". For the first time in their lives, they had a homeland. Israel belonged to the Jews-per United Nations mandate.
As you can imagine, this was not good news to everyone. Basically, all of their neighbors were less than neighborly. Israel, with approximately 10,000 square miles of territory (which is comparable to Maricopa County in Arizona), is fairly small. It is home to approximately 6.5 million people, of which about 5.5 million are Jews (which just happens to be less than the number murdered by the Nazis during WWII). Other than on the west side, where it borders the Mediterranean Sea, it is surrounded by Arab nations. In these countries, the large majority of the population are Muslim with approximately 230,000,000.
In order to preserve Israel as the Jewish homeland, they have had to fight the Arabs in several wars and deal with terrorist attacks and rocket attacks as almost a way of life. Until Obama became President, the U.S. was the strongest ally Israel had. Currently, Israel is pretty much on its own. Now, no matter what action Israel takes, the rest of the world condemns it. They are expected to not protect or defend themselves against aggressive actions of their sworn enemies. They are being pressured to give up nuclear weapons, which they have for self-protection as a deterrent to belligerent action of others.
The recent news of the attempt to break the blockade of Gaza and the Israeli response has further unified the rest of the world, including the Obama administration, against Israel. Much of the Liberals and major media outlets in America tend to paint Israel as the aggressor and occupier. There are continuous demands on Israel to accept peace treaty terms, which, for some reason, always tend to favor the Arabs. Even when the Israeli government has accepted such terms, their enemy never agrees and never accepts the Jews as legitimate neighbors.
One of the main "peace" proposals currently being pushed on Israel from Obama and others, includes a plan to split Israel. The pro-Arab group considers it unfair to have Gaza (on the Mediterranean Sea and west border of Israel divided from the Arab territory of The West Bank, which is on the east border of Israel. So, their solution is to divide the nation of Israel and join Gaza with the West Bank. The fact that the result would then be an Arab controlled area between the north and south parts of Israel does not seem to be of concern.
Even though Israel is surrounded by Arab nations, the Palestinian Arabs will only be satisfied with taking Israel back from the Jews. The demands on Israel to continually concede more and more space to the Palestinians and the plan to divide north and south Israel further diminish the territorial homeland.
At some point in time, based on the direction things are headed, the Jews will be confined to two ghettos - one to the north and one to the south. Do you think that the Arabs and/or Muslims will then be content? Of course not! They will not be content with that part of the world while Jews occupy any portion.
When will the USA step forward, again, and support Israel and her right to be at peace in their own country? Well, from recent happenings, not anytime soon. Although widely condemned, Helen Thomas openly expressed the anti-Semitic (hostility towards and prejudice against the Jews) attitude that not only exists in much of the world but is rising within our borders. Her outrageous comments demonstrate a level of hatred and stupidity that has not been openly expressed by many here, prior to this. What she did was put an ugliness to the once hidden face of anti-Semitism in America.
Where are we headed, as a former ally of Israel? Based on the Bible, Israel will survive with the protection of God and the USA will evidently disappear from the scene.
How did this all start? Why are the Jews under constant persecution from just about everyone else? From Old Testament times the "chosen people" have had trouble maintaining a homeland. They were exiled to Egypt, dominated by the Romans, scattered abroad with no place to call home. They spent centuries without the the right to call Israel - the place God promised to them - their home. In recent history, while scattered among the nations, they endured the wrath of the Nazis. Those who escaped or survived were rewarded with an international solution in the late 1940's. Israel was re-established as the nation for the homeland of the Jews. This was the fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy. Jews from around the world migrated to Israel - their home.
Around 1516, in Venice, the Jews were required to live in a certain area. This is the first use of the ghetto as a description for a containment of the Jews. As Hitler began his hate-filled persecution of the Jews in Europe, during the 1930's and into the 1940's; they were rounded up and forced to live in crowded conditions in various cities in walled areas referred to as ghettos. This time, the cure from the ghetto was worse than the disease. As concentration camps could handle the volume of humankind who were relegated to their confines, the "final solution" was being exercised as fast as the gas chambers, mass executions, starvation, disease, and ovens could deal with the sheer masses.
Arising from the Holocaust, a people began to go "home". For the first time in their lives, they had a homeland. Israel belonged to the Jews-per United Nations mandate.
As you can imagine, this was not good news to everyone. Basically, all of their neighbors were less than neighborly. Israel, with approximately 10,000 square miles of territory (which is comparable to Maricopa County in Arizona), is fairly small. It is home to approximately 6.5 million people, of which about 5.5 million are Jews (which just happens to be less than the number murdered by the Nazis during WWII). Other than on the west side, where it borders the Mediterranean Sea, it is surrounded by Arab nations. In these countries, the large majority of the population are Muslim with approximately 230,000,000.
In order to preserve Israel as the Jewish homeland, they have had to fight the Arabs in several wars and deal with terrorist attacks and rocket attacks as almost a way of life. Until Obama became President, the U.S. was the strongest ally Israel had. Currently, Israel is pretty much on its own. Now, no matter what action Israel takes, the rest of the world condemns it. They are expected to not protect or defend themselves against aggressive actions of their sworn enemies. They are being pressured to give up nuclear weapons, which they have for self-protection as a deterrent to belligerent action of others.
The recent news of the attempt to break the blockade of Gaza and the Israeli response has further unified the rest of the world, including the Obama administration, against Israel. Much of the Liberals and major media outlets in America tend to paint Israel as the aggressor and occupier. There are continuous demands on Israel to accept peace treaty terms, which, for some reason, always tend to favor the Arabs. Even when the Israeli government has accepted such terms, their enemy never agrees and never accepts the Jews as legitimate neighbors.
One of the main "peace" proposals currently being pushed on Israel from Obama and others, includes a plan to split Israel. The pro-Arab group considers it unfair to have Gaza (on the Mediterranean Sea and west border of Israel divided from the Arab territory of The West Bank, which is on the east border of Israel. So, their solution is to divide the nation of Israel and join Gaza with the West Bank. The fact that the result would then be an Arab controlled area between the north and south parts of Israel does not seem to be of concern.
Even though Israel is surrounded by Arab nations, the Palestinian Arabs will only be satisfied with taking Israel back from the Jews. The demands on Israel to continually concede more and more space to the Palestinians and the plan to divide north and south Israel further diminish the territorial homeland.
At some point in time, based on the direction things are headed, the Jews will be confined to two ghettos - one to the north and one to the south. Do you think that the Arabs and/or Muslims will then be content? Of course not! They will not be content with that part of the world while Jews occupy any portion.
When will the USA step forward, again, and support Israel and her right to be at peace in their own country? Well, from recent happenings, not anytime soon. Although widely condemned, Helen Thomas openly expressed the anti-Semitic (hostility towards and prejudice against the Jews) attitude that not only exists in much of the world but is rising within our borders. Her outrageous comments demonstrate a level of hatred and stupidity that has not been openly expressed by many here, prior to this. What she did was put an ugliness to the once hidden face of anti-Semitism in America.
Where are we headed, as a former ally of Israel? Based on the Bible, Israel will survive with the protection of God and the USA will evidently disappear from the scene.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
