I saw a picture today of Hillary Clinton with a large banner on the wall behind her that proclaims “Shared Prosperity”.
During her speech under that banner, she proudly proclaimed that she “would help the nation overcome economic disparities”.
I view these and other statements by her as additional indications of Hillary Clinton’s desire for a socialist state. Her socialist goals at one time seemed to be limited to socialized medicine. Now it seems equally clear that she endorses the re-distribution of wealth as well.
How else to overcome economic disparities?
Hillary believes (or at least she thinks it will get her elected if she makes people “think” she believes) that everyone should make the same amount of money. Since there is no way that billions of people will do what it takes to “earn” the same amount of money, the only possible way to achieve her goal is to take it from those who earn it, and give it to those who don’t. Redistribution of wealth.
Hillary apparently believes that wealth is a bad thing . . . . unless everyone can be wealthy. Socialism resolves this dilemma by insuring that no one can become wealthy. The historical exception to this rule is those in power who decide how wealth should be distributed.
The redistribution of wealth can be accomplished in a couple of ways:
The Government decides how much wealth individuals or families or groups can earn.
The Government redistributes money from earners to non-earners through subsidized government run programs that only the earners contribute to and only the non-earners benefit from.
Socialism doesn’t work. Anyone who gives 5 minutes of unprejudiced thought to the concept can see that. If a hard worker can only earn as much as a non-worker, what will the outcome be? Will the non-worker start working harder? Hell no. Eventually the hard worker will decide to stop being the fool and will slow down to match the efforts of the non-worker! Production goes down, and entrepreneurial efforts become non existent.
The overall result is that the economic disparity gets eliminated. Everyone becomes equally poor. Except those who control the governments power!
Of course, Hillary and other socialists ignore the plain, simple fact that economic disparity is a good thing. It proves that those who are willing to work for it, and to do the things that are required (like getting an education, working hard, working smart, and making the right choices), can excel. This opportunity to excel is what drives productivity, creativity and . . . . . the American dream!
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Jimmy Carter - Still a Buffoon!
In Ireland last week, Jimmy Carter, the professional ex-president, showed the world that he is still an incompetent ass. During an address, Carter called “criminal” Americas decision to withhold funding from the murderous terrorists called hamas. He bad mouthed the U.S. and the E.U. for supporting the Abbas regime over this well known terrorist group. He made these moronic statements just after the world watched how Hamas murdered unarmed fellow Palestinians “execution style” in the Streets of Gaza.
I’m not sure which actions illustrate the worst kind of sickness; the cold blooded execution of those who don’t agree with your terrorist tactics, or the mindless support given to these murderers by an ineffective, gutless and irrelevant ex-president.
Jimmy Carter presided over the most ineffective administration in history. The defining moment of his presidency happened when radical Iranian university students stormed the U.S. embassy and took over 50 American hostages. Carter did nothing. For 444 days, Carter did nothing. (The only exception was a failed rescue attempt that was aborted while the participants were still in the dessert. Eight Americans died in a tragic accident after the mission was aborted). Now, one of the leaders of the radical students who held those hostages and faced down Carter, is the president of Iran. He regularly calls for the annihilation of Israel and is diligently producing Nuclear capabilities. Under this man’s leadership, Iran is now the biggest threat this world knows.
And true to form, Jimmy Carter apparently still advocates placating terrorists.
I’m not sure which actions illustrate the worst kind of sickness; the cold blooded execution of those who don’t agree with your terrorist tactics, or the mindless support given to these murderers by an ineffective, gutless and irrelevant ex-president.
Jimmy Carter presided over the most ineffective administration in history. The defining moment of his presidency happened when radical Iranian university students stormed the U.S. embassy and took over 50 American hostages. Carter did nothing. For 444 days, Carter did nothing. (The only exception was a failed rescue attempt that was aborted while the participants were still in the dessert. Eight Americans died in a tragic accident after the mission was aborted). Now, one of the leaders of the radical students who held those hostages and faced down Carter, is the president of Iran. He regularly calls for the annihilation of Israel and is diligently producing Nuclear capabilities. Under this man’s leadership, Iran is now the biggest threat this world knows.
