video (14)
This week I decided to go to my bank to get some cash. The cash in my purse was dwindling and it was time to replenish. I made the turn into the area that the bank, post office and a few shops occupy. It was nice to see that there was no line-up as I turned into the ATM line. I don't scare easily but sirens, flashing lights and police cars surrounding me made me uncomfortable. I started to think to myself, "What did I do wrong? Nothing with my car." was my conclusion. I was wearing a Rand Paul t-shirt.
The police car to my right had one police officer in it and he was motioning me to back up. I looked through my rear window and saw there was another police car there, "Where would I back up?"
Now, I was surrounded and wondering to myself why. Given the way this country has turned around and the way the IRS targets 'Conservatives' made me wonder if they had traced those 'memes' I had made on my computer or read some of my articles. Maybe they read the political poem I had written? I certainly had not committed any crime but I was a Patriot.
The police officer in the car in back of me got out and waved all traffic to stop. I sat in my car wondering what was going to happen. Wild thoughts ran through my head. Maybe having strong political views was going to get me in serious trouble. Lawyers names seeped through my brain.
The officer got back in his car and backed up. The officer to my right motioned for me to back up. I wasn't not going to listen. I slowly and carefully backed up and an officer motioned for me to move forward. I did as I was told and kept driving.
I thought to myself, "What the heck just happened?"
As I turned onto a street on the other side of the bank, I saw a police dog sniffing around. Oh my God, maybe there was a bank robbery? I kept driving. I had other stops to make on this day and I could use a credit card.
First, there was a stop I had to make that I had being putting off. I had been refused a Kohl's credit card even though my credit rating is very high and my credit is impeccable. I was told that it could be an error on the information on my driver's license. I was told to go to my local police department office and ask for it to be checked. The police department was along the road, so, I stopped and parked my car. It seemed that no other cars were there, so, this would not take too long.
I entered through the doors of the building and as I approached a lady at the information window, the doors swung open and a camera crew came in behind me. Oh my God, "What had I done now? Did they know I was a 'Conservative' because of my Rand Paul t-shirt and did they follow me?"
I thought to myself, "Why do I have my name on my license plate? I must be stupid!"
The crew had not come for me. I was relieved. I asked the lady at the window if my driver's license could be checked. Politely, I explained why. She answered me, "There is no way I can do this for you. You will have to call PennDOT."
I answered back, "That's who sent me here."
She replied, "Only a police officer can do that. There are no police officers here."
I asked, "This is a police station; what do mean there are no police officers here?"
I was told to come back another time. I passed by the camera crew and left. I felt rather confused.
Well, down the road, was a Walmart. I surely could buy the few things I needed there. I drove the short distance and turned into the parking lot. It seemed eerie and empty as I pulled in. I drove up closer to the first door and saw that the few people trying to go inside were being turned away. I was not going to try to get in. I drove away.
There is a store, T.J.Maxx, that carries a 'trail-mix' that I especially like. I figured I'd go there and quickly pick up some, since I was out. I drove there and I parked in the parking lot and went inside. "Wow, I thought, they must be having a big sale!"
The store was packed with women. I took a cart, after all, who knows what I might find on sale! My hearing is quite acute so I listened to people on their cell phones speaking. I could decipher that people were in the store to kill time. There had been a bomb-scare and all the clients and workers at the bank and Walmart were told to leave. It seemed as though the workers were not sure if and when they should go back to work.
I found out later that no bomb was found. The call that there were bombs did mess up my day. Wearing my Rand Paul t-shirt was not the cause of my problems nor was the fact that I am a Conservative with my name on my license plate. What does bother me though, is that I actually believed for short periods of time that those things could be the reason. Do I no longer feel like I live in the 'land of the free'?
I did get my 'trail-mix' but I feel disillusioned with my beautiful country. What has happened in a few short years has turned my little world upside down. There was a bomb-scare in my small city. I feared I was being targeted for my political beliefs. I should not feel the way I did in America. Why did I ever feel like I had done something wrong? I'm not a criminal. I am, however, a Conservative Constitutionalist.
