This little story is just for fun, but it still bears some insight as to where a lot of liberals like to hide, imagined reality and self deception.
All this and more can be found in most liberal Democrats. Their grasp of reality seems to have taken leave in the face of disappointing results from their personal champion. It is no stretch o the imagination that most liberals will go to any lengths to sustain the fallacy that brought Obama to power and is now destroying the country.
This is extremely important in that without lying to one's self about the total belief that Obama would save us all from our selves, he has instead done a one eighty and brought destruction down on the true believers. Now it's a matter of saving one's ego from implosion and to do that, all of these believers lie about the "One's" accomplishments. They lie to their friends and more importantly, they lie to themselves. This, of course, unfortunately, brings on more defensive mechanisms, hate for those that are successful.
Truly, they are a lost people.
Woman shot in the head
Linda Burnett, 23, a resident of San Diego, was visiting her in-laws and while there went to a nearby supermarket to pick up some groceries.
Later, her husband noticed her sitting in her car in the driveway with the windows rolled up and with her eyes closed, with both hands behind the back of her head. He became concerned and walked over to the car. He noticed that Linda's eyes were now open and she looked very strange. He asked her if she was okay, and Linda replied that she had been shot in the back of the head and had been holding her brains in for over an hour.
The husband called the paramedics, who broke into the car because the doors were locked and Linda refused to remove her hands from her head. When they finally got in, they found that Linda had a wad of bread dough on the back of her head. A Pillsbury biscuit canister had exploded from the heat, making a loud noise that sounded like a gunshot, and the wad of dough hit her in the back of her head.
When she reached back to find out what it was, she felt the dough and thought it was her brains. She initially passed out, but quickly recovered.
Linda is blonde, a Democrat and an Obama supporter, but that could all be a coincidence.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Tax Increase for Small Business Crushing: 48% of Businesses
Small businesses are in trouble and the liberal Democrats are right there ready to administer the final blow that will do them in. Oh, wait - that would mean the very basis of employment in this country would be gone - well isn't that too bad. More people on unemployment - more people to vote for more unemployment - more people to vote Democrat. That works.
Why would anyone believe anything that Nancy Pelosi would say, or for that matter any liberal Democrat, especially when it comes to the economy. They are illiterate on economics and agenda driven on all other fronts. Their main focus is for power. Nothing else matters
It's so obvious - Pelosi has a track record that proves she is helpless when it comes to telling the truth about anything.
The Small Business Tax Hike and the 97 Percent Fallacy
Source: Kevin A. Hassett and Alan D. Viard, "The Small Business Tax Hike and the 97% Fallacy," Wall Street Journal, September 3, 2010.
President Barack Obama has called for the permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for singles with incomes below $200,000 and married couples with incomes below $250,000, but has proposed that most of the tax cuts for households with higher incomes be allowed to expire.
The president and his supporters have repeatedly asserted that the expiration of these cuts will have little impact because they affect only a tiny fraction of the wealthiest Americans, say Kevin A. Hassett, director of economic policy studies and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Alan D. Viard, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the planned tax increases would exempt "98 percent of American families and about 97 percent of small businesses." However, the impact is far more severe than Pelosi leads on. In fact, the sound bite about 3 percent of small businesses is one of the more misleading statements in the long history of economic propaganda, say Hassett and Viard.
The 3 percent figure, which is computed from Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, is based on simply counting the number of returns with any pass-through business income.
So, if somebody makes a little money selling products on eBay and reports that income on Schedule C of their tax return, they are counted as a small business.
The fact that there are millions of people in the lower tax brackets with small amounts of business income is irrelevant for the assessment of the economic impact of the tax hikes.
The relevant number is clear, say Hassett and Viard.
According to IRS data, fully 48 percent of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.
That's the number to look at, not the 3 percent.
For those who are determined to tax the rich at all costs, the tax hikes may well make sense. But the evidence is clear that lifting the top rates will hamper the business investment upon which our nation's prosperity depends. That affects all Americans, not just 3 percent, say Hassett and Viard.
Why would anyone believe anything that Nancy Pelosi would say, or for that matter any liberal Democrat, especially when it comes to the economy. They are illiterate on economics and agenda driven on all other fronts. Their main focus is for power. Nothing else matters
It's so obvious - Pelosi has a track record that proves she is helpless when it comes to telling the truth about anything.
The Small Business Tax Hike and the 97 Percent Fallacy
Source: Kevin A. Hassett and Alan D. Viard, "The Small Business Tax Hike and the 97% Fallacy," Wall Street Journal, September 3, 2010.
President Barack Obama has called for the permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for singles with incomes below $200,000 and married couples with incomes below $250,000, but has proposed that most of the tax cuts for households with higher incomes be allowed to expire.
