The following, from Move America Forward, is just a snapshot of the true colors of the Marxist left Democrats in this country - They hate Christmas time as it strengthens the majority in this country to defend America's rights to the freedom of religion and free speech among others -
If the liberals ever hope to turn this country over to the Marxist socialists, they must destroy Christianity and stop free speech - the worst part in all this is most people don't believe this could happen in America. I find it almost impossible myself but the signs are every where.
We must keep are guard up and be ready to stand up for America and it's heritage.
Keep the faith - the battle is joined!
In Cambridge, Massachusetts, the elections commission executive director, Marsha Weinerman, shut down the Boy Scouts care package drive that collected comfort items and toiletries for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ms. Weinerman said the Boy Scout's program was "too pro-war." Move America Forward mobilized our supporters who deluged Weinerman's office with thousands of emails and phone calls protesting her inexcusable conduct.
In Berkeley, California the anti-military organization, Code Pink, vandalized the Marine Recruiting Center and is waging a harassment campaign to shut down the recruiting office. They called our troops "traitors," "predators," and "murderers." Move America Forward mobilized hundreds of pro-troop supporters to show up in defense of the Marines, and we made national headlines for outnumbering Code Pink in their own backyard.
Several movies have just come out that slam the efforts of our troops in Iraq including the new movie "Redacted" which falsely depicts U.S. troops as bloodthirsty rapists.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Mother Nature at Her Best
Nine of the guys and gals in two hours - midnight to two in the morning and the best part was she no problems with the delievery.What fun they are until they get to the point where they start to want everything right now.
We sold all but one and just today we sold the last one - we were getting a lttle nervious - but all's well that ends well - they all have gone to good homes where they will be hunted and trained in Agility and field.
This is the last batch for us as they are too much to handle when our business demands all of our time.
Smart talk until the next time - sigh
Keep the faith -
America: Hope of the World
I sincerely hope everyone is have a great day, enjoying the fruits of their labors -
I feel very strongly about this day and every day that I am privileged to live in this great country of ours - America has given me everything - freedom to choose, opportunity to be more than I thought, security in knowing that tomorrow will be another chance to do the right thing.
Please take a moment to give thanks for all of the great blessings that have been bestowed on us by those that have gone before, especially those that gave the full measure, their lives, so we can enjoy the best of everything.
As the song lyric goes in Bobbie McGee, " - - freedom means having nothing else to lose - - "
Enjoy the day and God bless America!
I feel very strongly about this day and every day that I am privileged to live in this great country of ours - America has given me everything - freedom to choose, opportunity to be more than I thought, security in knowing that tomorrow will be another chance to do the right thing.
Please take a moment to give thanks for all of the great blessings that have been bestowed on us by those that have gone before, especially those that gave the full measure, their lives, so we can enjoy the best of everything.
As the song lyric goes in Bobbie McGee, " - - freedom means having nothing else to lose - - "
Enjoy the day and God bless America!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Hillary's Staged Debate
The last Democratic debate was a complete sham - all of the questions that were asked were Democrat operatives - the whole thing was staged, the whole damn thing.
What's worse I've haven't read anything to this effect in any of our local newspapers. As the conventional wisdom goes, had this been a Republican debate, and they staged the whole thing, it would be front page stuff - but since it was liberal Democrats, it's just routine lies and deception. In any event, the media had no intention of printing anything that would in any way embarrass Hillary. They know better than to cross the Clintons.
As was expected, CNN folded like a paper bag under the pressure applied by the Clinton machine to make sure they didn't ask any questions that demands a straight answer, and they didn't. Journalism at it's best.
I would really like to know what the average guy in the street thinks about their candidate. Does the fact that Hillary can't answer even the most straight forward question about her position on anything that concerns this country, have some effect on Democrats as to her qualifications to be president? Does it matter at all?
Well, don't despair, the fight has been joined by the best -
Keep the faith.
What's worse I've haven't read anything to this effect in any of our local newspapers. As the conventional wisdom goes, had this been a Republican debate, and they staged the whole thing, it would be front page stuff - but since it was liberal Democrats, it's just routine lies and deception. In any event, the media had no intention of printing anything that would in any way embarrass Hillary. They know better than to cross the Clintons.
As was expected, CNN folded like a paper bag under the pressure applied by the Clinton machine to make sure they didn't ask any questions that demands a straight answer, and they didn't. Journalism at it's best.
I would really like to know what the average guy in the street thinks about their candidate. Does the fact that Hillary can't answer even the most straight forward question about her position on anything that concerns this country, have some effect on Democrats as to her qualifications to be president? Does it matter at all?
