politics (110)

One more reason to un-elect Obama

The National Labor Relations Board  (NLRB) filed suit against Boeing to stop Boeing from moving to So. Carolina. If successful this will kill new jobs. The suit is a classic example of BULLYING.  No wonder large companies have moved and are now moving overseas. What would The Gov. do if the big companies like Boeing, MSN,Apple and Facebook would say "we are sick and tired of the Government bullying us. Let's move to India." New jobs are NOT the problem. It's excessive  Government  intervention,  no leaders, Gov. waste and stupid spending

Read more…
The Wall Street Journal has accused the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of "ducking political issues."  The church does not duck political issues, but we are a religious organization, not a PAC. What I do in the political sphere, I do as a citizen.  Please read the following:
WSJ "Mormons Ducking Political Duel"
This has been widely spread and the issue always arises at election time.  The LDS Church is officially non-partisan, first because it is a religious organization and does not endorse politicians or political causes. Second,  because the first doctrine of Christianity is the moral agency of man to choose for himself between good and evil. The Church seeks to educate its members with correct principles but beyond that, personal choices are not influenced nor punished-unless it is a clear and damaging sin like child molestation or adultery. Those sins, among many others, will get you excommunicated.  The LDS Church expects its members to seek out righteous leaders, and those who will support and sustain the divinely-inspired Constitution.  But there is no coercion nor direct political speech in the church.  Agency and error are companions and so that's how we get a range of political figures who are LDS from the evil, sniveling, devil Harry Reid, to the decent, kind, sometimes happless Orrin Hatch, to the ultra Right, pro Israel, Bible-thumper Glenn Beck, to the reasonable, thoughtful, self effacing, not married moi. This is a pretty good article on our beliefs concerning freedom. 

"The LDS Church in Public Life" Dallin H. Oaks
Read more…

Washington Hypocrisy

I am so sick of the finger pointing, the blame game, that constantly goes on in Washington. These people, even Reid for example, forget who hired them. They seem to think that once they get the job they can do just exactly what they feel like doing. And Pelosi, OMG, will she ever stop the ranting? But here is the thing that is not limited to one side or the other: They think we are too stupid to understand what only they know. Our feeble minds cannot possibly understand what is meant by all those big words that have to do with the financial crisis our country is in. I mean let’s face it we are just way to inept to grasp all that confusing jargon. (Yes, I am being sarcastic)

 

But that being said the problem with their thinking is they have completely underestimated the power of the people who put them there in the first place. In addition, ironically, most of us have a higher education then most of them. But they have played Washington politics for so long, they have gotten away with these unscrupulous behaviors, and they have do not have to answer to anyone, let alone the American public. Holding them accountable is where change occurs. It is a lot of work and time consuming, nonetheless it is critical if we our kids, and grandkids, to have the future they are entitled to. Government needs to downsize dramatically and get the heck out of private business. I don’t know about you but I didn’t sign on for socialism/communism, consequently peaceful, loving change is in order. We cannot lower ourselves to the name-calling, lying, and petty behavior that many of them display. We have to remember at all cost that we are better than that and in the end the truth always prevails.

 

The internet, along with other social media tools, have played an important part in spreading the word and 'enlightening' people at a much quicker rate then decades ago. Some of these people, like McCain for example, need to move along and get out of Washington where their backstabbing, lack of veracity, accompanied by his constant flip-flopping will no longer be tolerated by the American people. If we accept these behaviors, as a people, such as the comments made by McCain yesterday, we have learned absolutely nothing. You know, we have all been in difficult positions at one time or another, where we had to stand alone for what we believe in, yet somehow we managed to survive; we can hold our head high as a result. Integrity is the one thing that can never be taken away.

Read more…

Tea Party Theme Song

TEA PARTY THEME SONG

Please enjoy the tune and be inspired by the pictures from the event that launched the conservative movement.

A rewrite of the words will make the song the battle tune for today’s Tea Party.

Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin would be honored to stand in the shadow of Alice Moore.  Today’s’ preachers should try to follow the footsteps of preachers Hill, Graley, Quigley, and Horan.  Those Tea Party patriots put it all on the line for God, country, and (most of all) their children. 

May God grant that this video will be the turning point leading to the redemption of America.

 

In God’s perfect timing the video was posted on July 11, 2011.

 

Evil had 911. May Grace have 711.

 

Most importantly, let's pray that God will use the video to open hearts and minds to the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

 

Please pass it on.


Here are tentative partial lyrics for the Tea Party Theme Song to lead us into 2012 and beyond.