The president and his supporters have repeatedly asserted that the expiration of these cuts will have little impact because they affect only a tiny fraction of the wealthiest Americans, say Kevin A. Hassett, director of economic policy studies and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Alan D. Viard, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the planned tax increases would exempt "98 percent of American families and about 97 percent of small businesses." However, the impact is far more severe than Pelosi leads on. In fact, the sound bite about 3 percent of small businesses is one of the more misleading statements in the long history of economic propaganda, say Hassett and Viard.
The 3 percent figure, which is computed from Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, is based on simply counting the number of returns with any pass-through business income.
So, if somebody makes a little money selling products on eBay and reports that income on Schedule C of their tax return, they are counted as a small business.
The fact that there are millions of people in the lower tax brackets with small amounts of business income is irrelevant for the assessment of the economic impact of the tax hikes.
The relevant number is clear, say Hassett and Viard.
According to IRS data, fully 48 percent of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.
That's the number to look at, not the 3 percent.
For those who are determined to tax the rich at all costs, the tax hikes may well make sense. But the evidence is clear that lifting the top rates will hamper the business investment upon which our nation's prosperity depends. That affects all Americans, not just 3 percent, say Hassett and Viard.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Growing Old IS A Journey : The Journey IS Everything
This following poem is so true - life is a journey and just because you enter the final stages should not mean you are still not struggling to reach your final destination.
If you are now on this great road of life and forget where you've been, then you took the wrong road. Turn around and start again on life's high road -
Live with intention -
Walk to the edge -
Play with abandon -
Choose with no regret.
Life is good - make the most of every day.
Never, ever forget who you actually are, this makes living a full and exciting life so easy.
When an old man died in the geriatric ward of a nursing home in North Platte , Nebraska, it was believed that he had nothing left of any value.Later, when the nurses were going through his meager possessions, they found this poem. Its quality and content so impressed the staff that copies were made and distributed to every nurse in the hospital.
One nurse took her copy to Missouri. The old man's sole bequest to posterity has since appeared in the Christmas edition of the News Magazine of the St. Louis Association for Mental Health. A slide presentation has also been made based on his simple, but eloquent, poem.And this little old man, with nothing left to give to the world, is now the author of this 'anonymous' poem winging across the Internet.
Crabby Old Man
What do you see nurses? . . .. .. . What do you see?
What are you thinking . . . . . when you're looking at me?
A crabby old man . . . . . not very wise,
Uncertain of habit . . . . . with faraway eyes?
Who dribbles his food . . . . . and makes no reply.
When you say in a loud voice . . . . . 'I do wish you'd try!'
Who seems not to notice . . . . . the things that you do.
And forever is losing . . . . . A sock or shoe?
Who, resisting or not . . . . . lets you do as you will,
With bathing and feeding . . . . . The long day to fill?
Is that what you're thinking? . . . . . Is that what you see?
Then open your eyes, nurse . . . . . you're not looking at me.
I'll tell you who I am. . . . . . As I sit here so still,
As I do at your bidding, . . . . . as I eat at your will.
I'm a small child of Ten . . . . . with a father and mother,
Brothers and sisters . . . . . who love one another.
A young boy of Sixteen . . . . with wings on his feet.
Dreaming that soon now . . . . . a lover he'll meet.
A groom soon at Twenty . . . . . my heart gives a leap.
Remembering, the vows . . . . . that I promised to keep.
At Twenty-Five, now . . . . . I have young of my own.
Who need me to guide . . . . . And a secure happy home.
A man of Thirty . . . . . My young now grown fast,
Bound to each other . . . . . With ties that should last.
At Forty, my young sons . . .. . . have grown and are gone,
But my woman's beside me . . . . . to see I don't mourn.
At Fifty, once more, babies play 'round my knee,
Again, we know children . . . . . My loved one and me.
Dark days are upon me . . . . . my wife is now dead.
I look at the future . . . . . shudder with dread.
For my young are all rearing . . . . . young of their own.
And I think of the years . . . . . and the love that I've known.
I'm now an old man . . . . . and nature is cruel.
Tis jest to make old age . . . . . look like a fool.
The body, it crumbles . . . . . grace and vigor, depart.
There is now a stone . . . . where I once had a heart.
But inside this old carcass . . . . . a young guy still dwells,
And now and again . . . . . my battered heart swells.
I remember the joys . . . . . I remember the pain.
And I'm loving and living . . . . . life over again.
I think of the years, all too few . . . . . gone too fast.
And accept the stark fact . . . . that nothing can last.
So open your eyes, people . . . . . open and see.
Not a crabby old man . . . . Look closer . . . see ME!!
Remember this poem when you next meet an older person who you might brush aside without looking at the young soul within. We will all, one day, be there, too!PLEASE SHARE THIS POEM The best and most beautiful things of this world can't be seen or touched. They must be felt by the heart.
If you are now on this great road of life and forget where you've been, then you took the wrong road. Turn around and start again on life's high road -
Live with intention -
Walk to the edge -
Play with abandon -
Choose with no regret.
