MODEERF =

Thought for the Day

2011-12-22T17:33:00.001-08:00

What kind of society protects its trees, small owls and insignificant minnows, but murders its children with impunity?

Let's Use Some Common Sense

2011-01-11T16:00:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I listened closely enough to the news to have something really tick me off. However, with the senseless events of Saturday in Tucson, and what has followed in the media and political arena, there's a lot to irritate me.

When did we become a people who started pointing fingers at those we don't like before there are any facts available? When did we start assigning blame and guilt to those who disagree with us? I can't believe this is the United States!

Tonight, I heard the absolutely stupidest thing ever, and another thing right behind it, stepping on its heels. Not only are people building careers on rhetoric which closes the barn door after the horse has galloped off, but they are also suggesting things which make absolutely NO sense whatsoever!

I've heard any number of new laws proposed which would 'prevent this kind of thing' from happening. Hello? Is anyone out there paying attention? We HAVE laws! It is illegal, completely, to shoot another person in cold blood, let alone to shoot nineteen and kill six, no matter who they are! It doesn't matter who the victims are, or who the shooter is, or what problems he has, or what his beliefs are, it's a crime!

So, Republican Peter King's proposal that we pass a law making it a crime to carry a weapon within 1000 ft. of high level officials and judges is ridiculous! Raise your hand if you thing that law would have kept this mentally unstable young man at home on Saturday. Would he have said, "Oh, no, I can't go within a thousand feet of the congresswoman with a gun! Darn!" Not bloody likely.

The thing these people always miss is that a criminal doesn't CARE what the law says. The law is for the law abiding to have recourse AFTER a crime is committed. You and I aren't going to go shooting up politicians, no matter how much we dislike them, and no matter how many guns we own, or how big the magazines are, or how fast the trigger can be pulled. We wouldn't do it if there WEREN'T a law forbidding it.

So Ms McCarthy's proposed law to limit the size of the gun magazine is equally ridiculous. Do you think this shooter would have said, "How am I going to shoot 19 people when I can only have six cartridges in my magazine?" No, of course not! He would simply have taken the same gun he took and shot the same number of people.

And I was totally disgusted when she said that lawmakers who feel the need to arm themselves should perhaps think about another line of work (not an exact quote, but close). Good grief! Even a lawmaker is an American citizen and has the right to keep and bear arms and to defend him or herself against violence directed at them.

Let's take a look at Saturday from another point of view. What if the congresswoman and all of her aides had been armed on Saturday? What if they were all crack shots? How many people would be injured and dead today if they had been capable of defending themselves and the innocents around them? Would that darling little 9-year-old girl have gone home healthy with no more than emotional trauma? Something to think about.

Something to Think About

2010-10-02T18:54:00.000-07:00

A friend's journal post.

JoshLaw Journal

What Are We Entitled To?

2010-02-28T13:50:00.001-08:00

My friend and co-author, Brandon Alt, sent an e-mail last week asking that question. It went out to a large group of his friends, and I wish I had saved my answer, but I didn't. In my mind, the only thing God gave us was life, and the opportunity to do something with that gift. We have a country which was founded by people who believed that God granted us the right to choose for ourselves, to be free to choose for ourselves. We have a country preserved by the blood of people who agreed with them. And today we have a country where a small group of people are trying to force on the rest of us their idea of a government. That government does not allow us to choose for ourselves, does not even trust us to choose for ourselves.

In the same week, someone pointed out to me that if people made their own choices, without the government forcing things, that women would not be equal citizens, that civil rights would not have worked, and that other groups, such as the disabled, would be under-employed (whatever that means). I disagree entirely! All of those things came about, not because the government forced them, but because people stood up for themselves.

The government didn't *give* women the vote, they took it. The government didn't *give* the black people, the Indians and others, civil rights, they took them. The government didn't *give* jobs to the blacks, the disabled, and other minorities, or *give* equal pay to women for equal work. They took it. They stood up for themselves, and *then* the government passed amendments to the Constitution or laws which changed the way business was done.

I don't believe government had to pass the laws, because I believe the people standing up for themselves were changing things already. Making amendments to the Constitution - that's a fine way to change our government. It's the way the Constitution is designed to work. Passing laws on top of laws, none of which really changes society or the attitudes of society, is not the most efficient way to work. You can *force* people to do something, but you can't force them to change their attitudes and opinions, and true reform requires a change of attitude and opinion. That is not the same thing as being politically correct.

So, what do you think you are entitled to? For one side of the argument, the side with which I totally agree, see Brandon's Feb. 28 post.

Muslim Terrorist

2009-11-11T20:35:00.000-08:00

Veteran's Day has rolled around again. This year, more than ever before, we've seen the mission of our veterans broaden to include all of their job - to defend the country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Earlier this year, outside a recruiting station, a home-grown Muslim jihadist gunned down a fine young soldier. In this last week, another home-grown Muslim jihadist and terrorist gunned down over 40 people, 13 of whom died.

Only 60% of Americans, in one of those polls we've become so fond of, think this should be investigated as an act of terror by the US Military. 27% think it should be investigated by civilian authorities as a criminal act. 13% aren't sure. Way to take a stand. I'm in the 60%, and I don't understand how every American isn't. An officer of the US Military has gunned down his fellow soldiers, screaming the Muslim Jihadist favorite words, "Allah Akbar", and this isn't an act of both terror and treason?

When are we going to stop being politically correct? I do not care a fig if this man had a troubled childhood. Most of us do, and we aren't running around killing the soldiers who defend us. I don't care if his co-workers stressed him out. Mine always did, and I didn't shoot them. I don't care if he felt dissed as a Muslim. I get dissed as a Christian. So freakin' what? It's life. Grow up!

No, what I care about is that he killed 13 people and wounded dozens more. One of the 13 he killed was a newlywed who was two months pregnant, so in my mind, he killed 14 people. He was a jihadist, a terrorist, and he performed acts of treason. He needs to be investigated, questioned, tried and then punished. Forget alleged acts. He was caught actually committing the acts in question.

Copenhagen CO2 Treaty

2009-10-30T14:58:00.000-07:00

Yes, folks, negotiations going on to make America pay reparations to the rest of the world, based on the fact that we are causing global warming.

Lord Christopher Monckton, an expert in this area, pointed out today that right now, we have 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions world-wide now, per year. 2 parts per million, makes 15 billion ppm per year.

With me so far?

When you do the math for the predictions for the next 100 years, according to those working on the treaty, we will be looking at 7 trillion tons per year in 100 years. Their math is wrong, but they say that equates to 7 F. degrees warmer. (Lord Monckton showed that the true number would be only 1 F. warmer, and nothing to concern ourselves with, if the globe warms at all.)

In order to reduce that result by 1 trillion tons and 1 degree, the entire world would have to spend 33 years with no electricity, no cars, nothing at all that gives off CO2 emissions. So after 33 years of *no* energy, we reduce 1 of the 7 degrees predicted.

What is wrong with us? Are we so stupid we will take Al Gore's word for anything if he makes enough noise and ignores all opposition? And when did we begin to apologize for everything we've ever accomplished, and feel that we need to pay *reparations* to those who haven't bothered to build the life that they envy? When did we begin to help our enemies dismantle our lives brick by brick?

DO THE MATH!

My Forehead is Sore

2009-10-19T15:01:00.000-07:00

Yes, I've been pounding my head against the wall. I had an ah-ha moment this afternoon during Glenn Beck. I've known for some time that the progressives in Washington were working on more than "health care reform." Otherwise, why would they keep submitting bill after bill that covers so much more than health care?

Today, Glenn talked about the new health studies being done about the health care issues involved in *gun ownership*. What? As near as I can tell, it should be an obvious benefit - less stress if you own one and can defend yourself against both domestic criminals and the government.

It suddenly dawned on me why the "health care reform" is so important to the progressives. If they don't get it, they can't keep pushing us and pushing us on issues like gun ownership, smoking, and other things the government wants and the people don't. The health care bill is an umbrella disguise for Sunstein and other progressives to "nudge" us into the progressive lifestyle we conservatives don't want.

If not so, then why is the original excuse of covering all Americans now down to a bill that still leaves almost 20,000,000 Americans uninsured?

A Little Bit Pregnant?

2009-09-30T16:18:00.000-07:00

Have you ever heard of an ethics waiver? Apparently, it means when the president wants someone to do a particular job, and there's an ethical reason why that person shouldn't, a waiver is granted to allow them to do so.

This is not something new to the White House, though it's a foreign concept to me. How can there exist such a thing as an ethics waiver? How can you say that it doesn't matter that there's a conflict of interest, or a past association or behavior that is no longer important in light of the fact that we want you to do this job?

A person, a government, a nation is either ethical or it isn't. It's like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. You can't waive a person's ethics! And yet, this White House has done that 16 times in the last 9 months. It was pointed out, by the person the president appointed to be in charge of ethics for the White House, that this is less than 1% of the 1890 jobs awarded. That makes it okay?

I don't know how these numbers stack up against previous administrations, and it doesn't matter. I didn't realize this was going on, and now I do. The previous administrations are over. This one is ongoing. They can make the argument that it is fewer waviers, though I don't know that it is or isn't, but that is a specious argument. There shouldn't be any waivers of ethics ever! A thing is either wrong or right.

You can't be a little bit pregnant or a little bit unethical.

Read the Sept. 4, 2009 article on The Hill website.

By Their Fruits

2009-09-29T17:55:00.000-07:00

Forget the school lesson plan. This is more important.

Let's keep it simple.

Iran is being led by a man who is a Twelver. That is, he is part of the Muslim population who believes that the 12th Imam is the Messiah and will appear after blood and violence and chaos and bring peace to the world. They believe they can hasten his coming by causing the blood and violence and chaos. They believe that Jesus will come introduce him as the Messiah and will be his aide, more or less.

So, on the one hand we have a Muslim sect in power which has many, many followers and believes that death and destruction and chaos must take place in order for their Messiah to come.

On the other hand, we believe, as stated in Matthew 24:14 - "And this gospel of the kingdom shall ve preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." So Jesus preached that in spite of wars and desolation, that when all the earth had been taught the principles of love and redemption, the Messiah would come and bring peace. This is the foundation of Missionary Work.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Speech Lesson Plan, Part 3

2009-09-09T14:12:00.000-07:00

I had no objection to the president speaking to school children. Truthfully, not even to his doing it during school hours. I did object to some districts making the watching of it mandatory, and accompanying noncompliance with additional punitive work to be done. I did object to some districts telling parents they could not be there for the speech and discussions. I did object to the issuance from the Department of Education of a lesson plan to enhance the experience of listening to the president. I most strongly object to the lesson plan itself. Here is part 3 in my series about that plan.

After the Speech

1. Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes, or place notes on a butcher‐paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, such as citizenship, personal responsibility, and civic duty.

2. Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:

What do you think the president wants us to do?
Does the speech make you want to do anything?
Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
What would you like to tell the president?

I've probably said it all in the last two posts, but here we go again. There is nothing wrong with the first suggestion. As long as the teacher doesn't tell children what to think or how to think about the speech, as long as the ideas and discussions come from the students, this could be a great discussion. If children have not already been discussing these topics, it could be lame. If all their knowledge is drawn from this speech and teacher guidance, it will be one sided.

Let's look at these terms, which overlap considerably in the new political spectrum. Citizenship, civic duty, personal responsibility. Does that mean the same thing to the Obama White House as it does to an Independent or a Constitutionalist, or a Reagan Republican? I doubt it. If you read Charles M. Firestone's article on the Huffington Post website from last October, you will have a good idea of the current liberal meaning of citizenship. It starts by sounding fairly traditional and reasonable. By the end, it turns out we need financial, environmental, and cultural "literacies" in order to be a good citizen.

Even Wikipedia, with an unknown author, doesn't go that far: "'Active citizenship' is the philosophy that citizens should work towards the betterment of their community through economic participation, public service, volunteer work, and other such efforts to improve life for all citizens."