Tea Party patriots are looking for reform--what are they doing in this country stirring up a storm?

Don’t they know they’re rousing people ‘round the USA, telling folks right from left and God fearing ways?

Well, the first to stand were at Boston in seventeen seventy-three...

Next to stand were West Virginians in nineteen seventy-four…

One nasty election in twenty-oh-eight liberals were everywhere…

Read more…

by: Trent Derr - American Exceptionalism

 

By now most of us realize how Obamacare is designed to take control of healthcare decisions away from individuals and place them in the hands of bureaucrats.   After all, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid understood that as government gains more control over healthcare, the politicians have even greater powers to “sell” favors by granting exceptions, waivers and special rules that favor their friends and those who will donate to their campaigns.  This became all the more evident recently when 38 additional Obamacare waivers were granted to businesses in Nancy Pelosi’s district.

 

Unfortunately this level of institutionalized corruption in our Federal government has become commonplace.  What isn’t as apparent is how Obamacare is designed to take money out of all of our wallets by enacting additional taxes and penalties.  These taxes include increased Medicare taxes, penalties on plans the government feels offer to good of coverage, penalties on those who chose to not buy insurance and an excise tax on pharmaceutical companies.

 

1)     Beginning in 2013, payroll taxes from Medicare will increase by 62% for households that the government has decided are “higher income”.

 

2)     Similarly, Obamacare created a new 3.8% Medicare Tax on interest, dividends, royalties, rental income, capital gains, and annuities.

 

Continue...

Read more…

 

 
 
“It really can’t be called ‘Islamophobia’ -- the terrorists really do want to kill us all.”                                     
                                 Rajjpuut
 
"I would have preferred a lot less discussion out of the White House,”
 
             Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
 
 
“The Man Who Killed Usama Bin Laden”
Giving Away the Entire INTEL Farm?
 
Rajjpuut has been saying this for eight days now, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld started saying it Sunday. It’s not a popular thought, but since it’s true it ought to be heard loud and clear . . . Barack Obama has adopted a very unprofessional, nay a very amateurish position with regard to the “treasure trove of intelligence” gathered from the Navy SEAL raid that killed Usama Bin Laden. Supposedly, this is the largest gathering of information ever made available to the U.S. intelligence community according to our loud-mouth National Security advisors . . . but even Senator John Kerry has said, "We need to shut up . . . “ in a statement while on the Face the Nation television program.
 IF Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush had sent in the SEALs on this successful raid, it’s highly likely that Bush would have acted far more discreet and professionally with the information. Mr. Obama does not believe we’re in a “War on Terror” and the simplest and wisest paths are therefore, seemingly beyond his ken, for example, the World War II dictum that “Loose lips sink ships.” Why was Barack Obama in such an all-fired hurry? Two reasons jump out at any intelligent observer: A) immediate political gain and B) a silly outreach to Muslims by showing them that Obama had been killed and now Obama would be buried in some semblance of Islamic respect. (Didn’t Mr. Obama once tell us that “terrorists are not Muslims” . . . if that’s true, why the rush to show that we’ll honor Bin Laden’s body like that of a practicing good Muslim?). Like Obama’s commandment to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), that one of his primary goals now was to reach out to the Islamic world** . . . Mr. Obama has certainly got his priorities on backwards again.
Mr. Poker-Face Barack is seemingly turning his cards up for all the world including our most deadly enemies to see and is abandoning even the most obvious sound advice from childhoold:  “That’s for me to know and you to find out . . .” Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to understand that great INTEL in the War on Terror (or should we call it “the War on man-caused disasters?”) is like being dealt two aces in Hold-em poker . . . something you don’t want your opponents to find out about or even suspect until it’s far too late.   And, by the way, Mr. Obama, the war is still going on and two aces don’t always win, and far too often lose . . . all in all for parts of nine days now we’ve seen the actions of a very naïve “leader” . . . and a very weird sort of Muslim^^ outreach.
 