Life is good - make the most of every day.
Never, ever forget who you actually are, this makes living a full and exciting life so easy.
When an old man died in the geriatric ward of a nursing home in North Platte , Nebraska, it was believed that he had nothing left of any value.Later, when the nurses were going through his meager possessions, they found this poem. Its quality and content so impressed the staff that copies were made and distributed to every nurse in the hospital.
One nurse took her copy to Missouri. The old man's sole bequest to posterity has since appeared in the Christmas edition of the News Magazine of the St. Louis Association for Mental Health. A slide presentation has also been made based on his simple, but eloquent, poem.And this little old man, with nothing left to give to the world, is now the author of this 'anonymous' poem winging across the Internet.
Crabby Old Man
What do you see nurses? . . .. .. . What do you see?
What are you thinking . . . . . when you're looking at me?
A crabby old man . . . . . not very wise,
Uncertain of habit . . . . . with faraway eyes?
Who dribbles his food . . . . . and makes no reply.
When you say in a loud voice . . . . . 'I do wish you'd try!'
Who seems not to notice . . . . . the things that you do.
And forever is losing . . . . . A sock or shoe?
Who, resisting or not . . . . . lets you do as you will,
With bathing and feeding . . . . . The long day to fill?
Is that what you're thinking? . . . . . Is that what you see?
Then open your eyes, nurse . . . . . you're not looking at me.
I'll tell you who I am. . . . . . As I sit here so still,
As I do at your bidding, . . . . . as I eat at your will.
I'm a small child of Ten . . . . . with a father and mother,
Brothers and sisters . . . . . who love one another.
A young boy of Sixteen . . . . with wings on his feet.
Dreaming that soon now . . . . . a lover he'll meet.
A groom soon at Twenty . . . . . my heart gives a leap.
Remembering, the vows . . . . . that I promised to keep.
At Twenty-Five, now . . . . . I have young of my own.
Who need me to guide . . . . . And a secure happy home.
A man of Thirty . . . . . My young now grown fast,
Bound to each other . . . . . With ties that should last.
At Forty, my young sons . . .. . . have grown and are gone,
But my woman's beside me . . . . . to see I don't mourn.
At Fifty, once more, babies play 'round my knee,
Again, we know children . . . . . My loved one and me.
Dark days are upon me . . . . . my wife is now dead.
I look at the future . . . . . shudder with dread.
For my young are all rearing . . . . . young of their own.
And I think of the years . . . . . and the love that I've known.
I'm now an old man . . . . . and nature is cruel.
Tis jest to make old age . . . . . look like a fool.
The body, it crumbles . . . . . grace and vigor, depart.
There is now a stone . . . . where I once had a heart.
But inside this old carcass . . . . . a young guy still dwells,
And now and again . . . . . my battered heart swells.
I remember the joys . . . . . I remember the pain.
And I'm loving and living . . . . . life over again.
I think of the years, all too few . . . . . gone too fast.
And accept the stark fact . . . . that nothing can last.
So open your eyes, people . . . . . open and see.
Not a crabby old man . . . . Look closer . . . see ME!!
Remember this poem when you next meet an older person who you might brush aside without looking at the young soul within. We will all, one day, be there, too!PLEASE SHARE THIS POEM The best and most beautiful things of this world can't be seen or touched. They must be felt by the heart.
Monday, September 06, 2010
Obama's Character Revealed by Crisis Management
Here is something for our president to think about, that is if he really cares at all what happens to this country, when the next crisis comes along.
"Crisis doesn't develop character: crisis reveals character"
"Crisis doesn't develop character: crisis reveals character"
President Bush at Dallas Airport Greeting Troops
Here is some shots of President Bush and Laura at the airport greeting the troops - what class they have - it's about honor and commitment to this country. Take a few minutes and open these - it will make you feel good for a change when you think about the president we have now.
image001.jpg, image002.jpg, image003.jpg, image004.jpg, image005.jpg, image006.jpg, image007.jpg, image008.jpg, image009.jpg, image010.jpg, image011.jpg, image012.jpg, image013.jpg, image014.jpg, image015.jpg, image016.jpg, image017.jpg, image018.jpg, image019.jpg, image020.jpg, image021.jpg
Message Source
image001.jpg, image002.jpg, image003.jpg, image004.jpg, image005.jpg, image006.jpg, image007.jpg, image008.jpg, image009.jpg, image010.jpg, image011.jpg, image012.jpg, image013.jpg, image014.jpg, image015.jpg, image016.jpg, image017.jpg, image018.jpg, image019.jpg, image020.jpg, image021.jpg
Message Source
ObamaCare Forces Ins. Premiums Higher for Workers
Intended consequences of ObamaCare - this was not an accident, this was planned to force everyone onto ObamaCare and crush the insurance industry. It's sure looks like it's working to a tee.
Employers Shifting Health Care Costs to Workers, Survey Shows
Source: David S. Hilzenrath, "Employers shifting health care costs to workers," Washington Post, September 2, 2010.