Daveda Gruber
I produce videos and wanted to do a little something different.
Thinking about what I know, it became my goal to help people learn what they should have learned in school. I decided people should know civics. What better way to see what you know than to watch a video and see if you can get the answers before the answer is given.
This video was produced by me and is rather interesting.
Please check out my new music video (posted in 'Videos" - - - currently on page 2) - - - It deals with Benghazi - - - It also reveals what some past presidents have to say about present day "DC", Obama, and Obama's people - - -
A simple truth about politicians is they can’t leave well enough alone. When incidents of tragedy happen, they look for “solutions” even when none exist. That’s what happened when President Obama and a handful of members of both political parties suggested that government study the impact of video games and violence.
The president directed the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to spend 10 million taxpayer dollars on a study. That study will pile on top of dozens of other existing studies when it is completed — the vast majority showing no link between video games and real life violence. While the politicos look for something or someone to blame, the commonsense of the people already seems to know the answer.
New research and polling by Dr. Dr. Andrew Przybylski of Oxford University and YouGov.com asked Americans to discuss three critical questions regarding video games and violence:
1) Do video games contribute to mass shootings;
2) Are video games a useful outlet for frustrations and aggression; and
3) Should Congress enact new legislation to restrict the availability of games.
Not surprisingly, Americans distrust and opposition to big government "easy" answers came through loud and clear.
When asked whether video games contribute to incidents of mass violence, by a 59-41% margin, Americans said NO.
When asked whether games are a useful outlet for anger and frustration, by a 71% to 29% margin, Americans said YES.
And when asked whether the government should intervene and restrict video games, Americans responded with a resounding NO — again by a 71 to 29% margin.
This data flies on the face of the politicians whose knee jerk reactions late last year was more government; more regulations and less freedom. Even some conservatives like Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) said ”Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table" in response to invidents of violence.
Dick Heller, the famous plaintiff in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case that liberalized gun laws in Washington, DC and confirmed the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms has recently spoken out against efforts to get the government involved in what he called “virtual gun control.”
For generations, a growing number of Americans have pledged that the government can get their guns only from their “cold dead hands.” Now it seems clear that a growing number of Americans feel the same way about their video game controllers.
In an effort to promote his cause for federal regulation of video games, Rep. Frank Wolf of the House Appropriations Committee, has demanded a federal agency that he oversees funding for conduct a study linking video games to violence.
At a hearing on Capitol Hill, Wolf brought the author of the study, Dr. Brad Bushman, to testify about his findings. Bushman has previously authored a study linking Bible passages to violence.
“People who believe that God sanctions violence are more likely than others to behave aggressively themselves,” wrote Ohio State University Prof. Brad J. Bushman, in his study “When God Sanctions Killing: Effect of scriptural violence on aggression.” "We found compelling evidence that exposure to a scriptural depiction of violence or to violence authorized by deity can cause readers to behave more aggressively,” he wrote. “Even among our participants who were not religiously devout, exposure to God-sanctioned violence increased subsequent aggression. That the effect was found in such a sample may attest to the insidious power of exposure to literary scriptural violence,” he wrote in the study.
Naturally, Bushman also believes there is a link between video games and violence. Bushman was a perfect researcher for a federal agency -- the National Science Foundation -- to call before a chairman who believes in video game regulations and determines their future funding allocations.
The reality is that since the growth of the video game industry in the 1990s, violence in America has dropped steeply and quickly. Numerous authorities, including the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Surgeon General and Federal Communications Commission have examined the scientific record and found that it does not establish any causal link between violent programming and violent behavior.
Naturally, Rep. Wolf believes his efforts are part of a "three-legged stool" to reduce violence in America -- and gun control is part of the other two legs of the stool. But Bushman and Wolf are walking down a slippery slope. If the Bible or video games cause violence, why not music, the Internet, books and movies? The last thing we need is another government agency determined to censor the First Amendment rights of Americans. Unfortunately for Virginia voters, Rep. Wolf is proving himself to be a RINO.