A more general definition: "Citizenship is membership in a political community. The term derives from membership of a city (as was the term citizen), but now normally refers to a nation. Citizenship carries with it rights of political participation; many also consider it brings duties to exercise those rights responsibly."

Founding Father quotes:

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. ~ Thomas Jefferson
It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it. ~ George Washington
Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual—or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.~ John Adams
I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. ~ Abraham Lincoln (not a founding father)

Now let's look at the questions of part 2. The second and third ones are bad questions. They can be answered simply yes or no, therefore requiring little or no thought. The first one is a basic knowledge comprehension question. The last one would be okay, if the discussion were not guided toward telling the president that you are going to take his advice and do just what he tells you to do. Chances of that? Pretty slim.

Part 4 tomorrow. The extended activities, probably the most objectionable part.

During the Speech - Lesson Plan, Part 2

2009-09-08T17:34:00.000-07:00

During the Speech

As the president speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note‐taking graphic organizer such as a “cluster web;” or, students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children could draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:

What is the president trying to tell me?
What is the president asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the president challenging me to think about?

2. Students could record important parts of the speech where the president is asking them to do something. Students might think about the following:

What specific job is he asking me to do?
Is he asking anything of anyone else?
Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

3. Students could record questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech. Younger children may need to dictate their questions.

On the surface of it, there would appear to be nothing wrong with any of this. Aren't those good comprehension questions? Isn't it helping students to focus on the main ideas of the president's speech? The answer to those questions, both of them, is yes. My concern, having watched Arbor Day turn from planting trees to saving the earth, is the discussion that will take place with these notes.

The youngest students are going to have trouble understanding, or caring about, the president's speech. That means someone will interpret for them, putting their own spin on the message, leading students in a particular direction. Older students will also be led in the direction that their particular teacher wants them led. Bearing in mind that a majority of teachers are liberals, the leading will be in directions I don't want to see happen.

The idea of *debate* will not be part of the lesson. Did you notice that there is nothing about "discussion" in these questions? Did you notice there is nothing about critically thinking? None of the questions asks, for instance, that students decide whether the president's message has a *valid* point. Nothing asks students to determine whether what the president suggests is something that will make a difference in their education.

No, the questions are merely, once again, at the knowledge and possibly application levels on Bloom's Taxonomy. Will teachers guide students to be critical thinkers? Will they even ask questions such as, "What might the education system look like if everyone did what the president asks?" They won't. They will lead students like little sheep to jump over the fences they want jumped. No one will ask, "What happens if we do what the president asks?" If they did, it wouldn't involve critical speculation. It would only be a Kum-ba-yah moment around the campfire, warming ourselves at Obama's fundamental Change for America.

President Obama's Speech to School Children

2009-09-03T20:00:00.001-07:00

What is all the hoopla about the president speaking to children in schools across America? Isn't it a good thing for the president to encourage children around the country to do their best in school?

Yes, and no. If it were a matter only of the president speaking to children in a televised speech, and if it were only that the president wants to encourage children in their educational efforts, I would have no problem with it. However, when you look at the lesson plan put out by the Department of Education, and you can find that plan here, you discover a few interesting things about it. A good lesson plan has a before, during and after, which this does. Let's see what's included.

Before the Speech

Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama. Teachers could motivate students by asking the following questions:

Who is the President of the United States?
What do you think it takes to be president?
To whom do you think the president is going to be speaking?
Why do you think he wants to speak to you?
What do you think he will say to you?

Teachers can ask students to imagine that they are delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States.

If you were the president, what would you tell students?
What can students do to help in our schools?

Teachers can chart ideas about what students would say.

Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

Let's take this part of the plan apart. The motivation part - no problem. That's part of background building. Notice the last two questions. No problem with them in a classroom where students are taught to be critical thinkers. (Are there any such classrooms left in America? I hope so!) But, for the sake of argument, suppose that the teacher uses that question and answer time as a springboard to guide students' thinking in a direction she wants it to go?

Most teachers are liberals. Not all. I was a teacher. Many times I've guided my students' thinking, not on political issues, but on comparing one piece of literature to another, for instance. It's an ingrained thing to do. The question that really bothers me is the second one in the middle section of this before part of the lesson plan. This is where it really starts ringing a warning bell for me. Combine the president's progressive socialist agenda with the liberal educators and then throw in this question.

Now ask yourself this. What if little Johnny Jones has conservative parents who are well aware of this lesson plan, have downloaded it, and have dissected with little Johnny? And then, what if Johnny answers the question from that conservative point of view? What if Johnny brings up the idea that the president is trying to get the youth of the nation on his side and brainwash them to believe in political policies which are against the Constitution? How do you think the liberal teacher is going to deal with that situation?

Then move on to the last question. I don't think the answer is that we need to know what our government officials are thinking so that we can let them know whether we agree with them or not. I don't think the answer is that an informed citizenry is necessary to keep the Constitution in place. No, I surely don't think that at all. I think it's far more likely that the answer goes along with the idea of the nanny state government taking care of its population, and the need to listen and follow directions of the government authorities.

Stay tuned for the other two sections of this lesson plan.

National Debt

2009-08-24T15:57:00.000-07:00

Wanna see how bad it is? Check out http://www.usdebtclock.org

Most especially, scroll down to the bottom to see the *unfunded* debt each of is owes. If your browser comes up with little f symbols, just click each one to get the numbers to appear. It has to do with your cookies setting.

If the free market were allowed to function, and we could restore our prosperity, then we might be able to handle it. But that's not happening.

Drill, Baby, Drill!

2009-08-20T15:11:00.000-07:00

Remember that slogan? Well, Obama finally agrees with it!

Here's the problem. He believes in giving American taxpayer dollars, $2,000,000,000 of them, to a Brazillian company, Petrobras - in which George Soros is heavily invested, btw. That money is being loaned to them to drill off-shore for oil! Now bear in mind that Petrobras has $120 billion dollars in backing and earned $18,000,000,000 dollars in profits last year.

So why do they need any of our taxpayer dollars? After all, they signed a deal with China in February for 58,000,000,000 barrels of oil to be delivered.

So what is going on here? We have companies right here in our own country who have been pounding on the door to get permission to drill in and near America. So, Mr. Obama, what the hell are you thinking?

IT IS TIME

2009-08-09T10:05:00.000-07:00

Below is something I want to share with you. I am frankly very angry, and have had enough. Don't talk to me about writing letters to "our congressmen" they are not ours, they belong to the evil that is destroying this country while we sit on our asses wringing our hands, it frankly is a waste of time, paper, and/or bandwidth. There is only one solution to this situation, and we need to follow the example of our founding fathers. I only know of 2 people brave enough to call for a revelation, let me add my name to the list. This elderly house wife is calling for a revelation. There I have said it.

Please pay particulate attention to the bold words of acting U.S. Attorney Michael Gunnison below in the body of the article.

I do not know about you but this "elderly people (person) who believe(s) in the Constitution and are (is) willing to resist an unlawful tax and refuse to immediately surrender to heavily-armed federal agents deserve to die in prison and are not fit to participate in our brave new "civil society." has no intention of dieing in prison for standing on my Constitutional rights.

Convicted "tax protesters" to receive death sentence with new conviction

July 9, 2009—Ed Brown (67) and Elaine Brown (69) were convicted on all counts "of plotting to kill federal agents during a nine-month standoff at their fort-like rural home, where they had holed up to avoid arrest on tax evasion," the Associated Press reported.

In 2007, the Browns, a successful married couple from Plainfield, New Hampshire, who had dared to demand that the government show them the law before paying income taxes, were convicted of willful failure to pay them.

Ed Brown testified during the 2009 trial that the weapons in his home were for self-defense. The conviction is malicious. The Browns never intended to kill anyone; they just wanted to prove that the government had no lawful authority to directly tax the wages of people as if they were income. When the government court agreed that the government had the authority to collect an unconstitutional tax, the Browns just stayed home. When the government came to get them, a standoff ensued. People from all over the country came to be with them. Ed conducted interviews in which he said he believed the government planned to kill him and that he would rather die than go to prison. With some bravado, Ed reportedly also said that he would take a few feds with him.

The Brown’s concerns were well-founded. The U.S. government has killed a lot of Americans for greater and lesser reasons. Gordon Kahl was hunted down, shot and burned for his belief that government was not lawful; Sammy Weaver (14) and his mother Vickie were shot though they were not wanted in connection with any crime and the government mass murdered 114 innocent men, women and children at Mount Carmel near Waco, Texas.

The standoff, which began with their conviction January 18, 2007, ended peacefully nearly nine months later on October 4.

Though Ed had a conviction in 1960 at age 18 that was later pardoned, the Browns have no prior criminal history yet both face 30-years in prison for not surrendering to federal officials after being convicted on income tax related charges. For the Browns, this conviction is a death sentence.

"By rejecting the rule of the law and substituting a personal code involving weapons, explosives and threats, the defendants committed increasingly serious crimes," acting U.S. Attorney Michael Gunnison said. "Their conduct has no place in a civil society."

The "civil society" to which Gunnison refers is one that allows the government to lawlessly extort money from people at gunpoint, allows bankers to debauch the currency and loot an entire nation’s people and their assets while reinventing the Republic into a totalitarian technocracy that is in the final stages of force-vaccinating 300 million people with an experimental vaccine containing ingredients of known toxicity—and is planning to punish anyone who objects. According to Gunnison, elderly people who believe in the Constitution and are willing to resist an unlawful tax and refuse to immediately surrender to heavily-armed federal agents deserve to die in prison and are not fit to participate in our brave new "civil society."

The Browns, who were already serving five-year sentences for their original convictions, are scheduled to be effectively sentenced to death in prison on September 3, 2009.

Town Hall Meetings + My Response

2009-08-04T16:14:00.000-07:00

There are town hall meetings being held around the country so that Senators and Congressmen can explain the health care plan to their constituents. According to one Texas Congressman, they were give a script they are supposed to follow. Bah, humbug, is what I'd say to that.

Many town hall meetings have erupted at the question and answer period, and if you watch Fox News, you've seen some of that footage.

"I look at this health care plan and I see nothing that is about health or about care. What I see is a bureaucratic nightmare, senator. Medicaid is broke, Medicare is broke, Social Security is broke and you want us to believe that a government that can't even run a cash for clunkers program is going to run one-seventh of our U.S. economy? No sir, no," she (a woman at the microphone to Specter and Sibelius in Philadelphia) said.

You can find some such events listed on Tea Party Patriots August events are toward the bottom, with September toward the top.

The constituents are being labeled, of course, as right wing nuts, and at least one person said that the protests were sponsored by the insurance companies. What a laugh. The insurance companies are in bed with the program! Those speaking out are being labeled "politically connected," whatever that means, and, once again, being dismissed.

One of the largest miscarriages of truth that the media has perpetrated recently is the one about the tea party in Columbus, Ohio, August 1, this past Saturday. The Columbus Tea Party, the Ohio Rally for State Sovereignty, was attended by, according to police estimates, 8,000-10,000 people. You can hear Keynote speaker, Judge Napolitano, on Ron Paul's site or YouTube. According to Napolitano (not Janet, BTW!), the temperatures were in the upper 80s and humidity to match, yet thousands of people stood for an hour and a half, before his speech even came up. They listened to what he had to say, and cheered him on.

The miscarriage of truth by the media? They reported 200-300 attendees. Disenfranchisement through being ignored? You decide. The people are rising up in larger and larger numbers, from all political parties, and both the media and the politicians are going to be surprised when the "right-wing nut jobs," take our country back, through the legally appointed means provided by the U S Constitution, and freedom becomes the rallying cry.

In some of the later townhall meetings, speakers who've learned from what happened at earlier ones, have told attendees they are not allowed to ask questions, they can only listen to what the speaker has to tell them about the plan. Here's my response to that.

As a body, all attendees get up and leave. The last person out the door, before turning out the light, turns to the speaker of the day and says, "You aren't listening to us; therefore, we aren't listening to you. But don't worry. We'll be back in touch next voting day." No shouting, no screaming, no protesting. Just a simple statement from our feet, exercising our God-given rights.

What Unites Us?