Amid high unemployment and a weak economy, employers have been shifting health care costs to workers, according to a study released Thursday. The premiums that employees pay for employer-sponsored family coverage rose an average of 13.7 percent this year, while the amount that employers contribute fell by 0.9 percent. Workers are paying an average of $3,997 for family coverage, up $482 from last year, while employers are paying an average of $9,773, down $87, according to the survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.
Overall, premiums for employer-sponsored coverage -- the amounts paid by employer and employee combined -- rose an average of 3 percent for family coverage and 5 percent for single coverage, says the Washington Post.
Workers with health benefits are paying an average of 30 percent of the premium for family coverage and 19 percent of the premium for single coverage this year, the highest in 12 years of surveys by the two organizations.
Last year, workers were paying an average of 27 percent of the premium for family coverage and 17 percent for single coverage.
Since 2005, employees' premium payments have gone up 47 percent while overall premiums have risen 27 percent. Over the same period, wages have increased 18 percent and the consumer price index has risen 12 percent, reports the Post.
Thirty percent of employers offering health benefits reported that this year they reduced the scope of benefits or increased cost-sharing because of the economic downturn. Increasingly, employers are offering insurance plans with high deductibles. Twenty-seven percent of employees with health benefits now have annual deductibles of at least $1,000, up from 22 percent last year, the organizations said.
Employers Shifting Health Care Costs to Workers, Survey Shows
Source: David S. Hilzenrath, "Employers shifting health care costs to workers," Washington Post, September 2, 2010.
Amid high unemployment and a weak economy, employers have been shifting health care costs to workers, according to a study released Thursday. The premiums that employees pay for employer-sponsored family coverage rose an average of 13.7 percent this year, while the amount that employers contribute fell by 0.9 percent. Workers are paying an average of $3,997 for family coverage, up $482 from last year, while employers are paying an average of $9,773, down $87, according to the survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.
Overall, premiums for employer-sponsored coverage -- the amounts paid by employer and employee combined -- rose an average of 3 percent for family coverage and 5 percent for single coverage, says the Washington Post.
Workers with health benefits are paying an average of 30 percent of the premium for family coverage and 19 percent of the premium for single coverage this year, the highest in 12 years of surveys by the two organizations.
Last year, workers were paying an average of 27 percent of the premium for family coverage and 17 percent for single coverage.
Since 2005, employees' premium payments have gone up 47 percent while overall premiums have risen 27 percent. Over the same period, wages have increased 18 percent and the consumer price index has risen 12 percent, reports the Post.
Thirty percent of employers offering health benefits reported that this year they reduced the scope of benefits or increased cost-sharing because of the economic downturn. Increasingly, employers are offering insurance plans with high deductibles. Twenty-seven percent of employees with health benefits now have annual deductibles of at least $1,000, up from 22 percent last year, the organizations said.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Boomer Generation's Children Stumble in Future
The very foundation of the American dream is the family unit. It has always been this way and has shown to be successful, until now. This article, and others like it, have spotlighted the gaps in our educational process and, as it seems, our grab for the brass ring, lotteries and games, as a way to get to success without working. Let the good times roll while letting someone else pick up the tab seems to be the prevailing legacy of our youth.
Why is this? Education in this country has failed. The very frame work that laid out an agenda of work ethics and belief in God that produced engines of success in our past are missing today. Now education is founded in what 'feels good' rather than what will prepare our kids for the twenty first century world economy and conflicts.
Most people know this is happening and are just now beginning to address the problem. People are waking up to the fact that socialism, whether in politics or eduction, is a failure. The problem that faces us now is nearly a whole generation has been subjected to this propaganda.
The Generation That Can't Move On Up
By ANDREW J. CHERLIN and W. BRADFORD WILCOX
Most people assume that working-class members of the baby-boomer generation have been hurt the most by the outsourcing and automation in which millions of factory jobs moved overseas or disappeared into computer chips, a shift recently compounded by recession. But actually it may be their children's generation.
Not only are many members of the younger working class unprepared for the contemporary job market. New research we have done shows their striking inability to fit the middle-class ideal in family and religious life. It's a worrisome development for their lifestyle and our culture.
These are the people we used to call "blue collar," although you can no longer tell a person's social class by the color of his shirt. If we can speak of a working class at all, education is now the best way to define them.
Think of people with high school degrees but not four-year college degrees. They make up slightly more than half of all Americans between the ages of 25 and 44; old enough to have completed their schooling but young enough to be still having children, and 79% of them are white. Because they don't have the educational credentials to get most middle-class professional and managerial jobs, their earnings have sunk toward the wages of the working poor.
The grim employment picture is familiar, but what's less widely known is that they are losing not only jobs but also their connections to basic social institutions such as marriage and religion. They're becoming socially disengaged, floating away from the college-educated middle class.