Well, don't despair, the fight has been joined by the best -
Keep the faith.
Monday, November 19, 2007
The Liberal Left hates Individual Freedom
Here is a great article on how we all benefit from innovation and invention - that is why individual freedom is the most important factor in producing wealth for all of us - this is how we all move from income class to another.
Those that can't see a future will not prosper - it is not any one eles's responsibility to make sure everyone has a bright future. As the saying goes, the poor and the weak will always be with us.
The liberal, of course, see this as an opportunity to take from the productive and give to the unproductive, make a whole class of individuals dependent. Marxist socialism at it best.
Is Inequality a Useful Measure of Prosperity?
By Josh Hendrickson
Dani Rodrik recently claimed on his blog that market fundamentalists view "recent trends in wealth and income inequality through pink eye glasses."Similarly, Paul Krugman has written an entire book on inequality and even claims there has been a return to the Gilded Age. These claims are clearly lacking as they are framed through a false dilemma and are predicated on a weak measure of prosperity.
Those who are concerned with income inequality often present their argumentas though there are two choices. One can either side with the market fundamentalists whose "blind faith" claims that the market will work itself out or they can side with "realists" who believe government intervention is necessary to correct for this market failure.
However, this is a false dilemma. As Arnold Kling so eloquently explained, there are many of us who concede that markets fail, but we are much more concerned with government failure. And there is certainly reason to believe that the government will fail to equalize economic outcomes. For example, the most frequent solution to income inequality, and the one advocated by Krugman in nearly every interview about his book, is higher taxes on those at the top of the income scale. While this may give the appearance of lessening inequality, in actuality it does very little. Essentially, it is equivalent to twisting the ankle of the fastest runner in the world in an attempt to make other runners faster.
In no way does this make other runners faster. Even looking beyond the likelihood of government failure, there is a far more important reason for lacking trepidation about income inequality. First, income inequality is a static measure of well-being. Looking at an individual's or group's share of income at a given point in time tells us very little. In fact, even looking at the trends in income inequality is futile.
The fact that individual's rarely remain in the same income group throughout their lives suggests that looking at a group defined as "poor"or "middle class" or "rich" is irrelevant. Second, and perhaps most importantly, is the simple fact is that income inequality is a poor measure of prosperity. In reality, economic growth and innovation will do more to help the poor and the middle class than any conceivable government policy. In Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter discusses the benefits of capitalism at long length.
Perhaps his most important argument is the one in which he explains why invention and innovation benefit those with lower incomes a great deal more than those who are rich. He points out that, "it is the cheap cloth, the cheap cotton and rayon fabric, boots, motorcars and so on that are the typical achievements of capitalist production, and not as rule improvements that would mean much to the rich man." Imagine, for example, washing clothes without a washing machine. To whom did the washing machine benefit more? It was the individuals who could not hire others to wash their clothes. Unfortunately, Schumpeter's message seems to have fallen on deaf ears among the supposed market realists.
They have become too focused on imperfect measures of prosperity and, to make matters worse, they advocate policies that merely propose an aesthetic solution. Those of us with "pink eyeglasses" are not necessarily market fundamentalists; we merely recognize the fact that there are better measures of prosperity and that there is more to fear from the government than from markets.
Josh Hendrickson teaches economics at Wayne State University. He also maintains the blog entitled, "The Everday Economist."
Those that can't see a future will not prosper - it is not any one eles's responsibility to make sure everyone has a bright future. As the saying goes, the poor and the weak will always be with us.
The liberal, of course, see this as an opportunity to take from the productive and give to the unproductive, make a whole class of individuals dependent. Marxist socialism at it best.
Is Inequality a Useful Measure of Prosperity?
By Josh Hendrickson
Dani Rodrik recently claimed on his blog that market fundamentalists view "recent trends in wealth and income inequality through pink eye glasses."Similarly, Paul Krugman has written an entire book on inequality and even claims there has been a return to the Gilded Age. These claims are clearly lacking as they are framed through a false dilemma and are predicated on a weak measure of prosperity.
Those who are concerned with income inequality often present their argumentas though there are two choices. One can either side with the market fundamentalists whose "blind faith" claims that the market will work itself out or they can side with "realists" who believe government intervention is necessary to correct for this market failure.
However, this is a false dilemma. As Arnold Kling so eloquently explained, there are many of us who concede that markets fail, but we are much more concerned with government failure. And there is certainly reason to believe that the government will fail to equalize economic outcomes. For example, the most frequent solution to income inequality, and the one advocated by Krugman in nearly every interview about his book, is higher taxes on those at the top of the income scale. While this may give the appearance of lessening inequality, in actuality it does very little. Essentially, it is equivalent to twisting the ankle of the fastest runner in the world in an attempt to make other runners faster.