2009-08-03T17:50:00.000-07:00

From my friend, Johnny's, blog used with his permission:

Recently, I've realized that we ..... at least I .... spend more time on thinking about the things that separate me, that divide me, from others than I do about what unites me with others. A friend recommended I read Glenn Beck's Common Sense. It arrived in the mail today, and I started at the back, with Thomas Paine's original common sense text.

Listen to this, from Thomas Paine's introduction to his famous little booklet:

"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises, at first, a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."

Knowing that he was referring to the government at the time, and it's long abuses of it's subjects in the colonies, and knowing that he speaks of rebellion against that government, do not blind me to the possibilities that go far beyond those issues. With this one quotation, I could examine everything in my life ..... my thoughts about God, about my lifestyle choices, about love ..... about almost anything.

Sticking to government, for this post, I realized that all of my life I have carried a certain picture of what America is, of who Americans are. We make mistakes, we are sometimes brash. As a nation, we tend to be more prudish than the old countries of Europe, and as a people, we tend to be generous. Perhaps we don't have the old world 'culture' and are considered by some to be rude and 'ugly' Americans. Maybe we resemble the prostitute with the heart of gold.

But there is a heart of gold. That's the important thing. We've shed our blood around the world for the rights of others, the freedom of others. Our soldiers are buried in the foreign soil of many a country which would not have the freedom to criticize us were it not so. Our dollars are spread throughout the world, as well. Over and over, as other countries have been hit by disasters, American dollars have flown food and medical supplies bought with other American dollars to the relief of those in need. Our government has done that, but so have our churches, our organizations, our volunteers, our people, out of our own pockets.

This is the America I know and love and grew up in. Today, I see the change that slightly more than half the country voted for coming to pass. And it isn't a change I like, or voted for. In fact, it isn't even a change at all, it's a transformation. I don't like what America is becoming. I don't like a president going around that same world we have saved and aided and negotiated for, apologizing for being who we are. I don't like my government turning into a controlling faction in business, banking, and especially health care.

The congress which bounced over 12,000 checks and caused the closure of it's own bank is now going to run the banks the American people use? The government that allocated money for 3 months of a "cash for clunkers" program and ran out in 4 days is going to run the automobile companies? The same people who have run Amtrak, the post office and Veteran's Administration hospitals into the ground is going to be in charge of my health care? I don't think so. I vote no.

The long habit of thinking that the government is right, that it has good intentions, that it will take care of me ..... that has come to an end. The habit of not thinking those things are wrong has come to an end. Bring on the outcry. Bring on the tumult. And then let us reason together to find a better way.

Universal Health Care

2009-07-21T15:56:00.001-07:00

I can't stand it any more. I have to make some comments about this insane plan from the left wing nuts. (ha, take that you name callers!)

Is there any citizen in America who really thinks the president's plan is a good one? Yes, of course, there are. A lot of them are in Congress. Of course, those people have *their own* health care plan that won't be affected by the President's plan. If they think it's so great, why aren't they signing Congress up for it?

Recent polls, by Rasmussen, for instance, show that half of the citizens of the U. S. don't want this plan. When you add into the equation a tax increase to have it, the numbers rise against it significantly. So why aren't their representatives in both houses of Congress listening?

The news pundits seem to believe that the President wants Congress to hurry up and pass the bill before recess - and it's over 1000 pages again, folks. The reason? If they go home, they will hear from their constituents how much they do *not* want this bill, and it will never get passed. I don't know how accurate that reasoning is, since I think they are already having phone calls, letters and e-mails to that effect.

On the other hand, if that is Obama's reasoning, or his "advisors'" thinking, then I have a question. Why would the president be so desperate to have Congress pass something that the people don't want? It's no wonder that Obama's ratings are steadily falling. He's not listening to the citizens of the country.

Here's a quote from my son's letter yesterday. Bear in mind that this is a 32-year old man who is bright enough, but only has a GED, and he's a member of the North Carolina prison community for being stupid. If he gets this, why don't those highly educated Congress-persons get it?

"I was reading (the paper) about the proposed health care thing the Dems are pushing, calling it a right and a responsibility. I found it interesting that, as an employer or employee, if you don't use it, you can be penalized. Sounds like big Government Socialism/Communism to me. They aren't saying you have to use it, but if you don't there are penalties."
Yeah, think about that one for a minute.

We hear a lot about looking at the systems in Canada or England and wondering if that's what we want. There have been both doctors and patients from Canada on any number of news programs. Well, not the mainstream liberal news programs, of course.

Here's a thought for you. Why do we need to go outside our own country for an example of how bad an idea it is to have the government running our health care system? All we have to do is look at the one health care system in the country that is already run by the government -- the Veteran's Administration.

When Paul was looking in to going there for his cataract surgery last year, we found that, between getting approved for VA itself, followed by getting an appointment with a primary care physician, followed by getting an appointment with a specialist, followed by getting approved to have the surgery, followed by waiting for the surgery, we were looking at 9 months or more. He would have been completely blind by then. So we borrowed the money and had it done, tightening our budget the last notch it can be tightened.

So, America, that's what you're probably going to have soon. Unless you can get yourself elected to Congress, of course.

Happy Birthday, America!

2009-07-05T15:03:00.001-07:00

I don't think I can say it any better than Glenn Beck does in his newsletter from Friday:

"July 3, 2009

Hello America,

Here it is, another Fourth of July. Traditionally, this is a day to gather with friends, maybe fire up the barbeque and play with kids until the sun sets and the fireworks start. But in thinking back on the meaning behind this day, we must never forget that our nation was baptized in the blaze of a very different kind of "fireworks."

Yes, this is a day of rest and relaxation, as well it should be, but this year…I'd like to ask you a favor. At some point during the day, I hope you'll take time to think and reflect on what it is we're truly celebrating on the 4th of July -- our Independence Day. Of course the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th, 1776 but it's so much more than that. On this day, 233 short years ago, a small group of men dedicated themselves to a higher purpose, an ideal they believed in so greatly, they signed their name to its expression and in doing so put their very lives at risk.

Never has a simple act of signing one's name carried such weight, such a profound commitment. By signing the Declaration of Independence, 56 men stood in direct defiance of the British government. They became marked men, and willingly so. As I was doing some research on the significance of July 4th, I came across some interesting facts about these men. Today as we all enjoy the freedom our forefathers guaranteed us, join me in honoring the extraordinary sacrifice of 56 extraordinary Americans.

Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence:

Five were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes burned to the ground. Two lost sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, and two more had sons captured. Nine fought and died in the Revolutionary War.

If you ever feel like your lone voice can never be heard, that the political system isn't set up for "regular" Americans to change the course of history, remember: The signers were flesh and blood, mortal men with a divinely-inspired aim.

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, eleven were merchants, and nine were farmers and large plantation owners. They were well educated, smart enough to know that by signing the Declaration of Independence, they were signing their own death warrants. They did it anyway, and God bless them for it.

As we enjoy our liberty on this 4th of July, or any day of any month, we must never take that liberty for granted. Too many have given too much. In the words of the Signers themselves, "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor -- I think that's a price paid worth a few minutes of reflection, don't you? But let's not be solemn in that reflection. I say rejoice and share this information with your friends and family, especially your kids. The Signers asked for nothing in return for their pledge, but I say that we show our thanks with a pledge of our own: To remember, to be grateful, and to carry on in their spirit. America is the greatest country this world has ever and will ever know, and it will stay that way so long as "we the people" remember that just like in 1776.

It's US that surrounds them, and we'll never back down.

Happy Independence Day, and God bless America.

Glenn"

Abusive Relationships

2009-06-30T12:18:00.000-07:00

I'm going in a little different direction today, and this is aimed at abused men as well as women. No one ought to live a live as an abused partner. If one thinks about it, one might find a parallel of individual citizens and their government, but I'll leave you to make those connections, if there are any.

First, let me remind everyone that domestic abuse is a crime. Whether it is man on woman or woman on man, it is a crime. Don't ever forget that. If you are being abused by someone, they are committing a crime against you. Quit making excuses for them, because it is not your fault they are behaving this way. They bear the responsibility for being criminal, not you. You are powerless to control or change them, but you are not powerless to change your circumstances.

Not all abuse is physical. Mental abuse is just as bad, and perhaps worse. Bruises will heal, even broken bones will heal. A person's opinion of him-or-herself will be much harder to heal. What's done to a person's mind will never disappear. One learns to deal with it, but it doesn't ever go away. You may be wondering how I know. I have strong feelings about this from seeing two sisters be physically abused, to the point of broken bones and surgery, and seeing a child mentally abused.

What are some signs that your partner is abusive? How about these:

Your partner is controlling and manipulative. That person may insist on choosing your clothing, your friends, your foods, your behavior. It's always for your own good, of course. There's always a plausible sounding reason. The bottom line is you are being trained to believe that the person knows what's best for you, and you are incompetent to make those decisions. He or she is saving you from being a disaster.

Your partner has unpredictable mood swings. One minute you are being cuddled and the next, you are being pushed and shoved, emotionally or physically. You cannot ever come to depend on anything good that is going on, because it is always followed by something hurtful. This puts you in the position of being on edge at all times, never knowing what's coming next. Many people have mood swings, and that is not, in itself, the problem. The problem is when those mood swings are aimed at a partner, as described here.

Your partner isolates you from friends and family. This is so insidious that at first many people don't realize what's happening. It can be very subtle, right up to the day you look around and realize that except for your partner, you are completely alone. This often causes a hopeless feeling, that there's no one who cares what's happened to you, or causes you, initially, to feel grateful that your partner has stayed with you and loves you. Your partner may have convinced you that you really aren't lovable and the only reason he or she has stayed with you is because of the partner's greatness, compassion and wonderful qualities.

Your partner may use force against you. This starts with a push or a shove or a slap, usually, but may be a full out beating. Of course, the partner is always sorry, in the beginning. He or she may bring flowers, cook your favorite meal, give you jewelry, take you out on the town, and there are apologies all over, and promises that it will never happen again. The only way it will never happen again is if you escape that relationship, the majority of the time. In almost every case, unless a partner gets intervention and help, the first time will be the beginning of a life of abuse. Do not fall for the tears, the abject apologies and the gifts. Insist on counseling, or get out of the relationship.

Your partner will almost certainly be verbally abusive. Initially, this may involve put downs and criticism, but it will escalate over time into much worse than belittling. You do not deserve this kind of treatment! People who love each other, normal people, do not do this to one another. This is not normal. I don't care where else you've seen it, or who else in your life has done it - parents, for example - it is not normal. It is abuse.

Before the actual violence begins, there may be threats of violence. It's only a step away from the action of violence on you. Don't miss this warning sign. I'm not talking about when I say to my husband, "Stop that before I smack you." We both know I'm kidding. Neither of us would ever, ever, ever, hit the other. That is not the way to solve disputes. I'm talking about the menacing look, the raised hand or fist, the shove that either misses or pushes you into the wall. It isn't always accompanied by yelling and screaming. Some abusers are very calm as they tell you that if you ever look at another man/woman that way again they will slice you into pieces and throw the pieces in the trash can where a slut like you belongs. Yes, men can be referred to as sluts, or cheating, lying whores, too.

The bottom line is that an abuser tries to isolate the victim from all help, to be in total control, to frighten the victim into believing there is no one who would help someone as useless and worthless, to instill total dependence and hopelessness. Don't fall for it. There are things you can do. What are they?

The very first thing you have to do is decide that you are going to do something. No, even before that, you have to admit that something needs to be done, then decide to do it.

One place to start is the National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) Memorize that number for the day you decide to use it.

Make a safety plan. Most abusers are not going to let you just walk out the door. You must have a plan and a place to go, you must have resources to help you get there.

Make a list of people you can trust for help, and their phone numbers. Be very careful with this list! Do not let it come to the attention of the abuser. Hide it as a list of things like the telephone numbers of people you would normally need to call, the school, the dry cleaner, the drug store. Don't just hide a list with names and numbers in a place you think the abuser will not find it. Abusers are very clever and they know their ownership of you depends on keeping you helpless. They will be looking for any clue that you plan to run. The safest thing is to memorize those names and numbers, or disguise them in plain sight.