And true to form, Jimmy Carter apparently still advocates placating terrorists.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Democrats and the war in Iraq
Its the beginning of Memorial Day weekend. The democrats in congress just caved into Bush's demand for funding with no outside interference attached to it. While I'm sure it was a humbling experience for the dems initially, their overwhelming arrogance quickly took over again.
The dems are now vowing to continue to interfere by holding constant votes against Bush and against our efforts in Iraq. Just like the immature little punks these people really are, they will continue to be obstructionists, and continue to undermine our efforts, all the while continuing to falsely proclaim support for the troops.
This Memorial Day its time to get honest! These people DO NOT support our troops. They have simply swarmed over a "cause celeb" like a pile of maggots and they intend to milk it for all they can. By claiming to believe that their actions do not harm our troops or our their efforts, they are clearly showing how stupid and ignorant they think the American voters are.
In truth, they know exactly how damaging their actions are to the troops and to their efforts. They simply don't give a damn because they are convinced that the voters are unable to think beyond the lies they feed them.
Unfortunately, they're probably right to a large degree.
I'm gonna spend Memorial Day with some REAL Americans. Veterans, and active duty personnel. At the same time, I'll avoid thinking of these phony Americans in congress as much as possible.
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!
The dems are now vowing to continue to interfere by holding constant votes against Bush and against our efforts in Iraq. Just like the immature little punks these people really are, they will continue to be obstructionists, and continue to undermine our efforts, all the while continuing to falsely proclaim support for the troops.
This Memorial Day its time to get honest! These people DO NOT support our troops. They have simply swarmed over a "cause celeb" like a pile of maggots and they intend to milk it for all they can. By claiming to believe that their actions do not harm our troops or our their efforts, they are clearly showing how stupid and ignorant they think the American voters are.
In truth, they know exactly how damaging their actions are to the troops and to their efforts. They simply don't give a damn because they are convinced that the voters are unable to think beyond the lies they feed them.
Unfortunately, they're probably right to a large degree.
I'm gonna spend Memorial Day with some REAL Americans. Veterans, and active duty personnel. At the same time, I'll avoid thinking of these phony Americans in congress as much as possible.
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!
Monday, May 7, 2007
Monkey - no, Activist - no, Monkey!
A Vienna Based animal rights group (Association against Animal Factories) has petitioned the courts in Austria to have a chimpanzee declared a “person”.
While I am convinced that this 26 year old chimp (named Hiasl) is probably a lot more intelligent than the morons who are promoting this absurdity, to the rest of us non-chimps this is an extreme example of the unlimited absurdity of which man is capable.
Supposedly the reason for this request is so that the chimp may legally receive financial gifts, which in Vienna, is a right apparently reserved for human beings. Apparently the shelter where Hiasl currently resides may go bankrupt. As is typical with most professional “activists”, they act emotionally . . . . . stupidly, and they don’t consider alternative or logical scenarios.
Hiasl will never live on his own (he really isn’t human – he’s a chimp). If he enjoys the standard chimp life span, he’ll spend the next 30 years or so in this, or some other shelter. So, there is absolutely no need for direct, personal financial gifts to Hiasl. If someone wants to support this chimp, they would donate to the shelter . . . . not to the chimp. Just like they have been doing for Hiasl since 1982!
If that isn't good enough . . . . . go ahead and contribute illegally! How bad can the punishment be for illegal monkey donating?
But being professional “activists”, these people(?) want the monkey to be declared a “person”. As if that is a simple (let alone sane) thing to do! Presumably as a “person”, the monkey would have all of the rights and responsibilities of a “person”:
He would have the right to live free . . . on his own, wherever he wished or could afford.