In no way does this make other runners faster. Even looking beyond the likelihood of government failure, there is a far more important reason for lacking trepidation about income inequality. First, income inequality is a static measure of well-being. Looking at an individual's or group's share of income at a given point in time tells us very little. In fact, even looking at the trends in income inequality is futile.
The fact that individual's rarely remain in the same income group throughout their lives suggests that looking at a group defined as "poor"or "middle class" or "rich" is irrelevant. Second, and perhaps most importantly, is the simple fact is that income inequality is a poor measure of prosperity. In reality, economic growth and innovation will do more to help the poor and the middle class than any conceivable government policy. In Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter discusses the benefits of capitalism at long length.
Perhaps his most important argument is the one in which he explains why invention and innovation benefit those with lower incomes a great deal more than those who are rich. He points out that, "it is the cheap cloth, the cheap cotton and rayon fabric, boots, motorcars and so on that are the typical achievements of capitalist production, and not as rule improvements that would mean much to the rich man." Imagine, for example, washing clothes without a washing machine. To whom did the washing machine benefit more? It was the individuals who could not hire others to wash their clothes. Unfortunately, Schumpeter's message seems to have fallen on deaf ears among the supposed market realists.
They have become too focused on imperfect measures of prosperity and, to make matters worse, they advocate policies that merely propose an aesthetic solution. Those of us with "pink eyeglasses" are not necessarily market fundamentalists; we merely recognize the fact that there are better measures of prosperity and that there is more to fear from the government than from markets.
Josh Hendrickson teaches economics at Wayne State University. He also maintains the blog entitled, "The Everday Economist."
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Big Labor and NEA are Bad for Education
This from the Heritage Foundation - It's clear that the NEA and big labor organizations do not want parents to control what their children learn - the public school system has an agenda that is completely different from local and national community - Their agenda is to get more money and work less and that is why NEA and Big Labor work so well together. They have the same work ethic.
This article is to the point and a sad commentary on today's education.
A coalition led by big labor helped defeat a landmark school-choice ballot initiative in Utah, Heritage education expert Dan Lips writes in The Salt Lake Tribune. The defeat of the state-wide school choice plan—which was signed by Gov. John Huntsman earlier this year but blocked pending a referendum—marks a “victory for the National Education Association—and other special-interest groups that oppose allowing parents to decide where their children attend school.”
This article is to the point and a sad commentary on today's education.
A coalition led by big labor helped defeat a landmark school-choice ballot initiative in Utah, Heritage education expert Dan Lips writes in The Salt Lake Tribune. The defeat of the state-wide school choice plan—which was signed by Gov. John Huntsman earlier this year but blocked pending a referendum—marks a “victory for the National Education Association—and other special-interest groups that oppose allowing parents to decide where their children attend school.”
Monday, November 12, 2007
Liberals : Not Samrtest in the Room
A true liberal will always believe they are the smartest person in a group of people, no matter where they are -
Common sense tells us this is nonsense - a liberal Democrat has no idea what or who they are so how can they be in the same room with other people. If they think they are in the same room it's only a figment of imagination because they live in a different dimension, they come from a different planet.
I love this little saying, it fits them to a tee -" Stability is more essential to success than brilliance" When a liberal is after power and control of other people, it's brilliance they rely on to bring them through - ha - dah - no wonder they look and sound the fool in the real world.
Hillary at the latest debates? hmmmmm
Common sense tells us this is nonsense - a liberal Democrat has no idea what or who they are so how can they be in the same room with other people. If they think they are in the same room it's only a figment of imagination because they live in a different dimension, they come from a different planet.
I love this little saying, it fits them to a tee -" Stability is more essential to success than brilliance" When a liberal is after power and control of other people, it's brilliance they rely on to bring them through - ha - dah - no wonder they look and sound the fool in the real world.
Hillary at the latest debates? hmmmmm
Monday, November 05, 2007
Hillary is NOT FIT to Lead
I think Dick Morris has seen Hillary from the inside - he was in the Clinton White House for years - I have also read reports from Secret Service agents that were there as well and the stories they tell are beyond the pale - she is truly a serpent from hell - read on -
Dick Morris comments on Hillary Clinton -
Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton.
She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country (that's you and me!) when it comes to the war on terror.
1 She wants to close GITMO & move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qeada phone calls to/from the USA .
3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qeada cells & supporters in the USA .
5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists, even though such tactics might save American lives.