Make an emergency kit with money, medical cards, car keys, ID, medications, important papers, etc. Make sure it's somewhere you can get to quickly. Off the premises might be your safest bet, but wherever you put it, make sure your abuser isn't likely to stumble across it. Not in the tool box in your trunk if your abuser is likely to need to go in there to fix something. *Maybe* in the freezer wrapped in foil and labeled meatloaf. Be creative and think it through before you stow it somewhere.

Above all, don't change your behavior! Once a decision is made, it tends to make us feel more secure, more in control, and this will show. Don't be nicer than you usually are. Don't be more sarcastic than you usually are. Try to change nothing about your behavior.

If your abuser becomes violent, there's a short list of things to do. It's better to run before the next time, but sometimes you can't. You may not be ready, you may not see it coming. Remember, the abuser is keeping you off balance at all times.

Call the police or someone else, if you can. If you call the police, be ready to press charges. Some states now don't need the signed complaint from a victim in domestic violence. Pictures of the result of the abuse, or the testimony of the policeman who responds is enough in some states. They know that abused people are rarely able to sign a complaint after the emergency is over. The fear comes back and keeps an abused person from believing they can "get away" with signing a complaint. This is particularly true of men who are abused. They, even more than women, don't think anyone will believe them. They are typically much larger than the woman abusing them. Get over it. Call the police. Your life may depend on it.

Grab your emergency kit and get out as soon as you can. Take your children with you. If they have not previously been abused, they will certainly be the target when you are gone.

Therein is the best reason to get out of an abusive relationship. If you have children, do you want them to grow up believing that all the abuse you have received is how a normal relationship progresses? Whether male or female, do you want them to believe that it is either okay to be abused, or it is okay to abuse someone else? Of course you don't!

The first time it happens, get out. Let it be the last time. Domestic Violence is a *pattern* of behavhior. Abusers are all clever liars, because they truly believe they will not do it again! For many of them, it is not a plan they have made. They think they are normal. They believe the things they say. This makes them the most dangerous kind of person. Let them go on believing. You get out and move on in your life.

Thank You

2009-06-29T09:12:00.000-07:00

I want to take just a moment to thank Susan for writing so many great posts.

I apologize that I have not been writing like I intended. To be very frank with you all...
I am worn out, emotionally and physically. I do good to make it through my days with some
accomplishment, let alone trying to wake people up. I wish I had never taken the
red pill then I could go through this life in bliss, but alas one can not unlearn the
things one learns.....except maybe to get Alzheimers, sometime I think that would be alright.

So for a while I am going to go bury my head in the sand with the majority of Americans and Christians, too. I know Susan will speak for us both, as we are 99.9% on the same track.

Hugs
Gail

United We Serve

2009-06-24T16:38:00.000-07:00

"Service is key to achieving national priorities," said Michele Obama at a meeting in a California school, launching the United We Serve Program. At first, it sounds good, doesn't it? These things usually do. I had to stop and think a minute. What national priorities would those be, exactly? Whose service, and what kind of service?

The California school where Mrs. Obama was speaking is the same one where she has helped plant a garden. Children at the school will work the garden, then have a vegetable stand to sell the produce. The money they make goes to the school. At first, that sounds fine, too, doesn't it?

Here's the thing, though. In 28 years of teaching, I had many a bake sale, candy sale, wrapping paper sale, cotton candy sale, even a stuffed animal sale. Two years, we made quilts to raffle. Every single one of them was instigated and worked by students for a particular goal the students had. Sometimes it was to benefit a charity students had picked, such as saving seals or adopting a sick porpoise. Sometimes it was to fund a field trip they wanted to take, or a play they wanted to see. Two years, we raised money on the reservation to take trips to Albuquerque, to see the big city. The quilts were for the benefit of the National Wildlife Fund.

All of these things were student-powered, student-motivated projects. In our schools, students sold items to earn money for the student council to do everything from buying playground equipment to buying books for the library. Again, the students conducted the business, and the students benefitted from their efforts.

It may very well be that the students will benefit from the money earned by selling vegetables, too. It wasn't reported what the school would use the money to do. However, here's the big difference. The children didn't think of this, didn't plan for it, didn't create the idea. It was imposed from the outside. It was generated as a plan from our federal government because, "Service is key to achieving national priorities."

I wonder if a generation of students brought up to believe that to serve the state in this way, to let the state dictate what their "service" is, and how much and for what purpose, will be easier to persuade toward socialism. Then what will the following generation be brought up to believe? That the word "I" is a dirty word? That the state run life is desirable? That the common good is the only important thing, and individual efforts and desires are unlawful? Oh, you've read that book, too?

If you haven't, try it out. It's Anthem, by Ayn Rand. If you can find a copy.

Yet Another Sign of Congressional Disconnect

2009-06-21T19:15:00.000-07:00

Have ya been feelin' less and less represented on Capitol Hill? Have ya been noticin' that nothing you say is getting through to anyone? Have ya been gettin' form letters back in response to notes to your representatives? Form letters that not only don't answer the concerns you wrote about, but are sometimes in 180 degree opposition from your position? Well, here's another one to write about.

Gunowners of America posted an alert on June 16. It's taken 5 days to drift down to me, and I had to track the version I got back through 5 blogs, which only means that bloggers are spreading the bad news.

The alert concerns a health care plan being circulated by Ted Kennedy. I thought he was too sick, but I guess he's making the big sacrifice to be there and push this through. Yes, folks, push it through, just like all the other bills that have been railroaded through Congress with no time to investigate and research.

Actually, I don't think this one takes any research. Just read the darned thing. It's a mockery of American principles and values. It takes away *all* rights for us to choose for ourselves, and penalizes us, no matter which way we turn.

You go read the alert. Then you decide whether to contact your senators. It's easy through the form at the bottom of the page. You can use their letter, add to it, or write your own in the space. Please, let your voice be heard in opposition to losing our right to any privacy whatsoever, and our own choices about health care.

Rant................

2009-06-17T06:12:00.000-07:00

First, thank you Susan for all the great posts. I have been licking my wounds of late and it is nice to have someone to cover.

On to the RANT.................

Companies and/or agencies that get to spend taxpayers money for their own profit!!!!!!!

I am amazed, shocked, dismayed, outraged at these companies who we are "required" to hire for a project because they are "licensed contractors" or some such bought and paid for position. It doesn't mean they can or will do a better job, and if they don't do the job hired for just what do you think you can do about it!. Nothing, get in line.

It is really apparent when your dealing with a company that is tied in with a government agency. Like.... oh that tap (water tap) is in the wrong place, Mr. county man says. I'd LIKE to see it moved over here, (what is this a decorating issue) at the tune of $5,000.00. No biggie, says Mr. contractor, you can GET more money.

What happen to all the pre construction hoops we jumped through? You all signed off, all was right and where it should be? Where was the engineer we had to hire to stand there picking his nose and scratch his a....er a to watch and make sure everything was were it belonged according to said plans? Why is this not in the proper place, is it a decorating issue? Then we also find out the county doesn't really know where the right of ways are or for that matter where the road really is suppose to be. Now you all want to be paid AGAIN for a job YOU did not do right, and the people of our fair town are suppose to bear that burden AGAIN!!!!!!

Sure why not, you can get more money (in the form of a loan) to fix our mistake, we will just put in to (ABC government agency) for more on your loan................
HELLO MCFLY.............ANYBODY HOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU HAVE TO PAY A LOAN BACK!!!!!!!

We are informed this is normal practice.........NORMAL PRACTICE to pay them again! If I tried to do this in my cabinet business..........oh sorry I made that cabinet wrong, I measured for it, I know where it is suppose to go, but it is wrong, so you will have to pay me to make you a new cabinet before I can put them in. I don't think so.

Of course it seems to be common practice with doctors, lawyers, engineers, if we don't get it right the first time, come back and pay us again so we can make another educated guess, and of course if that isn't right either you can pay us again and if your lucky we won't kill/bankrupt you in the process.

I am amazed at these words but not surprised. Our government agencies and those who are in bed with them, such as contractors, engineers, or whomever (could be a parts place) know they have deep pockets. Our pockets. They have all this money to take for their coffers and provide inferior service or products.

The project being done here is huge, especially for a town of about 100 people and every penny spent on it has to be paid back by us, added to our bill. Things are already tight, they are talking about taking food off of people tables each time they get more money.

These agencies and their companies are getting rich by not doing their jobs as contracted and yet we are suppose to pay them again because there is more money we can get..........NO and Hell NO. Thankfully our board put a stop to things, the contractors and engineers know we have not spent all the money on the project and are determined to get every penny.

Then there is the issue of FREE GRANT MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!

This project also has gotten FREE GRANT MONEY, as has another project in town.
FREE.............FREE????????????? How can it be FREE???????????????

There is no such thing as free, free money is the most expensive money around.
It cost someone, from whom it was taken, a part of their life to produce it.

I HATE, HATE, HATE grant money. It was taken from one person and given to another for some pet project that the first person has no interest in. If you have a pet project, raise your own money, stop taking it from someone else. Share the wealth..........makes us all poor, ding the person who succeeds, take his/her money and give it away. You will never bring the poor and lazy up by giving them money, you will only break the back of the one your taking it from. It does not take long to make a 3rd world country out of a rich country, just take the money away from the people who produce. Pretty soon the produces will quite producing, why should they?

Even in this day with all the shortages of money, people out of work, losing their homes, I get phone calls saying.........."We have all kinds of FREE grant money for your business".......if we have so much extra money for grants, why are we raising taxes.

GRRRRRRRRRRR.

Well, there is one way to stop all this government loan money and grant money..............

Stop contributing to the treasury that give it all away.....................

But I don't know many who have the guts to stop...........

Financial Regulation and the Federal Reserve

2009-06-15T17:06:00.000-07:00

I do a lot of reading. I read from a lot of different sources. You might say I'm eclectic, or you might say I'm scattered; you choose! Today, something I was mulling over yesterday came together with something Brandon sent in an e-mail, and I really must speak again. It's about money.

It's about more than money, of course. Once upon a time, money and buying were pretty understandable things to most of us. We had money, we spent it on things we needed. We didn't have money, we didn't spend it. In earlier generations, they were even better about not spending money they didn't have. A farmer or rancher might have a loan on his property or his herd, a city dweller might have a mortgage on a house. Otherwise, it was pretty much pay as you go.

Before those days, there was barter. If I have something you want, and you have something I want, we can trade. Or maybe you can try to take away what I have that you want, but there's a cost there, too, if I'm wary and wise. Unlike Wimpy (from Popeye), who would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today, most people lived on a debt-free basis. So did our government.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson said, "Funding I consider as limited, rightfully, to a redemption of the debt within the lives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generation coming equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the free possession of the earth he made for their subsistence, unencumbered by their predecessors, who, like them, were but tenants for life." Other founding fathers had similar thoughts.

So, today, we have a banking system which has gone wild, with the help and encouragement of the government, and a Federal Reserve which keeps printing more and more money, but there's nothing to back it up, and our government is in debt to the tune of trillions of dollars. I can't even visualize a trillion dollars, no matter how many drawings Beck and O'Reilly show me. Here's an interesting comparison from John Lipscomb's article on the Federal Reserve.

". . . it's interesting to know that, if we had lived in ancient Rome, with a one ounce gold coin we would've been able to buy a very fine toga, a hand-crafted belt and a pair of sandals--that was the price in Rome. Today, if we have a one ounce gold coin what can we buy with it? We can go into any men's store and buy a very fine suit, a hand-crafted belt and a pair of shoes. The price of these items hasn't changed in thousands of years when expressed in terms of real money but when expressed in terms of these things we carry around in our pockets called Federal Reserve notes . . . , the prices keep going up and up and up, because the value of those units keeps going down and down and down, because they keep making more and more and more of them and dumping them into the economic soup."