He could drive any car he can afford to buy with all the charitable gifts he’d be eligible to receive. He would have control over how those gifts are used.
He could marry another “person” (although I would seriously question whether his “mate” should qualify for that distinction either).
He could be arrested for defecating (and tossing) in public (if that sort of thing is against the law in Vienna).
He would serve jury duty, receive welfare, declare the “M” word as being politically incorrect, and sue any employer who required clothing for discrimination.
And of course, it wouldn’t just be Hiasl. Any such declaration would include all chimps. Since forced imprisonment of “persons” is probably against the law in Vienna, all chimps would be set free immediately.
In the end, I’d like to see a compromise. Set the chimps free but put animal rights activists in cages.
While I am convinced that this 26 year old chimp (named Hiasl) is probably a lot more intelligent than the morons who are promoting this absurdity, to the rest of us non-chimps this is an extreme example of the unlimited absurdity of which man is capable.
Supposedly the reason for this request is so that the chimp may legally receive financial gifts, which in Vienna, is a right apparently reserved for human beings. Apparently the shelter where Hiasl currently resides may go bankrupt. As is typical with most professional “activists”, they act emotionally . . . . . stupidly, and they don’t consider alternative or logical scenarios.
Hiasl will never live on his own (he really isn’t human – he’s a chimp). If he enjoys the standard chimp life span, he’ll spend the next 30 years or so in this, or some other shelter. So, there is absolutely no need for direct, personal financial gifts to Hiasl. If someone wants to support this chimp, they would donate to the shelter . . . . not to the chimp. Just like they have been doing for Hiasl since 1982!
If that isn't good enough . . . . . go ahead and contribute illegally! How bad can the punishment be for illegal monkey donating?
But being professional “activists”, these people(?) want the monkey to be declared a “person”. As if that is a simple (let alone sane) thing to do! Presumably as a “person”, the monkey would have all of the rights and responsibilities of a “person”:
He would have the right to live free . . . on his own, wherever he wished or could afford.
He could drive any car he can afford to buy with all the charitable gifts he’d be eligible to receive. He would have control over how those gifts are used.
He could marry another “person” (although I would seriously question whether his “mate” should qualify for that distinction either).
He could be arrested for defecating (and tossing) in public (if that sort of thing is against the law in Vienna).
He would serve jury duty, receive welfare, declare the “M” word as being politically incorrect, and sue any employer who required clothing for discrimination.
And of course, it wouldn’t just be Hiasl. Any such declaration would include all chimps. Since forced imprisonment of “persons” is probably against the law in Vienna, all chimps would be set free immediately.
In the end, I’d like to see a compromise. Set the chimps free but put animal rights activists in cages.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Career Politicians. Do we need 'em?
Regardless of which party you are generally affiliated with, wouldn’t it be great if we could weed out all the scum bags? All political parties have them. Typically, they are the career politicians. The ones who have been around so long that they think they answer to no one. These are the professional liars, the accomplished thieves, the elite egomaniacs, the gluttonous power mongers, and those who believe that their family’s wealth makes them special.
Why do we keep voting these parasites into office?
One reason is that the longer we keep these slobs in Washington, the more powerful they become. This often translates into more pork spending in their home states/districts. So, in the current environment, it may actually be in the people’s best interest to keep sending the most dishonorable and selfish individual they can dig up to congress.
A good friend of mine recently suggested that I should stop just complaining about things on this blog and to offer my suggested solution(s) to the problem as well. Okay, here goes . . .
The answer: . . . . . . . . term limits!
Congress likes to talk about how important they are. Whenever they feel that their relevance is being questioned or tested, they turn absolutely rabid. Just like the President, and for the same reasons, members of congress should be subject to term limits. Their positions are simply too important, and too subject to abuse, not to impose mandatory term limits.
With term limits, no congressman or senator would be around long enough to become quite so self-important and corrupt.
With term limits, voters won’t be so anxious to elect the least honorable candidate.