How does the news media know who is the winner of an election with only about 1% of votes counted?
Go to for more on this: https://www.youtube.com/user/mhfm1?v=OynCgwmD-HM
A new video is on You Tube concerning Mr. Flip- Flop Mitt Romney.
"Will the Real Mitt Romney Please Stand Up?"
If the video link is removed, go to my blog at winklepublishing.blogspot.com. The link is posted there as well and will be there long after the November Election.
A Proposed US Constitution is also on my blog at winklepublishing.blogspot.com. Many new liberties, many changes, added rights and freedoms that the courts have limited or taken away from the original.
Mark Winkle
Consultant One
“Creating” a Green-Tech Winner
Obama Backs a Monstrous Loser
President Obama now touts a whole new STIMULUS for the ailing American economy (the American Jobs Act, AJA). Some are calling his AJA, “Son of Stimulus,” and pointing to a nasty scandal within the first $787 Billion Obama stimulus – a scandal which is being nicknamed “Solargate.” While adding the suffix “gate” is no guarantee of real coverage and fairness by the nation’s mainstream media, it does show a deepening of interest by we mainstream Americans who so deeply distrust our politicians and the media that protects them. What, then are the facts about Solyndra, Inc.?
1. Solyndra was a solar-cell manufacturer which from its origins has NOT been able to compete successfully against both American and foreign rivals (most notably the Chinese solar-power industry).
2. Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 6, 2011.
3. Solyndra has served as Obama’s poster-child for green-tech job creation.
4. Solyndra laid off virtually all its 1,100 person workforce on August 31st.
5. Solyndra first applied for the loan in 2006, under President George W. Bush. After three years of applying, the loan application was tentatively approved in March 2009 by the Obama administration.
6. Solyndra received its much-ballyhooed $535 million federal subsidy as part of Obama’s green-jobs initiative. He promised to create five million new green-tech jobs during the presidential campaign.
7. Solyndra first came to the wider nation’s attention during a September, 2009, Joe Biden speech at their company headquarters in Fremont, CA. Their facilities and main plant have been visited by the President and Vice-President six times for photo- and speech-ops.
8. The owners and CEO and top investors in Solyndra are all enthusiastic supporters who contributed and also raised a lot of money for the Obama-Biden campaign.
9. California Representative Henry Waxman said he talked with Solyndra’s CEO and other top officials a month ago and said he was told that everything was going well and that they expected to “double revenues” in 2012.
10. After multiplying the number of loan-approval employees in one government office almost sixteen-fold from 15 to 250, the Obama administration over-ruled the already established bureaucracy’s recommendations to investigate the green-scheme known as Solyndra, Inc. fully rather than just giving them the $535 million. In a sentence: despite at least two cautionary e-mails from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the Obama Administration pushed for an immediate loan for Solyndra. How did this company then fail?
11. In February, 2011, seven months before the company went bankrupt, the Energy Department restructured a “loan” to the company despite the OMB’s clearly expressed doubts about the company’s future viability and the company’s very dubious fiscal prospects.
12. Somewhere close to 76% of these loans and or grants under Obama Stimulus One were granted to businesses run by Obama contributors** located in heavily Obama supporting districts. For example Obama carried the Solyndra-surrounding district with 71% of the vote.
Today, Wednesday September 14th, a congressional investigative committee questioned officials from two of the agencies that backed the $535 million loan package to Solyndra Inc. The Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations sought to know why the Energy Department approved the Solyndra loans in 2009 and then restructured the loan this February despite clear evidence that the company was struggling financially and in danger of going under.
Solyndra was hailed by President Obama in 2010 as a great example, an innovative company that would use stimulus money to create jobs and lead the economic recovery. When it laid off most of its 1,100 workers August 31st and announced it would cease operations an immediate howl went up from green-energy doubters and conservatives. When next the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 6th, the howls became a crescendo of anger and scorn.