ITEM: Under George W. Bush, we the American citizens probably still would not have found out that Usama Bin Laden was dead, and only about now, rumors would have started appearing on terrorist websites. The crucial eight or nine days of “surprise” might well have seen us successful capture and or kill several more terrorists in Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network and even capture one or more other “treasure troves” of actionable information and other key INTEL.
ITEM:   In sick contrast, about as soon as President Obama knew for sure that Bin Laden was dead, he was already writing speeches and planning to reveal the facts to America. Aiming, it seems for short-term political gain at the cost of long-term advantage in the War on Terror.
ITEM: We’ve had more information released about this raid then about all the thousands of successful CIA activities since 9/11 put together. Our methods and our threat to the Al Qaeda network have been greatly compromised.
ITEM: Some in the Democratic Party and the liberal-leaning lamesteam-mainstream media have suggested that this success has made Barack Obama invincible in the 2012 re-election campaign by taking away his opponents’ claim that he’s soft-on-terrorism. Rajjpuut would remind you that one success does not win a war (a War on Terrorism; nor an election campaign) and that when looked at intelligently, all of this well-publicized bravado has done little but to give aid and comfort to our enemies. 
ITEM: One liberal pundit, Susan Estrich, said, “. . . the one thing that conservatives cannot rant and rave about is what has been their most predictable refrain since the Cold War: national security. Of all the things President Obama has done to conservatives in America, this may be the cruelest. He has taken away their national security argument.”
She continued, “Democrats are supposed to be ‘weak’ on foreign policy, the kind of people who love to talk about the UN instead of unilateral action; of diplomacy, not airpower; of bringing the troops home, not sending more to serve abroad. It is because Democrats are supposed to be (and, some would say, often are) so many of those things that they end up wandering around tank factories wearing silly hats. It is because they don't want to be called any of those things that the party would jump to nominate a candidate with military experience, even if he had more experience opposing military positions than serving in them.
Rajjpuut couldn’t disagree more . . . everything Obama has done, other than ordering the raid itself (which was highly commendable), has marked him as an abject amateur. He obviously doesn’t understand that intelligence is far stronger when your enemies have no idea what you know rather than when you’re boasting about it day after day. He’s been given the strongest hand ever offered to an American President against terrorism and it’s fair to say he’s busily p_ssing it away. Bill Clinton and  George Bush would never have fallen into this stupid behavior.
 
ITEM: Since Mr. Obama’s Justice Department under Eric Holder is now investigating CIA members (for torture) and since it has banned water-boarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques (tying the CIA’s hands) the United States faces the War on Terror (which will surely not end with Usama Bin Laden’s death) greatly disarmed.
ITEM: Even about now, after the Al Qaeda network was beginning to broadcast rumors or even the fact that a raid upon Pakistan had allowed America to kill the “great Usama,” no one would yet, or ever, be told that we’d capture large numbers of cell phone #s; laptops; and an “intelligence trove equal to a small college library.” People captured in further raids brought about with INTEL from the Usama prime raid would have already allowed a deeper spreading of chaos into the Al Qaeda network.
ITEM: Usama and his wives would have been transported to a safe-house and debriefing would have begun immediately. Osama Bin Laden would be alive in our custody and under waterboarding and other enhanced intelligence techniques and he would be adding to the treasure trove of intel.
ITEM: Mr. Obama, it’s really NOT ‘Islamophobia’ when the terrorists really do want to kill us all. Rajjpuut would have preferred not to have known that Bin Laden was dead and that we killed him until it was no longer beneficial to our troops and our CIA to hide that fact.  After, say, seven or eight more high level Al Qaeda operatives were captured or killed seems at a minimum a nice duration for “secret-keeping” before showing the picture of the dead Bin Laden and revealing that a raid took place and he was killed . . . but you, Mr. Obama, kept the secret for the half an hour necessary to get a speech written when you got to use the word “I” twenty-four separate times. There is no “I” in common sense, Sir.
 
ITEM: Since last week, administration officials have held a series of briefings to go over virtually all the details of the raid, review the decade-long investigation that led to it and to disclose some information about the evidence seized from the compound. The White House last week indicated it would stop providing details about the raid itself -- officials have since kept their comments mostly to the subject of the evidence being analyzed by the CIA.  How much of this should be given freely to Al Qaeda? ZERO-ZILCH-NADA . . . Rumsfeld said,   "The more information that goes out about intelligence, the greater the risks to our people and the less likelihood we're going to be able to capture and/or kill some of the people who would result from the intelligence take here," Rumsfeld told Face the Nation,  "I would have preferred a lot less discussion out of the White House,” Rumsfeld emphasized. AMEN. 
 
 
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
 
 
**Obama made it clear to the nation and it was further revealed when NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera, the Muslim newspaper, that his “foremost” mission as director of the space agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world. “(President Obama) wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering,” This while cancelling several space missions and the successful shuttle program . . . great priorities, Mr. President!
 