With term limits, there will never again be an “old boys” network controlling Washington.
Of course, it’s not your state, or my state that elects these scum bags. Term limits will protect the rest of us from the slovenly apathy of those states that do.
One sure way of identifying the truly dishonorable members of congress is to ask them about term limits. Those who vehemently disagree with term limits “because it’s not good for the people of their state/district” . . . . . are the worst of the lot and need to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
Think Term Limits!
Why do we keep voting these parasites into office?
One reason is that the longer we keep these slobs in Washington, the more powerful they become. This often translates into more pork spending in their home states/districts. So, in the current environment, it may actually be in the people’s best interest to keep sending the most dishonorable and selfish individual they can dig up to congress.
A good friend of mine recently suggested that I should stop just complaining about things on this blog and to offer my suggested solution(s) to the problem as well. Okay, here goes . . .
The answer: . . . . . . . . term limits!
Congress likes to talk about how important they are. Whenever they feel that their relevance is being questioned or tested, they turn absolutely rabid. Just like the President, and for the same reasons, members of congress should be subject to term limits. Their positions are simply too important, and too subject to abuse, not to impose mandatory term limits.
With term limits, no congressman or senator would be around long enough to become quite so self-important and corrupt.
With term limits, voters won’t be so anxious to elect the least honorable candidate.
With term limits, there will never again be an “old boys” network controlling Washington.
Of course, it’s not your state, or my state that elects these scum bags. Term limits will protect the rest of us from the slovenly apathy of those states that do.
One sure way of identifying the truly dishonorable members of congress is to ask them about term limits. Those who vehemently disagree with term limits “because it’s not good for the people of their state/district” . . . . . are the worst of the lot and need to be gotten rid of as soon as possible.
Think Term Limits!
Monday, April 30, 2007
The Military vs. the Democratic Congress
Okay, so the Dem’s have officially done it. They have clearly demonstrated that they are willing to send our troops into harms way, and to support them only for as long as they are comfortable with doing so. When it becomes politically expedient to do so, they will kind of say “never mind” and just call the whole thing off, regardless of the lives lost, the sacrifices made, and regardless of the dire consequences of failure.
Until the next time.
How many times can the liberals in congress do this to our military and still have a military that we can depend on? How will congress ever be able to justify sending troops into harms way . . . anywhere in the world . . . for any reason . . . ever again?
Why should our military ever trust these career politicians to support them and their mission?
Why shouldn’t our military act like congress and think of themselves rather than thinking of our nation?
Maybe the military should require that members of congress sign a contract, swearing to support them 100% to the end, before agreeing to fighting their next war for them. Such a contract would need to include severe personal financial repercussions for failing to meet these terms.
At the very least, why shouldn’t our military men and women, who are infinitely better, smarter, and more honorable human beings than those in congress, demand the same pay and pension – or even more – than the failures who sit in congress?
Better yet, why don’t we the people of America, show the military that we support THEM, not congress. We can do that by voting these scum bags out of office. We can show the military that they can count on us for a change. We can show them that we won’t tolerate politicians who abuse them and who put their political agenda above our military and above our nation’s best interest.
Until the next time.
How many times can the liberals in congress do this to our military and still have a military that we can depend on? How will congress ever be able to justify sending troops into harms way . . . anywhere in the world . . . for any reason . . . ever again?
Why should our military ever trust these career politicians to support them and their mission?
Why shouldn’t our military act like congress and think of themselves rather than thinking of our nation?
Maybe the military should require that members of congress sign a contract, swearing to support them 100% to the end, before agreeing to fighting their next war for them. Such a contract would need to include severe personal financial repercussions for failing to meet these terms.
At the very least, why shouldn’t our military men and women, who are infinitely better, smarter, and more honorable human beings than those in congress, demand the same pay and pension – or even more – than the failures who sit in congress?