Two days later, agents with the FBI and Energy Department's inspector general served a search warrant at Solyndra's Fremont, Calif., headquarters. The Solyndra bankruptcy and the criminal investigation have raised questions about the administration's decision to pour billions of dollars into clean-energy programs. Cheer up, Solyndra, you can always serve as a very bad example!
Representative Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., the subcommittee's chairman, pressed Energy Department loans director Jonathan Silver on Wednesday to explain how the agency could approve more than half a billion dollars in loans despite questions about the company's financial health.
He also cited internal emails that he said show White House officials appeared to be pressuring Energy Department and the Office of Management and Budget to speed up approval of the Solyndra loans.
"You should have protected the taxpayers and made some forceful actions here," Stearns said.
Under questioning Silver noted that Solyndra had first applied for the loan in 2006, under President George W. Bush. He said the loan was tentatively approved in March 2009 by the Obama people. The hearing, which lasted more than four hours, focused significant attention on emails showing the White House encouraging the Energy Department and budget officials to speed up and to approve the Solyndra loans. Why? It’s called “Crony Capitalism” and Rajjpuut says this haste was done to make an impactful photo-op for Joe Biden and to push the green-jobs initiative regardless of consequence and fiscal-prudence.
Virtually all of the Obama Stimulus that so recklessly shuttled $787 Billion worth of taxpayer money to favored left-wing industries and Obama supporters is finally becoming more and more transparent every day and the revelations are disgusting all thinking Americans. The lesson here is that government involvement in industry is 100% the same as government involvement in tax loopholes . . . it all amounts to the feds deciding who wins and who loses; who is the “teacher’s pet;” and it all works to destroy free enterprise, jobs, the dollar; and America’s self-respect.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
** It's almost impossible for Rajjpuut not to comment upon the mainstream media's (MSM) incompetence and willful cover-up of Barack Obama's scandals. Now after Rajjpuut has personally written blogs exposing 74 such MAJOR scandals . . . the MSM is finally on board for exactly 1 1/2 of the most recent of them. There has been some slight coverage of OFF (Operation Fast and Furious) a scandal so nasty (we, the United States are arming Mexican drug cartels, for crying out loud) that it reeks to high heaven and now Solyndra.
A few weeks ago a very leftist academic who calls himself a "political scientist" made news by saying that he could already predict the winner of the 2012 presidential race with virtually absolute certainty: Barack Obama. Many pundits on conservative radio and FOXNews attacked Lichtman's methodology and showed that clearly rather than being an extremely objective technique for predicting presidential elections, Lichtman's work was a statistical scam. Some items on Lichtman's list were clearly subjective and chosen after the historical "facts" were all in. Case in point: Solyndra. Rajjpuut has covered 74 Major scandals in the Obama 2.6 years; Lichtman listed "an absence of major scandals" as the strongest point favoring Barack Obama's re-election in 2012. Of the 74 Major scandals under Barack Obama, Solyndra might NOT even rank among the top 50. But Solyndra was the very first company chosen to receive a loan guarantee as part of the 2009 stimulus package.
That being the very first Stimulus money handed out and the fact that OMB memos and White House memos have been found showing that the White House Obama and Biden were very interested in "rushing this through" on their very first one and all the photo ops, etc. makes Solyndra so symbolic that even the MSM has found it difficult to ignore this particular Obama scandal.
Solyndra was, Vice President Biden said, "exactly what the Recovery Act was all about." Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winner, said Solyndra would help "spark a new revolution that will put Americans to work." Obama said on one of his visits, "It is here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter, more prosperous future," he said. Hailing the green jobs loan guarantee program, he went on, "We can see the positive impacts right here at Solyndra." But most importantly . . . .
The White House went so far as to prepare a propaganda video about the company, a slick public relations quality product designed to convince the MSM that green jobs were obviously the wave of tomorrow (not next year, tomorrow), Obama was super competent and involved himself with super competent folks like those at Solyndra. Reality and propaganda seldom jive. The Washington Examiner's David Freddoso reported, an audit of the company performed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers two months before Obama's visit showed Solyndra had accumulated losses of $558 million in its five years of existence.