^^ While ignoring to mention the Egyptian uprisings (during the last three weeks) aimed against that nation’s 10% Coptic Christian population, Mr. Obama let it be known that the “Holy Quran” had been consulted as far as the treatment of the terrorist’s body as a whole aircraft carrier’s crew stood in dress uniform at attention during a ceremony for Usama Bin Laden conducted in English and Arabian before his body was allowed to slip into the ocean. Mr. Obama, your sensibilities to Islam are very insensitive to me.
 
 
  
Read more…

by: Trent Derr - American Exceptionalism

 

Progressive: “A person advocating or implementing liberal social reforms to destroy traditional societal values in stages, proceeding step by step.”

 

Progressive Cancer: “A disease that attacks the body by using abnormal cancerous cells to kill normal cells while incrementally spreading in stages through nearby tissues and then throughout the body through a process called metastases.”

 

Notice the two definitions are very similar.  One is a physical disease that incrementally destroys the body by killing good cells with bad ones, and the other is a social disease that destroys society by killing good values with bad ones.  That’s why when someone snobbishly professes they are a Progressive, my response is of course you are Progressive, like a cancer.

 

The challenge is that Liberals understand that their ideas can spread like a disease if they can only inject them into the governmental machinery.    A great example of one of the deceptions that the Progressives use to incrementally spread their disease is their constant claims for the need to compromise.  First they stake out an outrageous goal, like nationalizing all health care into a single payer program.   They initially stake out a goal they really want but at the same time they don’t realistically expect to achieve it all at once. When the public rejects the Left’s extremist idea, the Progressives fall back to a more incremental approach.  Their approach is to convert  their end state goal into a few enabling components and implement those components one at a time.   So instead of overtly stating they want to nationalize healthcare, they will state that they are only attempting to implement health care exchanges.  Using this stealth strategy,  Progressives drive to implement each of their enabling concepts into the government bureaucracy because the bureaucracy serves as the carrier to spread their disease. Continue...
Read more…

by: Trent Derr - American Exceptionalism

The Texas Rangers are the second oldest state law enforcement agency in the United States.  They initially functioned as a paramilitary force during the time that the Republic of Texas was an independent country.  Today the Rangers function as the Texas State Bureau of Investigation.  Over time, they have investigated and captured criminals spanning from murderers (John Wesley Hardin), to bank robbers (Bonnie & Clyde), to  corrupt politicians.   As part of their long and colorful history, the Rangers have developed quite a reputation.  That reputation was earned by the Rangers time after time taking on some of the most evil people in society with a relatively small number of men. As an example, there were only 144 Rangers in 2009.

 

One enduring story about the Rangers from 1896  includes  the original occurrence of the well-known saying: “One Riot, One Ranger”.   In response to the illegal fight that was scheduled to break out in Dallas, the Rangers sent one man, Captain Bill McDonald to prevent the riot.  Although many in the public were concerned that the Rangers only sent one man to address the fight, Captain McDonald was accustomed to being outnumbered.   To jump to the end of the story, of course McDonald was successful in achieving his mission and preventing the fight.  However it is Captain McDonald’s response to the Mayor of Dallas that echoes through Ranger history.  When the Mayor questioned McDonald regarding why he didn’t have more Rangers with him, the Captain replied (paraphrased), “One Riot, One Ranger”.

 

Sometimes, the right person in the right place at the right time makes all the difference.  Today America’s Patriots face a similar challenge in being outnumbered by those who are plotting to do evil in our society. Continue...
Read more…

by: Trent Derr - American Exceptionalism

 

When you examine Obamacare in detail, you find that the facts of the legislation contradict most of the selling points that the Liberals used as their basis for voting for the bill.

 

#1 – 18 Million People Added to Medicare while Cutting $500 Billion from the Program

Obamacare claims to cover 34 million new individuals with insurance.  The primary approach that the legislation uses to cover the uninsured is to expand the number of people under Medicare.   Yes, Medicare.  The same Medicare that was already scheduled to go bankrupt by 2017 before Obamacare passed.   The new legislation will add 18 million people to Medicare while reducing funding for Medicare by $500 billion.  Thus there is no choice but to reduce benefits to the existing Medicare recipients.  Given that more than half of the doctors in the United States do not accept Medicare, the further constraint of doctor availability will be another form of institutionalized rationing.