Better yet, why don’t we the people of America, show the military that we support THEM, not congress. We can do that by voting these scum bags out of office. We can show the military that they can count on us for a change. We can show them that we won’t tolerate politicians who abuse them and who put their political agenda above our military and above our nation’s best interest.
The Darfur Dilemma
One can’t help but feel terribly sorry for the people of the Darfur region. Their current situation is bleak at best, and their future seems even darker. I’m at a loss however to understand the goals and objectives of the various Darfur related protests around the country.
There was one in Philadelphia this past weekend that drew a couple hundred people. A few protestors got their picture in the local paper, they tied up traffic for some time while marching, many got to show off the latest fashion in picket signs. But I have yet to read anything that explains just what these folks want done about Darfur? What was the purpose of the protest? To do what?
If the only answer to this is “to raise awareness”, then the protest was an apparent failure. I doubt that anyone heard about the Darfur tragedy for the first time because of this (or any other) protest. Many people protest in order to feel good about themselves. One protestor was quoted as saying “I look forward to these marches,” she said. “they make me feel better as a human, as a global citizen.” If any of the protestors was helped in this way, then good for you. At least something was achieved.
Aside from that, I just can’t see what it is these folks expect to be done. They say they want the suffering stopped, but they never suggest how . . . . . except those who claim that turning money over to them is the answer! How do these people propose stopping all of this suffering? Apparently, the targets of their message are us Americans. More specifically, Philadelphians! So what do they expect us Americans/Philadelphians to do? Maybe they just want everyone to protest. Maybe they think that protests are the way to stop the genocide that occurs everyday in Darfur. Maybe the protestors think those mass murderers have a conscience!
The plain truth is that these murderers will be stopped only one way, by force. I know that and so do most (if not all) of the protestors. They desperately want this to happen. They just don’t have the nerve to say it, because these are many of the same people who protest our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference here is that Darfur is “their cause.” But of course, they would prefer to send troops there from other nations. That way it won’t be our spouses and children who get killed. And as sure as the sun rises in the east, they would be protesting again to pull our troops out of Darfur . . . . . just as soon as an appropriate number was killed.
So I suggest leading by example instead of by your mouths. You know what has to be done in order to stop the terror in Darfur. Go do it.
There was one in Philadelphia this past weekend that drew a couple hundred people. A few protestors got their picture in the local paper, they tied up traffic for some time while marching, many got to show off the latest fashion in picket signs. But I have yet to read anything that explains just what these folks want done about Darfur? What was the purpose of the protest? To do what?
If the only answer to this is “to raise awareness”, then the protest was an apparent failure. I doubt that anyone heard about the Darfur tragedy for the first time because of this (or any other) protest. Many people protest in order to feel good about themselves. One protestor was quoted as saying “I look forward to these marches,” she said. “they make me feel better as a human, as a global citizen.” If any of the protestors was helped in this way, then good for you. At least something was achieved.
Aside from that, I just can’t see what it is these folks expect to be done. They say they want the suffering stopped, but they never suggest how . . . . . except those who claim that turning money over to them is the answer! How do these people propose stopping all of this suffering? Apparently, the targets of their message are us Americans. More specifically, Philadelphians! So what do they expect us Americans/Philadelphians to do? Maybe they just want everyone to protest. Maybe they think that protests are the way to stop the genocide that occurs everyday in Darfur. Maybe the protestors think those mass murderers have a conscience!
The plain truth is that these murderers will be stopped only one way, by force. I know that and so do most (if not all) of the protestors. They desperately want this to happen. They just don’t have the nerve to say it, because these are many of the same people who protest our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference here is that Darfur is “their cause.” But of course, they would prefer to send troops there from other nations. That way it won’t be our spouses and children who get killed. And as sure as the sun rises in the east, they would be protesting again to pull our troops out of Darfur . . . . . just as soon as an appropriate number was killed.
So I suggest leading by example instead of by your mouths. You know what has to be done in order to stop the terror in Darfur. Go do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)