Solyndra's audit showed the company "has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders' deficit that, among other factors, raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern." That didn't impress the MSM. The most damning factor in the eyes of the MSM (the Washington Examiner is considered a slightly conservative mouthpiece unlike the NY Times and Washington Post) was this: original Solyndra investor, Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser, a major contributor to Obama's 2008 election campaign, and others provided an additional $75 million in financing to Solyndra. They did so on condition, approved by the Energy Department, that THEY receive priority over previous creditors, including the government. And there was the fact that not only the Republicans on the oversight committee were on Solyndra's case, but Henry, the weasel, Waxman a California Democrat protecting the interests of California investors was involved in seeking truth about Solyndra.
On Aug. 31, while Obama played golf at Matha's Vineyard, Solyndra filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy papers. On the day Obama made his "pass this bill now" AJA speech, the FBI was raiding Solyndra's offices. Even without "provable malfeasance" the decision to loan money to Solyndra was so clearly incompetent that even IF everyone in the administration acted with good faith . . . Solyndra is still a huge scandal. Very shrewd venture capitalists lose money on most of their investments and win huge on a few, and keep on winning. But when THEY lose, it's their money, not ours.
The green jobs scandal is still with us, since the Energy Department handed out more loan guarantees in the past few weeks. According to a contributor at the Rasmussen Reports website, these loans all look tainted: "$150 million to 1366 Technologies of Lexington, Mass. (73 percent for Obama in 2008), 80 percent of $344 million to Solar City of San Mateo, Calif. (72 percent for Obama in 2008)." The article asked the question, "Will one of them be the next Solyndra?" Rajjpuut would suggest that the extent of political largesse and corruption by this administration; and its corruption is far closer to his figure: 74 major scandals and a whole lot of incompetence and philosophical (Marxism) sabotage.
Speak in anger and you will deliver the greatest speech you will ever live to REGRET! Winston Churchill
The airwaves today are filled with pundits and experts who constantly badger, butcher or blow up anyone who might disagree with their point of view. While this might be entertaining talk radio or night time television, it has produced a horrible precedent for dealing with people in general.
Many have come to believe that silence is weakness, that calmness is cowardly and that you must engage in a tit-for-tat exchange of point and counterpoint, claim and counterclaim to compete and survive in any relationship. If an unwanted fire has broken out the last thing you want to do is throw gasoline on it. Yet many seemingly cannot resist the urge to throw their last bit of fuel on the fire then spar, thrust and parry back and forth long after the source of problem has been left behind.
Often it is the preservation of ego which keeps us engaged in verbal combat, somehow believing that having the last word will win the day. Learning to check your ego at the door and determine what truly matters most is key, not only to success, but to happiness and peace of mind. Whether speaking to someone live or going back and forth in email, you must ask yourself if the messages you are about to speak or send are going to move the conversation, and more importantly, the relationship, forward or whether they will simply fuel more anger and angst. Winning a verbal battle at the expense of a relationship war is never wise.
General Robert E. Lee was once asked his view of a man he had had many disagreements with. Lee responded that the man was a good, just man, who he happened to disagree with greatly. The questioner then stated that the man in question did not hold such a respectful view of the General and often expressed that negative opinion to others. To which General Lee replied, “You asked me my opinion of him, not my view of his view of me. My view is the only one over which I have control.” The way you communicate with those you disagree with speaks volumes about who you are as a person. Petty, personal attacks never produce positive results and often keep us a safe distance from real solutions.
Be ware of your emotions and your ego, especially in the highly volatile arena of interpersonal communication. Silence can be strength, a kind word can carry a conversation, stepping away can be the best step forward. Words have weight and their impact is immense – so choose them wisely, use them with caution and whenever in doubt – don’t!
The Most Effective Way to Communicate is Video Communication http://mybrandedsite.com/donjburgess