I can't think of a single bill Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in the War on Terror. But, I can think of a lot of comments she has made that weakens our country& makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us ........She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.
She is a disaster for all Americans. (my high lite)
Dick Morris comments on Hillary Clinton -
Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton.
She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country (that's you and me!) when it comes to the war on terror.
1 She wants to close GITMO & move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qeada phone calls to/from the USA .
3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qeada cells & supporters in the USA .
5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists, even though such tactics might save American lives.
I can't think of a single bill Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in the War on Terror. But, I can think of a lot of comments she has made that weakens our country& makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us ........She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.
She is a disaster for all Americans. (my high lite)
Giuliani Stands for American Rights
This is a great article from the NewsMax online - the Marxist in congress want this to pass as it would weaken America among the world order, giving others power over what we can and can't do - a large plank of the liberal agenda -
keep the faith -
Giuliani Opposes Law of the Sea Treaty
Rudy Giuliani has become the latest Republican presidential candidate to denounce the controversial Law of the Sea Treaty now working its way through the Senate.
The treaty, called LOST by opponents, would empower a United Nation-affiliated organization to control the world’s oceans.
On Wednesday the Senate Foreign Relations committee voted 17-4 to send the treaty to the full Senate for ratification.
U.S. participation in the treaty, which has been signed by 154 other countries, has been held up since 1982 when concerns about deep-sea mining rights arose during the Ronald Reagan administration.
President Bush favors signing the treaty, and the Pentagon has called fears about ceding U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. unfounded.
But in a statement posted on Giuliani’s campaign Web site on Oct. 30, he said: “I oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. I believe the treaty is well intentioned, and I appreciate the hard work of U.S. negotiators who sought to resolve problems in the treaty first identified by President Reagan.
"I also understand the arguments of those — particularly in our military — who claim that this treaty will enhance America’s ability to guarantee freedom of the seas for all peace-loving nations.
“But I believe that the treaty is fundamentally flawed. I cannot support the creation of yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy that might infringe on American sovereignty and curtail America’s freedoms. I oppose ratification of this treaty as along as it fails to address these concerns.”
GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee had previously come out in opposition to the treaty.
The Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, an organization that opposes LOST, has charged that it would force the U.S. to give up certain controls of its territorial waters. It said in a press release: “The emerging debate about the Law of the Sea Treaty will enable the electorate to choose between those who favor … greatly empowering world government agencies and unaccountable international bureaucracies on the one hand and those who are intent on preserving and promoting American sovereignty and interests on the other.”
Despite passage of the treaty by the Senate committee, it faces stiff opposition from Republicans in the Senate.
“This treaty will not be adopted,” said Sen. Kyl, R-Ariz. “There aren’t the votes to pass it.”
keep the faith -
Giuliani Opposes Law of the Sea Treaty
Rudy Giuliani has become the latest Republican presidential candidate to denounce the controversial Law of the Sea Treaty now working its way through the Senate.
The treaty, called LOST by opponents, would empower a United Nation-affiliated organization to control the world’s oceans.
On Wednesday the Senate Foreign Relations committee voted 17-4 to send the treaty to the full Senate for ratification.
U.S. participation in the treaty, which has been signed by 154 other countries, has been held up since 1982 when concerns about deep-sea mining rights arose during the Ronald Reagan administration.
President Bush favors signing the treaty, and the Pentagon has called fears about ceding U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. unfounded.
But in a statement posted on Giuliani’s campaign Web site on Oct. 30, he said: “I oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. I believe the treaty is well intentioned, and I appreciate the hard work of U.S. negotiators who sought to resolve problems in the treaty first identified by President Reagan.
"I also understand the arguments of those — particularly in our military — who claim that this treaty will enhance America’s ability to guarantee freedom of the seas for all peace-loving nations.
“But I believe that the treaty is fundamentally flawed. I cannot support the creation of yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy that might infringe on American sovereignty and curtail America’s freedoms. I oppose ratification of this treaty as along as it fails to address these concerns.”
GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee had previously come out in opposition to the treaty.
The Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty, an organization that opposes LOST, has charged that it would force the U.S. to give up certain controls of its territorial waters. It said in a press release: “The emerging debate about the Law of the Sea Treaty will enable the electorate to choose between those who favor … greatly empowering world government agencies and unaccountable international bureaucracies on the one hand and those who are intent on preserving and promoting American sovereignty and interests on the other.”
Despite passage of the treaty by the Senate committee, it faces stiff opposition from Republicans in the Senate.
“This treaty will not be adopted,” said Sen. Kyl, R-Ariz. “There aren’t the votes to pass it.”