Consider the settings in which they have children. According to surveys by the National Center for Health Statistics, much of the recent rise in childbearing outside of marriage reflects a rise in births to cohabiting couples rather than to women living alone. The percentage of working-class women of all races who were cohabiting when they gave birth rose from 10% in the early 1990s to 27% in the mid-2000s—the largest increase of any educational group.
These working-class couples still value marriage highly. But they don't think they have what it takes to make a marriage work. Across all social classes, in fact, Americans now believe that a couple isn't ready to marry until they can count on a steady income. That's an increasingly high bar for the younger working class. As a result, cohabitation is emerging as the relationship of choice for young adults who have some earnings but not enough steady work to reach the marriage bar.
The problem is that cohabiting relationships don't go the distance. In fact, children who are born to cohabiting parents are more than twice as likely as children born to married parents to see their parents break up by age five. These break-ups are especially troubling because they are often followed by a relationship-go-round, where children are exposed to a bewildering array of parents' partners and stepparents entering and exiting their home in succession.
Church-going habits are changing, too. Traditionally, working-class couples who are married and have steady incomes have attended church, in part, to get reinforcement for the "respectable" lives they lead. But now, when a transformed economy makes marriage and steady work more difficult to attain, those who in better times might have married and attended church appear to be reluctant to show up. Thus, working-class men and women aren't going to religious services as often as they used to.
The drop-off in attendance has been greatest among whites, according to the General Social Survey, conducted biennially by the National Opinion Research Center. In the 1970s, 35% of working-class whites aged 25-45 attended religious services nearly every week, the same percentage as college-educated whites in that age group. Today, the college-educated are the only group who attend services almost as frequently as they did in the 1970s.
Some observers might say that there's nothing alarming about the working class's retreat from marriage and organized religion. It's true that not everyone wishes to marry or to worship, and that family and religious diversity can be valuable.
But the working class is not a cultural vanguard confidently leading the way toward a postmodern lifestyle. Rather, it is a group making constrained choices. For the most part, these are people who would like to marry before having kids but who don't think they are economically ready.
In contrast, college-educated Americans—the winners in our globalized economy—are now living more traditional family and religious lives than their working-class peers. More than 90% of college-educated women are married when they give birth.
What happens, then, when the job-market conditions that once allowed most high-school-educated Americans to connect to the rest of society through hard work, marriage and religious participation no longer exist? Will working-class young adults begin to devalue marriage and religion, or will they fiercely hold onto these ideals because their values are all that they have left? Will their social disengagement leave them vulnerable to political appeals based on anger and fear? Will their multiple cohabiting unions and marriages prevent their children from developing a sense of attachment to others?
These are the kinds of questions that our nation will confront unless we can narrow the economic and social gap between a middle class that is managing to hold its own in our postindustrial economy and a working class that is falling further and further behind.
Mr. Cherlin is a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. Mr. Wilcox is director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.
Why is this? Education in this country has failed. The very frame work that laid out an agenda of work ethics and belief in God that produced engines of success in our past are missing today. Now education is founded in what 'feels good' rather than what will prepare our kids for the twenty first century world economy and conflicts.
Most people know this is happening and are just now beginning to address the problem. People are waking up to the fact that socialism, whether in politics or eduction, is a failure. The problem that faces us now is nearly a whole generation has been subjected to this propaganda.
The Generation That Can't Move On Up
By ANDREW J. CHERLIN and W. BRADFORD WILCOX
Most people assume that working-class members of the baby-boomer generation have been hurt the most by the outsourcing and automation in which millions of factory jobs moved overseas or disappeared into computer chips, a shift recently compounded by recession. But actually it may be their children's generation.
Not only are many members of the younger working class unprepared for the contemporary job market. New research we have done shows their striking inability to fit the middle-class ideal in family and religious life. It's a worrisome development for their lifestyle and our culture.
These are the people we used to call "blue collar," although you can no longer tell a person's social class by the color of his shirt. If we can speak of a working class at all, education is now the best way to define them.
Think of people with high school degrees but not four-year college degrees. They make up slightly more than half of all Americans between the ages of 25 and 44; old enough to have completed their schooling but young enough to be still having children, and 79% of them are white. Because they don't have the educational credentials to get most middle-class professional and managerial jobs, their earnings have sunk toward the wages of the working poor.
The grim employment picture is familiar, but what's less widely known is that they are losing not only jobs but also their connections to basic social institutions such as marriage and religion. They're becoming socially disengaged, floating away from the college-educated middle class.
Consider the settings in which they have children. According to surveys by the National Center for Health Statistics, much of the recent rise in childbearing outside of marriage reflects a rise in births to cohabiting couples rather than to women living alone. The percentage of working-class women of all races who were cohabiting when they gave birth rose from 10% in the early 1990s to 27% in the mid-2000s—the largest increase of any educational group.