 

#2 – 17.1 Million Individuals with Private Insurance Will Lose Their Existing Coverage

Although more people are covered under Obamacare, the plan also causes a major redistribution of how individuals are covered for health care.  1.4 million citizens will lose their employer sponsored coverage and 15.7 will lose their other private coverage while they are shifted to either Medicare, “exchanges” under the plan, or will become uninsured.  Yes about 1 million individuals with insurance today will become uninsured and have no coverage under Obamacare.   So the economics of Obamacare will cause at least 17.1 million Americans to lose their existing coverage under Obamacare although the President assured us all that we would be able to keep our existing plans.  Continue...
Read more…

by: Trent Derr - American Exceptionalism

 

As part of their dogma, the Left believes society only operates “fairly” when more power is concentrated in the Federal Government and fewer rights are exercised independently by individuals. In their view, one of the major purposes of the Government is to equalize outcomes across society (try to find that in the Constitution). Note that it’s the equality of outcomes, not equality of opportunities, that is their definition of fairness. To achieve that goal, Liberals need an excuse to take rights and responsibilities from individuals and shift that power to the Government. Then that Governmental power can be used to institutionalize fairness by passing laws and regulations that provide for the equality of outcomes across society. However in spite of these plans, the Left has a major cultural roadblock in their way. One of our traditional American values is to treasure and defend our individual rights. When Americans are thinking rationally, we rarely, if ever, voluntarily give up any of our rights.

 

When the Liberals want to influence American opinion on an issue, they need to overcome that obstacle. To do so, they use a consistent formula to warp the public perception in their favor. Their approach does not involve an in-depth analysis of the facts with the subsequent generation of possible alternatives to be evaluated. Frankly facts get in their way. Their strategy is simply based on manipulating the public’s emotions. Liberals want to generate guilty feelings or stir up hate or trigger rage. Their tactic is to generate strong emotions in the public and with those emotions shut down rational thought. Create a crisis. Create an injustice. Pretend there is no time to think about, discuss, or even read the bill. We have to act now! Sound familiar?  Continue...
Read more…

by: Trent Derr - American Exceptionalism Blog

 

President Reagan is probably best known for three major accomplishments: rekindling the American spirit of entrepreneurship, defeating the Soviets in the Cold War leading to the eventual collapse of the USSR, and creating the most robust peacetime economic expansion in American history. In this posting, we’ll focus on topics more applicable to Reagan’s economic accomplishments. Reagan’s economic philosophy has been referred to by many names including Reaganomics and Supply Side Economics.

 

Arguably Reagan was dealing with a much more complex economic environment in 1980 than we have today. Reagan was faced with high unemployment, high inflation, high interest rates, a slow-growing economy and a high government deficit as a percentage of GDP. Today we primarily have high unemployment, a slow-growing economy and a high government deficit. However over the last two years the policies implemented by the Obama administration have not significantly reduced unemployment, have dramatically increased the government debt and have started to increase both inflation and interest rates. Note that inflation and interest rates were not a problem when Obama entered office. Continue...
Read more…

by: Trent Derr - American Exceptionalism Blog

 

My wife was seated in the airport waiting to catch her flight back home. So far so good. She was already past security waiting in the gate area. As usual, she was reading a book trying to pass the minutes until it was time to board. My wife can be as entertained by people watching as anyone. However if she has a good book, she would rather tune out the world and slip into a well written story, but not today. On this day, she along with everyone else in the gate area were going to have their concentration shattered by a guy on his cell phone. For sake of discussion, let’s call him Barry. Barry had a pretty deep voice, and he was talking loud.

 

It didn’t matter if you had on headphones, wore hearing aids or were half-deaf, you could hear Barry. His baritone voice blasted through the atmosphere at the gate such that everyone could hear every word he was saying. It became very clear, very quickly he was trying his best to get out of the dog house. It was obvious from his side of the conversation that Barry was in deep TROUBLE. He was in trouble with his girlfriend Liberty, and she was really ticked off. You couldn’t hear her side of the conversation, but it definitely was NOT PG-13. Barry was doing his best to convince his girlfriend over the phone that he wasn’t doing anything wrong. She wasn’t buying it.

 

That’s part of the reason why he was talking so loud. Continue...
Read more…

by: Trent Derr - American Exceptionalism

 

As a continuing part of our series What Would Reagan Do, we’re going to discuss what Reagan would do to address our current immigration problems. Clearly Reagan would have been shocked by our current situation related to rampant illegal immigration, the violence across our southern border in Mexico, and the crime being brought into American cities by illegal aliens.

 

Addressing Reagan’s views regarding immigration is complex because he had two seemingly conflicting views. For one, Reagan believed in the integrity of the borders of the United States. This view would have been only reinforced by our current international terrorism risks in a post 9-11 world. In fact one of Reagan’s most well-known quotes is: “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.”