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Conservatives are Gaining Ground
When Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate to lambaste Rush Limbaugh for what he said on his radio show, I was very angry at his total lack of common sense and knowledge of the Constitution.
But it really wasn't about what Rush said that tipped Harry over the edge, it was the fact that someone, anyone really, has the right to say anything without approval from Harry Reid and other liberal intellectuals.
Freedom of speech is only good as long as you say what is accepted as the truth - if you challenge that hypothesis, you loose the right to free speech.
Harry knew that what he was saying on the floor of the senate was a lie but it was such a good lie that he just couldn't let it pass by. Senator Reid has made a career out of telling stories that might have some tread of truth to them, then twisting and distorting it to gain some political ground on an opponent or to just cause trouble for someone that opposes him a debate. It's called 'misinformation'. The Soviets used this to great advantage. That the liberal Democrats use it is no surprise.
Truth to a liberal is never an advantage - the liberal can not use the truth to liberate but they can only use it to destroy by distorting it.
I've said this before, if a liberal has to tell truth, he becomes a conservative by definition. But this never posed a problem for Harry, also not a surprise - he took a simple true statement of Rush Limbaugh's and distorted to fit his agenda of character assassination. The media too used the lie. Another Big surprise -
For weeks this floated around the country before it passed away like most lies when the truth became known - any wonder why Rush calls the media the "drive by media"? They take a story and use it and abuse it for as long as they can do some damage with it, and when the damage is done, or they recognize the the story doesn't have traction anymore, they move on to the next story leaving in their wake a path of destruction. This is the true matra of the liberal journalist.
Harry knew the media would use the lie as well - it's so easy, and they have such a strong desire to inflict pain on anyone that doesn't agree with their emanate right of opinion. It's not about right and wrong - it's about control of other people for their own purpose.
What hurt Harry on this romp in fantasy land is that the credibility of the liberal Democrat isn't what it use to be and, perhaps more importantly, the media monopoly on information has been forever broken - conservative radio, television, as well as magazines and newspapers has grown to such an extent, the drive-by media can't just float any lie that it wants and make it fly.
So conservatives have some bright spots now that we didn't have just five years ago. We have reason to think we are gaining ground on the spoilers, the cut throats and the Marxists destructors that lurk in our universities, schools, work places and our governments.
So take the heart, the fight has been joined and we are making a difference -
Keep the faith -
But it really wasn't about what Rush said that tipped Harry over the edge, it was the fact that someone, anyone really, has the right to say anything without approval from Harry Reid and other liberal intellectuals.
Freedom of speech is only good as long as you say what is accepted as the truth - if you challenge that hypothesis, you loose the right to free speech.
Harry knew that what he was saying on the floor of the senate was a lie but it was such a good lie that he just couldn't let it pass by. Senator Reid has made a career out of telling stories that might have some tread of truth to them, then twisting and distorting it to gain some political ground on an opponent or to just cause trouble for someone that opposes him a debate. It's called 'misinformation'. The Soviets used this to great advantage. That the liberal Democrats use it is no surprise.
Truth to a liberal is never an advantage - the liberal can not use the truth to liberate but they can only use it to destroy by distorting it.
I've said this before, if a liberal has to tell truth, he becomes a conservative by definition. But this never posed a problem for Harry, also not a surprise - he took a simple true statement of Rush Limbaugh's and distorted to fit his agenda of character assassination. The media too used the lie. Another Big surprise -
For weeks this floated around the country before it passed away like most lies when the truth became known - any wonder why Rush calls the media the "drive by media"? They take a story and use it and abuse it for as long as they can do some damage with it, and when the damage is done, or they recognize the the story doesn't have traction anymore, they move on to the next story leaving in their wake a path of destruction. This is the true matra of the liberal journalist.
Harry knew the media would use the lie as well - it's so easy, and they have such a strong desire to inflict pain on anyone that doesn't agree with their emanate right of opinion. It's not about right and wrong - it's about control of other people for their own purpose.
What hurt Harry on this romp in fantasy land is that the credibility of the liberal Democrat isn't what it use to be and, perhaps more importantly, the media monopoly on information has been forever broken - conservative radio, television, as well as magazines and newspapers has grown to such an extent, the drive-by media can't just float any lie that it wants and make it fly.
So conservatives have some bright spots now that we didn't have just five years ago. We have reason to think we are gaining ground on the spoilers, the cut throats and the Marxists destructors that lurk in our universities, schools, work places and our governments.
So take the heart, the fight has been joined and we are making a difference -
Keep the faith -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