I had heard the statistic that for the time we stayed on the gold standard, we had no, zip, zilch, nada inflation, but the minute we went off it, inflationary cycles began. I could understand that. But to think of it in terms of ancient and modern clothing exchanged for one ounce of gold this way . . . that was really telling to me. That was a visual I could comprehend. Do you see my stick-figure Roman in his outfit and the stick-figure New Yorker in his? You might want to read John's whole article, as well as the one about the Doomsday Seed Vault. Lots and lots of information to process. Print it out and read it over a few days' time.

These are the things roaming around in the gymnasium of my mind when Brandon's e-mail arrives. It's a copy o the White House website post on Obama's speech about Financial Reform. Or rather, it's the reform he plans, but as explained by Treasury Secretary Geithner and NEC Chair Larry Summers and published as an op ed piece in the Washington Post this morning, as well as posted on the white house site by Jesse Lee.

You need to go read the post. I'll wait here, it won't take you very long, really. I'll play some nice Tim Janis music while I'm waiting . . . . Okay, let's take it from the top. Just the things that bother me the most. It all sounds so reasonable, until you start to think about what's really being proposed.

Point 1: "In addition, all large, interconnected firms whose failure could threaten the stability of the system will be subject to consolidated supervision by the Federal Reserve. . . ."

Would that be the same Federal Reserve which is currently printing money and diluting the value of the dollar? The same one that is trying to sell more bonds to other countries, countries which really aren't sure they want to subsidize our debt with a loan? That Federal Reserve is going to supervise "interconnected firms" in the U.S.?

Point 2: ". . .and we will establish a council of regulators with broader coordinating responsibility across the financial system."

Uh-oh, we need another regulatory board? Where's the authority for establishing more regulators? How will they be established? To whom will they report? Where will their salaries be financed? How many will be on this council? Don't we have enough bureaucracy already in place to take care of this? This sounds like more people under the direct control of the president, like the 16 czars he's appointed so far. And doesn't czar mean tyrant dictator to you? It always has to me. Why are we even using that word?

Point 3: ". . . securitization . . . ."

What the heck does that mean? Is that even a word?

Point 4: "The administration's plan will impose robust reporting requirements . . . ."

Robust, eh? I thought that was an adjective for wine. And to whom is the reporting done? What are the consequences of those reports? What's the authority for them? Who has access to the reports? And, perhaps more importantly, who doesn't?

Point 5: ". . . reduce investors' and regulators' reliance on credit-rating agencies. . . ."

And that's meaningful because . . . ? Maybe we are reducing that because our entire country is about to lose it's credit rating? Because we have no monetary stability as an entire country?

Point 6: ". . . and, perhaps most significant, require the originator, sponsor or broker of a securitization to retain a financial interest in its performance."

More gobbledygook. I get it. A person who sponsors a "securitization" (whatever that is) can't then sell out and go off into the sunset. But couldn't you just say that? Whatever happened to calling a spade a spade? In politics, I guess it's pointless to expect anyone to speak in plain English. Perhaps Mr. Geitner was showing us he really is the only one smart enough to "save" the country. Or perhaps he's just showing us that he has no clue how to relate to, or communicate with, most of us.

Point 7: "The plan also calls for harmonizing the regulation of futures and securities. . . ."

Harmonizing? They're forming a choir? Yes, I can hear it now . . . and it's way off key and out of tune.

Point 8: ". . . strong oversight of "over the counter" derivatives."

Oversight by whom? Sounds like a drug problem to me. Who is going to oversee the overseers? Who is going to be able to see the oversight? This gets confusing!

Point 9: "All derivatives contracts will be subject to regulation, all derivatives dealers subject to supervision, and regulators will be empowered to enforce rules against manipulation and abuse."

Regulators chosen by whom, paid by whom, reporting to whom? Could you just speak English, please, and explain how many regulators and overseers and czars and controllers, ad infinitum, the Obama administration is proposing to unleash on our financial system?

Point 10: "Third, our current regulatory regime. . . ."

Regime? Isn't that a ruler who has a government we don't like somewhere in the third world?

Point 11: "Weak consumer protections against subprime mortgage lending bear significant responsibility for the financial crisis."

No, lack of honorable dealings, the government interference and insistence on lending institutions making loans they knew didn't meet the "robust" criteria of the lending market is what bears significant responsibility for the financial crisis. Could we have a little more honesty and a little less spin and self-protection here?

Point 12: " . . .the administration will offer a stronger framework for consumer and investor protection across the board."

Protection from everyone except the government, apparently. A "framework" for protection doesn't sound like much other than an empty scaffolding waiting for the painters or window washers to show up.

Point 13: "Fourth, the federal government does not have the tools it needs to contain and manage financial crises."

No kidding. Would that be because it isn't the job of government?

Point 14: T"o address this problem, we will establish a resolution mechanism . . . ."

Resolution mechanism? What is this? A machine we're going to manufacture? Input problem, output resolution? I can only wish it were going to be a machine!

Point 15: ". . . This authority will be available only in extraordinary circumstances. . . ."

And just who is going to wield that authority in extraordinary circumstances? Who decides when circumstances have reached extraordinary? Who decides when the crisis is at an end, or the circumstances are no longer extraordinary?

Point 16: Fifth, and finally, we live in a globalized world,

Not me. I live in the United States of America, by the power of the US Constitution, which is fueled by me, and others like me. You want to rule the world, go get elected emperor. We are *not* responsible for the world, nor should we be. If I want a Kumbaya moment with my sisters and brothers around the world, we'll do it at a conference. I do not want to have my country at the mercy of the UN or a "consensus" oriented government from around the world.

We were lucky to get one righteous constitution, and be led by men who had a vision of a republic, not a democracy, not a "progressive" liberal fascist government. I don't think we'll get a second chance at it. Let's stand up now and demand our rights as free citizens to return to the republic, to return to sovereignty of the states, and to shrink big government down to the size of a peanut. Let's demand the checks and balances be put back in place. No more czars and councils and regulators who are responsible only to the president, whomever that president is.

Repeal the government, keep the Constitution.

Book Review: Acts of Faith

2009-06-04T19:01:00.000-07:00

Amazon link
It's uncommon to review a book when one is only half finished with it, but I have been so impressed with the insights I've gained in the first 60% of the book, that I must share some thoughts with you.

The subtitle of Eboo Patel's book is: The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation. I came across this book completely by accident on Amazon. I was looking for other things, and just followed a link of a link, thinking it was something else entirely. However, when I read the review and a couple of quotes, I thought, "Sounds interesting. Maybe it will help me understand the young Muslims who commit the violent acts, including murder and suicide."

It is, indeed, giving me some insights into that young Muslim mind-set. In his introduction, he compares two different people, one a man who committed murder in the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics, and the other a group of school children in Tennessee. He speculates that if the murderer had been influenced by the same type of person the Tennessee children were, then he might not have become a murderer. He points out, "Change happens internally before it takes place in the world."

As I read the book, I find places where I agree and cheer him on, places where he makes me thoughtful, and places where I want to shout a warning, "Don't go there!" He's an excellent story teller, and he has a lot of stories to tell. Stories of being in high school, wanting to be white. Stories of being an angry college radical. Stories of finding people who work for those who need help, but do it without anger, and with intent to accomplish something real in the world. Stories about old girlfriends, from LDS to Jewish, and what he learned from them, as well. It's fascinating to see all the influences which led him to his conclusions and who he is.

He talks about Brother Wayne Teasdale, a Catholic monk, who influenced his life profoundly. It reminded me of what he said about the influences in our lives which make us who we are. Brother Wayne, as he calls him often, had studied in India among Buddhists, has a PhD in philosophy, and an interest in interfaith youth movements. He said things like, "The tradition you were born into is home, but as Gandhi once wrote, it should be a home with the windows open so that the winds of other traditions can blow through and bring their unique oxygen." He also said, "it's good to have wings, but you should have roots, too."

These things made a difference in Patel's life, and gave me cause for thought, as well. He talks of visiting the Dalai Lama, and of the way his feelings about India and his roots changed on his trip there to visit His Holiness. The Dalai Lama told him, "Religions must dialogue, but even more, they must come together to serve others. Service is the most important . . . ."

I thought about that concept of possibilities. What if, instead of fighting and arguing with each other, religions worked together, set aside differences to find commonalities and work toward common goals?

Patel talks of the students he taught and tutored at El Cuarto Ano, where his job was to help them bring up skills so that they could ". . . have what my suburban education gave me: the tools to make up my own mind about the world around me." He relates stories about the things he learned from those students, some of the stories so poignant, they bring tears to the eyes. For instance, ". . . since I was six years old, everybody around me be asking 'What gang you ride? What gang you ride?' Nobody ever asked, "What poetry you read? What level of math you at?' One day, you decide you might as well ride something, or else you nobody to no one. So you choose one. Then you hated by half and loved by half. But at least you somebody."

He relates how and why he founded Stone Soup, a collective group of young people of all religious backgrounds, working together to change things. We've heard a lot about Acorn lately, and not much of it good, but it's original objective was to improve the lives of those who have little or nothing. That was the goal of Stone Soup, as well. It began as an interfaith youth project. He mentions that he had belonged to organizations which were radical, or angry, or both, organizations which had diversity, and organizations which had faith, but he realized what was missing was a radical organization that was diverse and whose members had faith.

I'm learning a lot about not only how this one Muslim youth was formed, but also about those who didn't follow the kind of path he did, and the needs that their violent acts fulfill, as well as the designs of the people who use them to further their own ends. I don't know at the end of the book if I will like Eboo Patel, or who he turns out to be, but it is a worthwhile journey following him to see how he got there.

Is Capitalism Dead in America?

2009-05-30T12:47:00.000-07:00

That's the question Glenn Beck asked the other night of several people. No one wants to come out and take a firm stand saying it is. On the other hand, no one really wants to say it isn't. So, I'm taking a look at it today.

First, let's define capitalism. Hard to know what we are observing, if we don't know what it is. My simple Mac dictionary says, "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." Seems simple enough.

Right away my brain is reeling with the idea that private owners in our country are allowed to make a profit any more. At least, allowed to make it without having the liberal media and liberal congress screaming about how unfair and unAmerican profit is. Hey, the famous document says we are created with equal opportunities, not that we will take equal advantage of them!

I hear that a large majority of people who win millions in the lottery are bankrupt within a few years. Talk about wasting an opportunity! Being a wealth-creator, let alone a wealth-preserver, takes a mind-set that many of us just don't have. We can redistribute the wealth all we want, but it's going to keep going back to those who know how to get it to work for them. The answer seems to me to be in educating people in the principles of capitalism, rather than penalizing those who understand them.

So, let's take a look at our country. Is private ownership of business still the norm? I think we'd all have to say that, for now, it is. There are still plenty of businesses, large and small, as well as in between, which are owned privately or traded on the stock exchange by revolving door owners.

It is, nevertheless, a red flag to see the government becoming part-owner in banks, auto companies, financial institutions of various types, and gaining an interest in more and more areas, such as health care. A fast look at the post office, which I find always delivers my mail, and I mail a lot, and which has the very best people at the local level, usually, shows that it isn't run profitably.

"The recession accelerated declines in mail volume in fiscal year 2008 and flattened revenues despite postal rate increases. That year, mail volume fell by 9.5 billion pieces, or 4.5 percent, and resulted in a net loss of $2.8 billion as the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) cost-cutting did not close the gap between revenues and expenses." U. S. Government Office of Accountability (GAO)

Look at their solutions: "In the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, Congress recognized USPS has more facilities than it needs and strongly encouraged streamlining its networks. Rightsizing will require continued congressional support for necessary closures and USPS leadership to address resistance to change. Other options that could help USPS remain financially viable involve difficult trade-offs, including (1) deferring USPS payments for retiree health benefits, which would increase the unfunded retiree health benefit obligation; (2) reducing the frequency of 6-day delivery, which would affect a key aspect of universal service and could further accelerate mail volume decline; (3) downgrading delivery standards, which could affect time-sensitive mail; (4) raising statutory debt limits, which could further exacerbate USPS's financial difficulties in the future; and (5) providing direct appropriations, which would be contrary to the fundamental principle that USPS remain financially self-supporting. Finally, GAO is closely monitoring USPS's financial viability to determine whether to add USPS's need for restructuring to GAO's High-Risk List."