 

On the other side of the coin, Reagan believed the United States was the last great hope for the world. Reagan lived the American Dream and saw that dream as a gift from God for all free people. He fully understood the desire of the masses to come to America and to assimilate into the melting pot as Americans.  Continue...
Read more…

by: Trent Derr - Morning in America

 

Are you better off than you were two years ago? For most people, the answer is no. Compared to two years ago, more people are unemployed, the credit markets are still a mess, businesses are still being stymied by further federal regulation, and the global community has no idea what we stand for with our foreign policy.

 

What if we could roll the clock back? Roll it back a little more than two years to September 2008. At that time, the United States was at one of our more critical inflection points. We had military actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our southern border states were seeing a serious uptick in crime being committed by illegal aliens, the economy was starting to stagnate, and we had a looming credit crisis. Over a series of postings, we’ll address how Reagan would have addressed each of these issues. What Would Reagan Do?

 

The Credit Crisis

 

Reagan was a true believer in the free market. He believed in capitalism, American businesses, and most importantly the American people. Reagan knew that one of the key mechanisms of the free market is to correct imbalances that occur in the exchange of goods and currency. If you ever had any doubt about Reagan’s belief in free markets, look at how he handled the stock crash on “Black Monday”, stock market collapse of October 19, 1987.  Continue...
Read more…

by: Trent Derr - Morning in America

 

Hey Soul Sister

 

“What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick!” And with that shot over the bow at the Republican National Convention, Sarah Palin announced her arrival on to the national political stage. From her position as a relatively unknown Governor of Alaska, Palin launched one of the most exciting Vice Presidential candidacies in U.S. history.

 

From the completion of that speech, even before McCain lost to Obama, there was the question about her aspirations regarding the Presidency. Will Sarah Run? And that question is still outstanding today. Although she hasn’t announced, she’s made several moves to improve her position if she does decide to run. She’s now a frequent commentator on Fox News, has written several books, has had a brief series on cable television on TLC, formed her own Political Action Committee, and most importantly threw her support behind many individuals in their respective state level candidacies. Yes, Sarah is collecting “chips”.    Continue...
Read more…

by: Trent Derr - Morning in America

 

As I mentioned to some friends, due to the amount of money the President is borrowing from the Chinese, Obama is no longer able to refer to the Chinese leader as Hu Jintao. Now Obama is required to call him Hu JaDaddy.  To paraphrase Jay Leno, the bad news is the Chinese Leader came to the White House this week.  The good news is he said we could keep it.

 

However I’m not picking on the Chinese.  I’m opposed to the United States owing that amount of money to anyone.  Let alone a country that crushes dissent in their citizens, imprisons their Noble Prize winners, thinks that America is a temporary aberration in history, and has nuclear weapons pointed at us.    In any debtor relationship, you lose authority and the ability to negotiate from a level playing field.  Anyone who doesn’t think it matters where you borrow money is a fool.   Just ask a person who has ended up in “cement shoes” in the waters off of New Jersey whether it matters. But I digress…

 

Personally, I’m not as concerned about what our debt to China says about them as what is says about us.  The reckless increased spending by the Obama Administration is not primarily being driven by building infrastructure, fighting a war, or funding social security.  Continue...
Read more…

Stop being a b!$^* America

When did we start allowing people to run over us? Did it start when a woman was able to sue McDonalds for spilling her hot coffee on her self or what? People are scared to let someone know when they are wrong. America babies everyone. The truth is sugardaddy is out of money and it's time to use a stiff arm. Nobody wants to say that the 22 year old single mom with four kids shouldn't recieve welfare, but at what point do we have to set boundries? Single teenage moms benefit from over half of all medacaid. It's time to stop being friendly and tell people they are F'd up. Maybe if these people had role models in their life growing up they wouldn't be this way. At some point we have to end the madness, and we can't do that by rewarded stupid people with a check every month. Who cares if gays are upset and want to be treated fairly? They are wrong and sorry but we have more important things to worry about than your feelings. If someone is 50 years old and have been living off the government for years and years (we all know at least one) they need to be cut off. Maybe they are better off dead, they are a burden to society. These political games going on in Washington should be illigal and they should be punished for acting childish. The fact that half of the decisions made are revolved around elections it outrageous. The two party system needs to be abolished for good. George Washington tried to warn us of political parties and we did not listen.

Read more…