These working-class couples still value marriage highly. But they don't think they have what it takes to make a marriage work. Across all social classes, in fact, Americans now believe that a couple isn't ready to marry until they can count on a steady income. That's an increasingly high bar for the younger working class. As a result, cohabitation is emerging as the relationship of choice for young adults who have some earnings but not enough steady work to reach the marriage bar.
The problem is that cohabiting relationships don't go the distance. In fact, children who are born to cohabiting parents are more than twice as likely as children born to married parents to see their parents break up by age five. These break-ups are especially troubling because they are often followed by a relationship-go-round, where children are exposed to a bewildering array of parents' partners and stepparents entering and exiting their home in succession.
Church-going habits are changing, too. Traditionally, working-class couples who are married and have steady incomes have attended church, in part, to get reinforcement for the "respectable" lives they lead. But now, when a transformed economy makes marriage and steady work more difficult to attain, those who in better times might have married and attended church appear to be reluctant to show up. Thus, working-class men and women aren't going to religious services as often as they used to.
The drop-off in attendance has been greatest among whites, according to the General Social Survey, conducted biennially by the National Opinion Research Center. In the 1970s, 35% of working-class whites aged 25-45 attended religious services nearly every week, the same percentage as college-educated whites in that age group. Today, the college-educated are the only group who attend services almost as frequently as they did in the 1970s.
Some observers might say that there's nothing alarming about the working class's retreat from marriage and organized religion. It's true that not everyone wishes to marry or to worship, and that family and religious diversity can be valuable.
But the working class is not a cultural vanguard confidently leading the way toward a postmodern lifestyle. Rather, it is a group making constrained choices. For the most part, these are people who would like to marry before having kids but who don't think they are economically ready.
In contrast, college-educated Americans—the winners in our globalized economy—are now living more traditional family and religious lives than their working-class peers. More than 90% of college-educated women are married when they give birth.
What happens, then, when the job-market conditions that once allowed most high-school-educated Americans to connect to the rest of society through hard work, marriage and religious participation no longer exist? Will working-class young adults begin to devalue marriage and religion, or will they fiercely hold onto these ideals because their values are all that they have left? Will their social disengagement leave them vulnerable to political appeals based on anger and fear? Will their multiple cohabiting unions and marriages prevent their children from developing a sense of attachment to others?
These are the kinds of questions that our nation will confront unless we can narrow the economic and social gap between a middle class that is managing to hold its own in our postindustrial economy and a working class that is falling further and further behind.
Mr. Cherlin is a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. Mr. Wilcox is director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Obama's Agenda Divides America : Soft Tyranny?
How far have we come toward a decision to stop Barack Obama? Just what is to be done to get our country back? Will the November election turn the tide in favor of the American dream or will it be more of same?
We the people have to decide what is best for our country. Either we stand up for our rights as citizens of this great country under our Constitution, or we take a seat in back of the church of socialism and totalitarianism.
In November, it will be a turning point for our country. Gather and understand the facts and then determine what is important to you. Vote for what is best for you and our country. Elections have consequences as the last one has so painfully proven. We, as citizens of this great county, will decide what is right.
KUHNER: President's socialist takeover must be stopped
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times 5:58 p.m., Thursday, July 22, 2010
President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.
He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism.
Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go. He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was - and remains - opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson - taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.
Yet Obamacare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens.
Traditionalists - evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews - have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.
Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims - much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.
Mr. Obama's multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America. He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass "cap-and-trade," which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life - beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds.
Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper. (hi-lite is mine, The Slickster)
To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for "comprehensive immigration reform" - granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.
Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama's decision on this case is treasonous.
As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims - no matter how much they cry for justice - are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department's behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.
Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel - as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed - who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama's former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?
This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law - bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.
The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power - attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr. Obama's fledgling thug state must be stopped.
If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should - and likely will - launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (http://www.talk570.com/) from 5 to 7 p.m.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
We the people have to decide what is best for our country. Either we stand up for our rights as citizens of this great country under our Constitution, or we take a seat in back of the church of socialism and totalitarianism.
In November, it will be a turning point for our country. Gather and understand the facts and then determine what is important to you. Vote for what is best for you and our country. Elections have consequences as the last one has so painfully proven. We, as citizens of this great county, will decide what is right.
KUHNER: President's socialist takeover must be stopped
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times 5:58 p.m., Thursday, July 22, 2010
President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.
He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism.
Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go. He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was - and remains - opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson - taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.
Yet Obamacare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens.
Traditionalists - evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews - have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.
Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims - much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.
Mr. Obama's multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America. He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass "cap-and-trade," which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life - beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds.
Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper. (hi-lite is mine, The Slickster)
To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for "comprehensive immigration reform" - granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.
Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama's decision on this case is treasonous.
As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims - no matter how much they cry for justice - are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department's behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.
Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel - as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed - who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama's former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?
This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law - bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.