Rightsizing? What kind of term is that? It's another in the long list of new vocabulary designed to spin the news to sound less negative than it actually is. Why doesn't the government just come out and say what it means? You notice that each solution has with it a negative consequence?

We could take a look at Amtrak and find similar problems and statements. The latest report I could find on GAO was January, 2007. It said this, "The future of intercity passenger rail service in the United States has come to a critical juncture. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) continues to rely heavily on federal subsidies--over $1 billion annually in recent years--and operating losses have remained high. In addition, Amtrak will require billions of dollars to address deferred maintenance and achieve a "state of good repair." These needs for Amtrak come at a time when the nation faces long-term fiscal challenges."

Okay, does anyone think it's a good idea to have the government in charge of health care? Of auto manufacturing, especially in conjunction with the unions? Or of any other businesses? We could look at example after example of government-run business, including our own national budget, which has soared into debt worse than it already was, since Obama took over. It was bad enough under Bush, but now it's a total disaster. We cannot spend our way out of debt!

Nor can we tax our way out of it. We are already taking, from those who create wealth, an unconscionable amount of money in various taxes. I don't think anyone minds paying taxes for the things the federal government is supposed to be overseeing, such as national highways and national defense. However, the federal government has gone far beyond the powers granted to them by congress. All three branches of our government are out of control. I don't think any of our founding fathers ever guessed they would all go out of whack at the same time!

If we continued to tax producers to pay for non-producers, there's only one possible outcome. The pool of producers will become smaller and smaller until it totally disappears. America is heading down that road right this very minute. Capitalism is being vilified, marginalized through liberal diatribe, and demonized. In other words, the government is eating its money producing system. Not money printing, money producing! It is becoming more and more "shameful" to make a decent profit in the almost non-existent free market, at the very time when America needs money the most.

So, are we still a capitalist country? I think we are, barely, today on May 30, 2009. How long we'll be able to say that remains to be seen. There's a very disturbing trend in this country that was forecast decades ago when Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged. I first read it more than 30 years ago, and it seemed total fiction to me. I couldn't see where we were going then. I hadn't studied enough history. Now, it's obvious to anyone who reads the book. We aren't going there. We are there. And Atlas, in the form of those who are innovative and productive, is going to begin that shrug any time now.

A Rose By Any Other Name

2009-05-14T10:12:00.000-07:00

With apologies to Shakespeare, I have to wonder if, in today's political arena, a rose by any other name is still a rose. It seems that everyone in politics is hiring people to tell them how to 'spin' things, and doing public opinion polls to find out the most acceptable terms to use.

Let's just take the concept of global warming, for instance. That term is out, and has been for a couple of months. There was just too much negative response attached to it, even though Al Gore said the debate on it was over. (How can debate on anything ever be over?)

Next it was called climate change. Who can argue with that? Climate does change, but the term, as used by liberals, implies and presumes that the changes are caused by people, and what we do. Science shows that less than 1% of any possible problems are caused by the actions of people living on the planet. That is not to say there isn't a climate change, just that we aren't causing it or having a big impact on it.

"Just one recent example came from the United-Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC summary report was approved by attending environmental scientists, many of whom said there was no long-term global warming -- which indeed much data corroborate -- that current temperature fluctuations are within historical norms and that there is no concrete evidence of mankind's activity affecting global climate -- i.e. no global warming. Quite a jump from the "most scientists believe the sky is falling" heard every day.

When the report was published, numerous pages had been deliberately tampered with. All dissenting views and evidence been systematically removed giving the impression that scientists were in agreement that global warming was upon us. The dissenting scientists were furious at the blatant unscientific fraud and their protest erupted into the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal." John Loeffler, Colorado Christian News, Nov. 1996

This experience was repeated in last fall's conference in New York, in a slightly different way. Over 400 scientists who protest that 'global warming' is not the danger insisted on by the Al Gore contingent met for a conference. It was covered by two journalists, one from the Wall Street Journal, and the other Glenn Beck, who says he isn't a journalist, really. Where was the main stream media? Absent without calling in.

We're hearing a lot more about 'green' and a lot less about 'environmentally friendly' these days. Personally, I'm already sick of the term green and it totally makes me want to go run my gas powered chainsaw through the forest and then get in my SUV and drive across the country.

Now we're being told that carbon dioxide, which we all breathe out, and which trees and other plants need to survive, is a toxic substance. It's even been proposed that fat people breath out more, so they should be taxed. And does anyone really understand what cap and trade is? (For a good explanation, see this article. Note the bottom line - money!) Is anyone thinking about this?

When we take a look at these concepts, whatever language they use, to find the basis in science, we find what we used to call weasel words. "Most scientists believe," for instance, instead of a fact. When did people believing something make it a fact? Hundreds of millions in this country believe in God, and yet no one who doesn't will accept his existence as a fact based on that.

Evidence opposed to what the liberal government wishes us to think is ignored. Thank goodness for Fox news, or I'd be depending on internet blogs for a few meager facts about almost everything. Or, Heaven forbid, falling for the liberal line. So much of it sounds reasonable, and some of it is. However, the tactics are growing more and more suspect, as time goes by.

If one thinks that consensus of belief is reason enough to push on, perhaps we are doomed. Those very people who want to "save the environment," may be doing the entirely wrong things, but no one is looking at the facts of the case to find out.

I absolutely believe in preserving the rainforest (as well as the desert, the tundra, and every other geographic setting), doing our best to keep animals from going extinct, when it's possible, and being good stewards of the earth. That's our commandment from God. What I don't believe in is getting in a panic over things.

Species die out. They did before humans came along, and they will after we've met our own demise. Geography changes. Where we camp in mountain forests now, it used to be the bottom of salty oceans, and you can still find tiny seashells and fossils. At another time it was swampy. Change happens. Human beings do what they can to resist it, whether it's for good or ill.

If you want to save a species, let's talk about saving that species. If you want to improve air quality, then let's talk about that. Let's work together to see what, in the rational world is possible. Let's not make sweeping legislation that denies human beings their lives. Let's not fix things that aren't broken, or that won't matter. Let's reason together, not panic. Let's use honest, open language that says what it means. For Heaven's sake, let's call a spade a spade, and not an environmental weapon.

What is happening to our the Church?

2009-05-07T15:03:00.000-07:00

I have to take a break from working on a birthday gift for my grandson to talk about something that is on my mind.

I am frustrated that I can not find a church to go to. There are not many churches around that meet what I believe is a Biblical standard.

We have a little church here in our community that falls short in a couple of ways, ways that keep me from attending.

#1 on my list is of course that the Bible is being taught. Now a days that is pretty hard to find. It is not necessarily that they are not teaching the right thing. It is what they are omitting because of their alignment with the government. How are they aligned with the government? Anytime your taking a concession from the government you are aligned. So churches that are tax exempt are under the rule of the ones who have given them this concession. Just as an example, House agrees to muzzle pastors with 'hate crimes' plan
http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/May01/0181.html

Of course this is just one of many things over the years that the government through the IRS and tax exempt statics has implemented. About 6 years ago I saw an ad in the newspaper warning pastors not to preach about the political candidates in their churches, this was sighed by the IRS. So if a church has a tax exempt statics how can they be preaching ALL of the Word of God.?

#2 it is also hard to find a church that adheres to the Word these days. They put questionable people in as pastors, sometimes there is no question to these people not being Godly according to the Bible.

The churches also do not follow the Bibles teaching on being debt free, all to become big program infested social centers. Now I know we need to reach different age groups and all of that is good, but when a church only wants numbers and is willing to go deeply in debt to achieve the goal. The Bible tells us to be in debt to no one, for those who we are in debt to become our master and we their slave. We can only serve one master.

The newest thing is Twittering at church.
http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/May06/0683.html It appears this is the new trend, call me old fashioned, but I can not hear the pastor if I am concentrating on twittering. This is not God's word being taught, it is a distraction. Now perhaps after service, it might be a good way to witness or help someone else.

The Bible says that in the end days that churches will fall away, they will be more concerned about not offending the people who attend, it will tickle their ears. I see it.

I would like a church that has not fallen away, but I don't see any that follow God's word in my neck of the woods. I know there are churches that are truly God's, they are not a government corporation. Oh I have heard all the reasons for incorporating, but I do not buy it. A corporation is something you get by asking permission to exist, once you ask permission and your granted said permission, with all the perks, you get to play by their rules.

I am thankful that my relationship with God does not depend on having a church to attend. I am thankful that what I have is faith and it is personal, not dependent on anyone else. I thank God for sending his Son, Jesus Christ to die for my sins, and that by accepting that fact through faith I have eternal life with God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If you would like to have the assurance of an eternity with God can pray this prayer.

Heavenly Father, thank you for sending your Son, Jesus Christ to die for my sins. I am a sinner Father and I ask your forgiveness and ask that Jesus would come into my life and cleanse me of sin. I know I fall short of your glory, but through Jesus I can have eternal life with you. Thank you Father, in Jesus Name. Amen.

If you have prayed this prayer, please let us know, so we can pray for you and help you on you walk with Him.

If you don't want to pray to accept Jesus, that is your choice and yours alone, no one is going to force you, you are free to make that choice. I just wish people would accept my rights too, and stop trying to take my right to religious freedom away. The trend is to silence Christians, so I am speaking up. I pray that the Holy Spirit will work today through this post.

In Jesus Name.

How Green Is Your Valley?

2009-05-06T15:27:00.000-07:00

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." That was Abraham Lincoln's opinion, anyway.

George Hull, competitor of Mr. P. T. Barnum, thought differently. "There's a sucker born every minute."

Maybe neither of them is far off the mark these days, at least when it comes to "green" ideas and the "global warming" controversy. Facts seem to be few and far between as environmentalists on both sides of the political arena push their agendas for changing the way America does business and how it lives and drives.

I don't think I have the energy today (wind or solar or ethanol) to argue the "global warming" controversy. Suffice it to say that evidence doesn't support Al Gore's campaign to make us believe that the earth is growing dangerously warm and we are all headed for doom.

No, today, I want to bring to light some facts about the "greening of America," facts which main stream media sources seem set on ignoring. One source for my information is Newsweek Magazine, anything but a left wing organ of news. Robert Samuelson wrote the article April 27, 2009, so it's almost hot off the press.

"Here's a typical claim, from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF):

" 'For about a dime a day [per person], we can solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save billions in imported oil.'

"This sounds too good to be true, because it is. About four-fifths of the world's and America's energy comes from fossil fuels—oil, coal, natural gas—which are also the largest source of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas. The goal is to eliminate fossil fuels or suppress their CO2. The bill now being considered in the House would mandate a 42 percent decline in greenhouse emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and an 83 percent drop by 2050."

A dime a day? Really? Who did the math on that one? If you read the entire article, you find that the projects for dropping the levels by that much are totally unrealistic, not to mention expensive and maybe impossible.

"One estimate done by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that meeting most transportation needs in 2050 with locally produced bio-fuels would require '500 million acres of U.S. land—more than the total of current U.S. cropland.' "

That's for one alternative, bio-fuel. Even Sen. Thune of SD, my own senator, says that half of SD farmers are invested in raising corn for ethanol, so it is a good idea. No, it isn't. Remember when your mother used to ask, "If Jane jumped off the roof, would you jump, too?" Just because farmers in SD are putting all their eggs in one basket doesn't mean it's a smart move! Ethanol isn't the answer, so keep looking for one.

The article concludes, "The selling of the green economy involves much economic make-believe. Environmentalists not only maximize the dangers of global warming—from rising sea levels to advancing tropical diseases—they also minimize the costs of dealing with it...."

And therein lie two really important reasons why we shouldn't rush into passing bills like the one being considered. We don't have enough information! Or we aren't looking at the information, when we do have it.

So what are some facts we could look into? How about we take a good look at Spain. Spain has invested a number of years, and billions of dollars in turning their country green. On March 27, Bloomberg.com reported on a study done by a Spanish professor at King Juan Carlos University (ranked 1189 in the world ~ compare Oxford at 11, University of AZ at 81, Harvard at 2 and Princeton at 9 ~ still a respectable top 14% of 8750 Universities world wide), Gabriel Calzada. A few days ago, Glenn Beck had him on to discuss his findings, as well. He's a very personable young man who speaks excellent English. There was no difficulty understanding what his study discovered.

Here are some facts the study uncovered in Spain:

For each green job, 2.2 jobs in other industries disappeared.

In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000....

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” Calzada said in an interview.

The reason I picked up on the interviews and Spain is that it is the country the greenies point to with pride. This is the example they say we should follow.

If you look up on Dogpile.com or Google.com and put in the search string "Cost of going green," you will find dozens of articles on how to turn yourself, your home, your car, and your business "environmentally responsible." You'll find very few offering the facts that go with making that choice.

People are *not* killing the earth. There were climate changes before people ever rose to power over the earth. There will be climate changes after we are gone on to other parts of the universe. I'm not saying don't recycle. I'm not saying don't use efficient appliances, or cars that provide better mileage. I am saying approach the "green" issue with caution and keep your eyes open. You could easily find yourself jumping off the roof right after Jane . . . er, Spain.

Right Wing Extremists

2009-05-02T12:59:00.000-07:00

A quick note to let you know that you can download the Dept. of Homeland Security's memo on signs of a right wing extremist and read it for yourself. This is a more detailed memo than the one which caused the brouhaha on April 7. There are .pdf download links in this Washington Times news article and in Raw Story's May 1 post.

See if you qualify.

100 Day Verdict

2009-05-02T11:58:00.001-07:00

So what's the nation's verdict on the first 100 days of the great Savior of America? There seems to be some difference of opinion on that. Let's see who says what.

U S News grades the stimulus package effectiveness. It says it's really too early to be sure, but . . . . You know when there's a but, there are weasel words coming.

A quote: "But there are some promising signs. Paychecks are receiving bumps from the Making Work Pay tax credit, and one major pot of funds—$53.6 billion in aid to states, 82 percent of which must be used for education—started flowing when California received nearly $4 billion in mid-April. Government officials also have reported that many projects are costing them less than expected, as contractors, crunched for cash, compete fiercely for the work."

Excuse me, but that last sounds like desperation, not success, to me. To be fair, the article does mention some problems. The speed of money being spent is too slow, in spite of the President's evaluation that "this government effort is coming in ahead of schedule and under budget."

"We're losing perspective about how much is actually getting accomplished," says Bill Gale, the director of the Brookings Institution's economic studies program. Well, yes, that would be a problem, wouldn't it?

Another quote: One change that critics would like to see is better systems to stop waste before it starts, rather than relying on investigations and other mechanisms that kick in after the spending occurs. David Walker, the former head of the GAO, says that this was a key lesson from the first bank bailout legislation passed under the Bush administration. "We wasted tens of billions of dollars because we didn't have clearly defined criteria, objectives, and conditions," says Walker, who now runs the fiscally conservative Peter G. Peterson Foundation. "We don't want the same thing to happen."

All in all, the article leaves the question of success on this issue totally open.

CBS News has an article about the first 100 days grades. You can see if you agree or disagree. "Today is President Obama's 100th day in office, and we asked The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, CBS News' chief political consultant, to grade the president's performance on a variety of policy areas." I have to disagree with much of it. I definitely wouldn't give Obama an A on World Affairs! Be sure to grade him yourself so you get a list of how others are seeing things. I was pleasantly surprised to see that he's not getting a pass on everything by everyone. It may actually reflect a fairly honest expression of citizen's opinions.

Rush Limbaugh explains why you can't give Obama an F now. It makes sense! A caller, who is an unemployed baker, made some interesting points. Limbaugh gives him a D, basically. Not a surprise there. At the foot of the page, there are links to articles in Newsmax, National Review, American Thinker and Heritage Foundation. Well worth taking a look.

If you understand economic speak, try CNBC's Mad Money article which analyzes the stock market response to what's happened in 100 days.

I obviously don't understand economic speak. After saying that the stocks we depend on as a hedge against recession are all down, and GM has lost 41% (which is supposed to be a good thing, because Obama is now going to let it fail - if you call Government ownership failure, which I actually do, but not "real" failure, not the kind of failure you and I would experience if our personal finances were as bad as GM's), and other negative indications, it says this.

"These factors combined are enough for Cramer to give President Obama two thumbs up for his first 100 days in office. Stocks are much better judge of performance, he said, than any pundit. And the message these stocks are sending is loud and clear." Well, not so much, to those of us who are looking at losing our investments right and left.

Peter Feaver in Shadow Government gives him and his team "a respectable B-." This is a foreign policy grade only. He does point out that certain things, Iraq for example, are not greatly different than the policies of Bush. I agree with that, but there's more to his foreign policy decisions than Iraq. However, he makes intelligent points for his view, and it's worth reading.

Campaign Spot gives an impressive 18 promises that have been broken in the first 100 days. Read them to see if you remember the promise, and see where it was broken. If you click on links, you may find more double-speak.

Time has an article which headlines Obama's "impressive performance" in the 100 days. Here are two quotes from that one. "His (Obama's) house built on rock had five pillars — new rules for Wall Street, new initiatives in education, alternative energy and health care, and eventually budget savings that would bring down the national debt . . . ." and, "The most important thing we now know about Barack Obama, after nearly 100 days in office, is that he means to confront that way of life directly and profoundly . . . ."

I think that's a fair balance on both sides of the question of how Obama did in his first 100 days. If you wonder how I chose the sites, I used dogpile with the search string "Grading Obama's 100 Days." Then I went down the list and picked the first ones which seemed to be actual news and not someone's blog, how to buy Obama's 100 days on bizrate, or something about grading in construction. Try the string for yourself to find more sites.

So why did I do this? I wanted to check my own temperature. See if I'm standing alone in the field, or if there are others out here on the fringe lunatic edge with me. (For those who had their sense of humor chip removed, that was a joke from a Bible-hugging, gun-toting, independent-voting, 'Don't Tread on Me'-loving, citizen.) It turns out that I'm not alone out here. Yay!

What's a Fair Tax?

2009-04-29T00:34:00.000-07:00

I had a note the other day from a friend who watches network news. She said she was confused by the tea parties. Didn't they (participants) understand they were getting a tax cut?

1) Yes, they did. 2) The tea parties weren't about taxes. They were about spending.

I tried to point out how I feel about taxes, and why it doesn't matter that I'm not among the wealthy paying the US tax bill, that I still don't think the system we have is "fair." Everyone talks about how unfair it is for the wealthy to have all that money. Really? They either inherited it, at a horrendous tax rate, or they earned it, also a horrendous tax rate. Why is it unfair that they have it? I thought that was the beauty of America ~ that anyone could be born anywhere and work their way up to millionaire.

But what about all those big corporations earning all that money? Way too much money? Folks, corporations are people. Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. A few months back, there was a loud cry against Exxon Mobil for "excessive" profits. Who defines excessive, by the way? You know who benefits from those profits? Thousands of retired people whose pensions are invested in those stocks. Do I want them to continue posting those excessive profits? You bet I do! Do I want them to continue to hire the hundreds or thousands of people who work in drilling, retail sales, refineries, credit offices and other businesses connected to the company, and others like them? You bet I do! When they prosper, so do the rest of us.

Here's the truth you won't read in The New York Times. The rich are *already* carrying our country! This is a perfect analogy that anyone can understand, put together by Glenn Beck's team:

"Imagine 24 eggs, each representing about 5.5 million American tax filers.

Six of those two dozen eggs pay 99 percent of all U.S. income taxes. (N.B. That means that 18 eggs, or 99,000,000 tax payers pay 1% - hmmmm, how is that fair?)

Four of those six eggs pay 91 percent of all U.S. income taxes.

And one egg — just one — pays 65 percent of all U.S. income taxes."

Do the math. Of 132,000,000 tax payers, 5,500,000 of the wealthiest are paying 65% of all income taxes. That's after all the deductions, loopholes and whatever else the tax preparers and lawyers can figure out. They are still carrying that burden, and it is a burden.

Or look at it this way, to make life even easier. And this is super simplified, and proportions may not be right, but just looking at it from a very simple point of view. Let's say that $100 is going to be paid in taxes in our village. Let's say 24 people are going to pay it.

In the example above. 1 person would pay $65 of the taxes. Three people would pay $8.67 each. Two people would pay $4 each. The other 18 people would owe a total, combined of $1. That means each of them would pay, about 5.5 cents.

Maybe you can look at that and think it is fair, because, after all, the person paying $65 makes a lot more than the people paying a nickel+. I look at it and wonder why the person paying $65 is hanging around the village. What does he need the other 23 people for? They are living off his production, his work and his ingenuity. We didn't even address the 24 people living in the village who pay no taxes whatsoever, but enjoy the benefit of the taxes others are paying.

Back to real life. I don't think it's fair that the extra $66 taxes I paid this year, over and above what was deducted from my income each month, goes right into the pocket of someone who pays no taxes whatsoever. They get something called a refund, based on tax credits. My question is how they can get a refund on $0 paid? The only way is by dipping into my pocket and stealing my production. That's either theft or welfare, whichever you choose to see.

I don't think it's fair that someone who has the ability to make millions and millions of dollars has 70% of their income taken away from them because someone else "needs" it. Because they make more and have more, what right do I have to dip into their pocket and take it?

To me, that's socialism, progressivism, maybe even communism. It sounds suspiciously like, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need." Sorry, I don't go for that. You earn it, you have a right to keep it.

There's no "social conscience" about it. It's yours. What I can make is mine. *I* get to choose which social institutions to help, whether it's battered women's shelters or saving the spotted owl.
The government's purpose is not to provide me with "services" -- free health care, for instance; government owned banks and auto manufacturers, for instance.

The purpose of government is to protect citizens from foreign threats and to provide those things needed by all states, such as interstate highways. Its purpose is to provide a simple system of laws by which we all can live, laws we can trust not to change with every change of the wind. Laws based on principles and basic common sense values, such as honesty.

Take a lesson from history. Look what happened to Rome when it taxed everyone to provide bread and circuses for the masses. Look what happened when the military was devalued and mercenaries were hired. Okay, we didn't get to mercenaries yet, but you can't think that saying our returning veterans are a hot bed of terrorist possibilities isn't devaluing, so we are on the road going in that direction.

What happened? The guy with the big elephants came over the mountains and took away everything! Taxes, bread and circuses, homes and safety, all of everything the Romans had. So who is waiting over the mountains with elephants to come take away ours?

FYI

2009-04-25T13:49:00.000-07:00

I wanted to bring to your attention some things of importance.

There is so much going on around us that it is hard to keep up. I am hoping you will go and read these items and take action where necessary. It boggles my mind when I see the evil that is being perpetrated upon this nation.

Thank you for taking the time to educate yourself on these issues, it is the only way we can fight against the evil that is overtaking in our country.

Tomorrow is Sunday, I ask that we each take time to pray for our country and our families. May God give us wisdom, may he remove our blinders, and give us courage to stand.

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

2009-04-22T23:33:00.000-07:00

Or his associates acting in his name. There seems to be a rabid distrust of government growing in our nation. It's been bad for a few years, but the last few months seem to have exacerbated the problem to gigantic proportions. What has caused this fast acceleration into distrust, and even fear, of our own government?

I think a lot of it is the unknown. We've elected a president who was unknown to most of America until less than a year ago. He didn't really define himself during the election. Other than being hailed as the first black president of the country, his popularity seemed to hang on his message of change and hope. It was never clearly defined what the change would be, or what we were hoping for, but 52% of America went for it at the polls.

Now we are past the 3 month mark in the presidency. We've seen things which trouble us, even if we weren't troubled before the election. We've seen crooks and tax dodgers given important positions. We've seen the first major act of the president run our debt to historic highs in a very short time, and we've seen bills on the table and voted in without anyone having a chance to read and digest them properly. What was the rush?