The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power - attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr. Obama's fledgling thug state must be stopped.
If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should - and likely will - launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (http://www.talk570.com/) from 5 to 7 p.m.
© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Cyber Attacks ARE Real : Congress Stonewalls/Sleeps
We know this is a problem but it seems our congress, as usual, doesn't care or they think it can't happen to us. Worse, they know it can happen and see it as another chance to take more control of our lives.
The truth? You decide after reading Peters' article.
The new Wiki warfare
By RALPH PETERS
Last Updated: 9:09 AM, August 27, 2010
The recent WikiLeaks debacle, which will result in American, allied and Afghan deaths, drives home how inadequate our antique laws on war are in the new millennium. We live in a lawless age, when it comes to our security. A hypernarcissist such as WikiLeaks' Julian Assange puts thousands of lives at risk by e-publishing classified documents, and we have no legal answer.
Every day, foreign powers and rogue players attack our nation's computer networks, attempting to steal secrets, plant sleeper programs or just create havoc. We have no practical legal framework for counterattacks. We haven't even decided when cyberattacks amount to acts of war.Even regarding physical acts of terrorism, our laws lag grotesquely -- hence the repeated delays in bringing the world's most vicious butchers to trial. It's as if, in the age of the automobile, we relied on traffic laws from horse-and-buggy days.
Absent appropriate legal codes, our government turns to lawyers without laws.The lawyers, in turn, fish through laws governing yesteryear's concerns -- and apply them restrictively to keep their departments out of the headlines.
And the cyberassaults go on, 24/7. Security leaks haunt the Internet (and our amoral media). Terrorists kill, then sue us. In the first case, we take our beatings and slap on bandages. In the second, we huff, puff and do nothing. In the third case, an apprehended terrorist gets better medical care than an out-of-work American. Even the civil laws and military codes we /do/ have on the books are not enforced. If found guilty, that Army private who allegedly passed over 90,000 classified documents to WikiLeaks should get the "full Rosenberg," a shortened life and a hot exit. Instead, he'll do a few years at most -- /at most/ -- then get a book contract. (Can't wait for the movie!)
As for Julian Assange, who released a deluge of sensitive operational data to America's enemies, he'll probably pay no price at all for any deaths his actions cause. Instead, he'll rake in speaking fees.
Our own cyberwarriors in the Pentagon and the intelligence community face no end of frustration as they try to defend us. We have superb, conscientious, capable officers working the problem. But the absence of laws to deter enemies or facilitate retaliation not only ties our hands behind our backs, but chains our ankles, too.That's a key reason why Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III just went public about a massive cyberinvasion of military computers in 2008, when a foreign agent used a flash drive to slip malware into a military laptop. The goal was to steal and corrupt military plans and secrets.The attacker suffered no meaningful consequences. We knew who did it, but couldn't do a thing. No laws.
And that attack was small change, compared to what an all-out cyberassault on our nation might do, from shutting down power supplies and transportation networks, to blacking out communications -- e-bombing us back to the 19th century, if not the Stone Age. As for our military itself, it simply could not function today without its computers: Aircraft wouldn't fly, gunnery systems wouldn't work and we'd lose global comms.
It no longer takes lead or high explosives to kill. If attacked, should we strike back with cyber means? Counterattack asymmetrically? Hit the aggressor physically? In the absence of updated laws of war for a new millennium, our military and our intelligence agencies are condemned to playing defense. It's a prescription for an eventual catastrophe.
And what about the likes of Assange? Nothing will happen to an activist who helps terrorists identify, track and slaughter those who stand up against Islamist fanatics.
Who's AWOL in these undeclared wars against us? Congress. That's who makes our laws, folks. But Congress has ignored these life-and-death issues, leaving our defenders out on the end of a creaking limb. Instead, legislators in /both/ parties play for short-term political advantage, while our enemies act with impunity. If a cyber-Pearl Harbor -- on a far-greater scale than that savage attack -- hits our country, don't blame our military or call it an intelligence failure. It'll be a congressional failure.
Our military and our spooks know who the bad guys are. They /could/ strike back. But, contrary to the myths of the left, they aren't rogues. They operate within our existing laws. Congress has to empower them.
When should a cyberattack trigger devastating retaliation? When can an Internet accomplice to terror be placed on a kill-or-capture list? What is the /proper/ judicial forum for putting terrorists on trial? It's the duty of /Congress/ to decide.
To update an old line describing Pearl Harbor, "At cyberdawn, we slept."Ralph Peters' latest book is "Endless War."
The truth? You decide after reading Peters' article.
The new Wiki warfare
By RALPH PETERS
Last Updated: 9:09 AM, August 27, 2010
The recent WikiLeaks debacle, which will result in American, allied and Afghan deaths, drives home how inadequate our antique laws on war are in the new millennium. We live in a lawless age, when it comes to our security. A hypernarcissist such as WikiLeaks' Julian Assange puts thousands of lives at risk by e-publishing classified documents, and we have no legal answer.