We've seen our president apologize for and denigrate our country, cozy up to our enemies, such as Hugo Chavez, and back away from our friends. We've seen an appalling lack of political protocol knowledge, pitiful gift giving, and a somewhat lower class of behavior and dress than I would expect to be shown by a President and First Lady of the most powerful nation on earth.

At the same time that those things are happening, we've seen a president who changes his mind every day on something he's said recently. A good description is flip-flopping. We still, after 3 months, don't know who our president is. We don't know what he stands for. It seems to change on a daily basis. I don't think that's the change we wanted, is it?

Am I against Obama? Not as a person. I give him the benefit of the doubt about wanting the best for our country. I wish he would think his positions through before making a statement to the press. I wish he had some pride and belief in our country, and our founding fathers. I wish he would just say what he believes in, or what he plans to do, specifically, instead of speaking in generalities which may be different tomorrow.

So, it's hard to know, hard to expect one thing or another from the president, or from his administration. This instability causes more distrust and fear. If there were nothing to hide, why would things keep being hidden?

We see misdirection: AIG is a case in point. What's the big deal about the bonuses that were already agreed to by the administration? $165,000,000 cast into the ring of violent rhetoric almost the same time that close to $1,000,000,000,000 is added to our debt. Yeah, drop in the bucket. So why was such a big to-do set up, including comments by the same president who knew in advance, and had okayed them in advance? Because that took our minds off the near-trillion dollars Congress was passing.

Another case is GM. Obama clearly stated that the government had no intention of running the car company. He made it sound like the government was offering no more than a bandaid. Then immediately, he fired the head of the company and put in one he liked. Then he guaranteed the warranties on the cars, and sent a White House team to GM to work out a new business plan. What do you want to bet GM will become the state-sponsored manufacturer of all those energy saving cars ~ the ones most Americans don't want? The ones that use bio-fuels which cost more energy to produce than the energy they can possibly provide. Yeah, no government intervention there.

A final example, though there are others, may be what he says about the rich and free-market enterprise. "I strongly believe in a free market system," he said in London after the G20 conference. "In America, at least, people don't resent the rich," he said. "They want to be rich. And that's good."

Other than a lot of government spending and rescuing (and I realize bailouts started with Bush, and I wasn't happy about them then, either), where's the action to back up the words? What has he done to prove that he feels that way? He wants the government to do more and more and more for its people, and that means the people will do less and less and less for themselves. If we look to the government to save us from everything, then what need is there for us to do anything?

Where are the tax incentives and other incentives to companies of all sizes to keep jobs in the USA? Where is the government getting out of the way and letting small business get on with the job of employing America and building its prosperity? All I see is more tax burden, more regulation, more government paperwork.

Who will pay for all that government? 100% of Americans, that's who. There won't be any of us who aren't paying for it, and suffering the burden of it. We can't expect the top 2% of money-makers to pay the whole bill. They don't make enough! In fact, right now, we can't pay off our debt, if we stopped spending one single penny for government.

So, why do we distrust our government? Because it lies and misdirects us, and not just the administrative branch. We keep electing people to represent us, and then they don't. We keep expecting people to do what they say, and then they don't. We keep expecting honesty of politicians, but then they aren't honest. Maybe it's not so surprising that there is a rising percentage of people who don't trust our government.

What I Learned From a Muslim

2009-04-21T11:13:00.000-07:00

Gail has invited me to do posts on the blog, so this morning I'd like to talk about the meaning and impact of the word "movement," as it relates to our political situation today. How does that relate to learning anything from a Muslim?

I've noticed a tendency for human beings to lump everyone into a category and call it good or call it bad, or even evil. I don't care for extremists, no matter what their religion, and I resent being called an extremist because I believe in my Constitutional rights. So I began looking for examples of Muslims who aren't extremists and terrorists, in order to keep my perspective on Islam. It isn't always an easy search, because extremists are so vocal and violent, and the mainstream Muslim population doesn't often stand up against them.

There is a woman in San Antonio who organizes protests against Muslim extremists, and she has been on Glenn Beck a couple of times in the past. There's also a man who is head of a Muslim organization who has been on Beck quite a few times, and these two are rational human beings who do decry the activities of violence by the Muslim terrorists.

I found a blog which is co-owned by two quilters, one a Muslim and one a Jew. That was a good beginning. As they said, if they could find common ground, maybe the rest of the populations of their countries could, too.

Yesterday, I found another, Eboo Patel. A couple of years ago, he wrote a book called Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation. I read all I could on the Amazon site for his book, and it sounded like something I needed to read, so I ordered it. Here's the thing I learned from him -- the meaning of "movement," politically.

"In a world where the forces that seek to divide us are strong, I came to one conclusion: We have to save each other. It's the only way to save ourselves." P. 180

"Movements re-create the world. A movement is a growing group of people who believe so deeply in a new possibility that they participate in making it a reality. They won't all meet. They won't even know everybody else's names. But somehow, they all have the feeling that people on the other side of the city or country or the world believe in the same idea, burn with the same passion, and are taking risks for the same dream." P. 181.

The minute I read this definition of movement, I thought of the tea parties of April 15, and the few before and after. What these people want to do is re-create the United States -- or perhaps it would be more accurate to say we'd like to return to what the United States once was. Re-create our nation as a Constitutional Republic.

Next defining sign is a "growing" group of people. Again, the tea party groups fit that. The number of people across the country who are dissatisfied with the growth of government and the move toward progressiveism, socialism, fascism, whatever ism you choose to describe where our government is going, is definitely getting larger by the day.

Do we believe that we can create a new possibility for this country? Yes, we do! We have the legal process in place in the Constitution. We need to move forward now, while we still have the Constitution to back us up. If our country goes to "TransNationalism," our Constitution has no meaning any longer. If the Supreme Court, whose job was designed to keep the Legislative and Executive branches in control, begins to look toward "global" society for it's mores and laws, then it is no longer able to do it's job. At that point, the Constitution is suspended, for all practical purposes. But we who believe in the Constitution, in legal protests, in rallies and uniting as a group to protest the things we don't want government to be, believe we can make a change at this point in history.

Before this, we were not united. We didn't realize how quickly things were moving in the wrong direction. We were busy with our lives, and not paying attention. It isn't about being Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, or any other party. It's about *people* who have come together to protest something we don't want -- bigger, nanny-state government.

I don't care what you call it, I don't want it. I want the government to get out of my way, and let me get on with living my life my way. The government doesn't have the right to tell me when to be charitable, or even that I need to be charitable. It doesn't have the right to try to make me feel guilty because I've worked all my life in order to support myself and my chosen way of life. It doesn't have the right to insist that my labor production is too much and needs to be given to those who haven't produced.

I'm not wealthy. I don't care which of the guidelines, and there are many, from the current administration you use, I don't fall into wealthy in any of them. I live on a pension, and whatever I've managed to save, which is now pretty much worthless thanks to the poor fiscal policy of the last ten years. Nevertheless, I don't want someone making a million dollars a year to be taxed to give me more than I was able to earn for myself. I don't deserve it! That person who earns it deserves it!

My pitiful amount of taxes paid should not be going to those who pay no taxes. When did our country stop letting people fail? What incentive is there to work and earn when the government will take care of you if you don't? It didn't work for the Soviet Union, and it isn't going to work for us. You want to see the future of America under this kind of thinking? Look at Cuba, touted this week as such a big success. You want to feel wealthy when you own a 30-year old car? You want to be afraid to voice your opinion about the government or your leaders? You want to be arrested in the middle of the night and never be seen again? Sorry, move to Cuba! I don't want any of that in my United States.

The thing the Tea Parties did, and which must scare the pants off the liberals because their media is still making fun of them, days after they are over, was show us Patel's last sign of a movement. There are people I will never meet, from all over this country, who feel the same way I do. They don't want what's happening in our government. The infamous CNN segment from Chicago with a so-called reporter and the dad with his two year old is a perfect example of the extremes the liberal media will go to in order to confuse watchers about the issues.

The "reporter" tried to shout down the dad, who was answering her question, by talking about his tax "cut" and being darned rude about it. They don't get it. It isn't about paying taxes so much as it is about spending the taxes we pay. It's about going into debt for trillions of dollars that we can't pay, our children can't pay, our grandchildren can't pay! We'll be lucky to pay the interest on a continuing basis.

Our country cannot survive under this debt burden. What's it going to do? Go into Chapter 7 or 11 bankruptcy? I don't think the debt-holders will go for that. Print more money? That doesn't work. The money has to be worth something, and the more you print, the less each dollar is worth. It's common sense, if anyone in Washington still has any, which I am beginning to doubt.

So listen up. We have a movement going here! And as I previously quoted Patel, "In a world where the forces that seek to divide us are strong, I came to one conclusion: We have to save each other. It's the only way to save ourselves."

Why is this Happening in the United States of America

2009-04-20T14:18:00.000-07:00

Why are these "agents" doing this to American citizens????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

If this does not piss you off................NOTHING WILL!!!!!!!!!

Do you think this is an isolated incident, THINK AGAIN.

AND DON'T GIVE ME...............He must have done something wrong....NO HE DID NOT!

Oh he should have just corperated.................NO AND HELL NO
JUST HOW DO YOU THINK THINGS GOT THIS WAY.

Let me share a story with you. First I am not as brave as Pastor Anderson, you will see I was part of the growing problem 3 years ago.

We (DH & I) were coming back to Ca. from Wy. for a load of furniture during our move. It happened to be hunting season, we go through the Ca. border check on the I15 just out of Barstow. We were hauling a large trailer and there was mud on the truck. So we stop and are asked if we had a good trip, well of course we said yes, cause it had been uneventfull. All of a sudden we are instructed to pull over to the check area. Huh?????? Next this game and fish agent wants to see in the back of our trailer. Why? "Well, you said you had been hunting" "No, I did not say that, I was not hunting, I said we had a good trip, we are moving." So they automaticly decided because we said we had a good trip that we got a deer. Never tried to carify that we had been hunting. At this point they did not care to hear our words, they just wanted to see in the trailer. In front of us ATF agents are rifling through a guys rifles (why?, what are they doing going through his rifles?). Why are there ATF agents at a produce check point?????? Now Kirk, was going to tell them no, but I freeked (knowing we had a gun under the seat) told him to let them see, so he let them see our empty trailer and toilet (sawdust) that was in the back. As one of the blank-blanks walked past our ice chest he opened and looked in.

WHAT IF WE HAD SAID NO.......we would have gone through the same type of thing.............this was 3 years ago.........think how more brazin they have become. The video of this pastors experience is an example. I am ashamed to say, I gave into the fear.

My hat is off to Pastor Anderson, thank you for making a stand. Our prayers are with you. You are the kind of Pastor we need, the kind of American we need and the kind of man we need. I pray God will give me the same kind of strength He has given you.

Think this can't happen to YOU..........think again.

When will we take a stand? When will we say no more? When will we stop listening to paid talking heads that keep trying to tell us.....write letters, go through the courts.....ya da, ya da, ya da....
WHEN????????

YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE

Movies

2009-04-19T06:40:00.000-07:00

Let us talk about movies for this first post. I think once you have read this you will know where this blog is leading.

Movie 1: The Matrix. If you have not seen this movie you should. You will learn from this movie if you have swallowed the blue pill or the red pill. Do you live in a fantasy world or do you see reality?

Movie 2: Braveheart. Another move that should be seen by all so one can understand the burning question, are you a William Wallas or a Noble?

Movie 3: Patriot. This movie will help you understand what price was paid for you to choose as you do.

Depending on what you have learned from the first three movies, possible future outcomes of a wrong choice.

Movie 4: Minority Report. Think this can't happen?
Movie 5: Schindler's List. Think it can't happen again, it is happening!

I am amazed at what we can learn from real movies if we will only see what the maker is trying to tell us.

Movie 6: America Freedom to Fascism. We are living this one, bet you have not seen it.

So are you part of the problem? OR Are you part of the solution?

Note: All comments will be monitored, no flaming allowed. You don't have to agree, it is your right to express your opinion, I am expressing mine........IT IS MY RIGHT.