Every day, foreign powers and rogue players attack our nation's computer networks, attempting to steal secrets, plant sleeper programs or just create havoc. We have no practical legal framework for counterattacks. We haven't even decided when cyberattacks amount to acts of war.Even regarding physical acts of terrorism, our laws lag grotesquely -- hence the repeated delays in bringing the world's most vicious butchers to trial. It's as if, in the age of the automobile, we relied on traffic laws from horse-and-buggy days.
Absent appropriate legal codes, our government turns to lawyers without laws.The lawyers, in turn, fish through laws governing yesteryear's concerns -- and apply them restrictively to keep their departments out of the headlines.
And the cyberassaults go on, 24/7. Security leaks haunt the Internet (and our amoral media). Terrorists kill, then sue us. In the first case, we take our beatings and slap on bandages. In the second, we huff, puff and do nothing. In the third case, an apprehended terrorist gets better medical care than an out-of-work American. Even the civil laws and military codes we /do/ have on the books are not enforced. If found guilty, that Army private who allegedly passed over 90,000 classified documents to WikiLeaks should get the "full Rosenberg," a shortened life and a hot exit. Instead, he'll do a few years at most -- /at most/ -- then get a book contract. (Can't wait for the movie!)
As for Julian Assange, who released a deluge of sensitive operational data to America's enemies, he'll probably pay no price at all for any deaths his actions cause. Instead, he'll rake in speaking fees.
Our own cyberwarriors in the Pentagon and the intelligence community face no end of frustration as they try to defend us. We have superb, conscientious, capable officers working the problem. But the absence of laws to deter enemies or facilitate retaliation not only ties our hands behind our backs, but chains our ankles, too.That's a key reason why Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III just went public about a massive cyberinvasion of military computers in 2008, when a foreign agent used a flash drive to slip malware into a military laptop. The goal was to steal and corrupt military plans and secrets.The attacker suffered no meaningful consequences. We knew who did it, but couldn't do a thing. No laws.
And that attack was small change, compared to what an all-out cyberassault on our nation might do, from shutting down power supplies and transportation networks, to blacking out communications -- e-bombing us back to the 19th century, if not the Stone Age. As for our military itself, it simply could not function today without its computers: Aircraft wouldn't fly, gunnery systems wouldn't work and we'd lose global comms.
It no longer takes lead or high explosives to kill. If attacked, should we strike back with cyber means? Counterattack asymmetrically? Hit the aggressor physically? In the absence of updated laws of war for a new millennium, our military and our intelligence agencies are condemned to playing defense. It's a prescription for an eventual catastrophe.
And what about the likes of Assange? Nothing will happen to an activist who helps terrorists identify, track and slaughter those who stand up against Islamist fanatics.
Who's AWOL in these undeclared wars against us? Congress. That's who makes our laws, folks. But Congress has ignored these life-and-death issues, leaving our defenders out on the end of a creaking limb. Instead, legislators in /both/ parties play for short-term political advantage, while our enemies act with impunity. If a cyber-Pearl Harbor -- on a far-greater scale than that savage attack -- hits our country, don't blame our military or call it an intelligence failure. It'll be a congressional failure.
Our military and our spooks know who the bad guys are. They /could/ strike back. But, contrary to the myths of the left, they aren't rogues. They operate within our existing laws. Congress has to empower them.
When should a cyberattack trigger devastating retaliation? When can an Internet accomplice to terror be placed on a kill-or-capture list? What is the /proper/ judicial forum for putting terrorists on trial? It's the duty of /Congress/ to decide.
To update an old line describing Pearl Harbor, "At cyberdawn, we slept."Ralph Peters' latest book is "Endless War."
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Sarah Palin's History : She's One of Us!
Little wonder why the insane liberal left hates Sarah - they hate America and therefore they hate anyone that loves this country. How can so many among us willing bite the hand that feeds them? Again, we, lovers of God and country, are truly 'enemies of the state'.
Think about this when you step in to the booth in November.
Copyright 2009 CanadaFreePress.Com
Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press has to publish this because the USA media is too scared they might be considered racist. Sorry USA !
By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman.
As posted in comments on Greta's article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska. I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
1. Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
2. Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES." Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, "don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
3. The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of the m and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant.Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4. Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
5. For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. Then, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
6. President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewable by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her.
I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents' wives. So "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals.
I rest my case. Only FOOLS listen to the biased media.
Think about this when you step in to the booth in November.
Copyright 2009 CanadaFreePress.Com
Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press has to publish this because the USA media is too scared they might be considered racist. Sorry USA !
By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman.
As posted in comments on Greta's article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska. I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
1. Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
2. Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES." Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, "don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
3. The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of the m and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant.Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4. Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
5. For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. Then, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
6. President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewable by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her.
I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents' wives. So "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals.
I rest my case. Only FOOLS listen to the biased media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
