Monday, May 25, 2015

Get your opinion out there!

­­­Presidential, Congressional, and Senatorial elections are looming in the year 2016 when many issues will be raised. We as part of the electorate must make our voices heard. Do we know the country’s and the world’s needs? I feel the nation should be concerned with effective elimination or control of terror.
We heard Obama claim that by the end of his term the national debt will not be an issue. Is that true? We hear the economy is doing well. But there are fewer percent of the workers employed. Our amount of dollars consumed by health care is larger than ever, and Medicaid is well beyond its intent. The Affordable Care Act seems to be a lie that no one read.
 In a china shop; if you break it you bought it.  Many will say that G. W. Bush should have not gone into Iraq. Most of our congress voted yes. If we broke the Mid-east, we have responsibilities for our actions and actions against us. Japan’s objective was control of the Pacific not invasion of the United States mainland. Hitler wanted control of Europe. Picture the world today if we approached Ja­­­­­pan and Germany in the manner we are diddling in the Mideast. What should or will the U.S. do while the Mideast continues to suffer? We have one and a half years remaining? Maybe Mrs. Clinton will explain Benghazi by 2016.

Thursday, May 21, 2015


Free Ride ,,,WOW!
This is sad news  
Follow these proven steps.
1.  Don't get married to her.
2.  Use your mom's address for your mail.
3.  The guy buys a house.
4.  Guy rents out house to his girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.
5.  Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom house.
6.  Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare, so guy doesn't have to pay out the butt for family insurance.
7.  Girlfriend gets to go to college for free being a single mother.
8.  Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps.
9.  Girlfriend gets free cell phone.
10. Girlfriend gets free utilities.
11. Guy moves into house, but uses mom's house to get mail.
12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes.
 Now you both get to claim head of house hold at $1800 credit.
13. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1800 a month and never has to work again.
 This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people.   
 A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars.    
 An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets...
 $21,600  disability +
$10,800  free housing +
  $6,000  free obamacare +
  $6,000  free food +
  $4,800  free utilities +
  $6,000  Pell Grant money to spend +
$12,000  a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant +
  $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother
$75,000 a year in benefits
Now you know why the country is 18 + trillion in debt, and your children will pay the price!

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Why does the Left Kowtow to Islam?

...This raises a big question, one of the great paradoxes of our era. Why is it that a large segment of left has embraced a code of appeasing "sensitivity" toward Islam--when they are its obvious next victims? Why do they wring their hands over "microagressions," while urging us not to provoke people who execute homosexuals and throw acid in women's faces?

You might suspect that the question answers itself. They kowtow to Islam precisely because it is a real threat, a macroaggression that trumps all of the microaggressions. So you could say that it is simple cowardice. They protest against people they know are extremely unlikely to harm them, and they shut up about the fanatics who might actually follow through on their threats.

But I don't think that's the fundamental cause. After all, most lefties are not being called upon to take any personal risk, because somebody else has already stuck his neck out. Drawing or publishing a cartoon of Mohammed might get you put on an al-Qaeda hit list. Simply saying that you support the cartoonist's defiance of that threat won't get you on anybody's list.

In fact, a running theme of the left's arguments, repeated with a great deal of apparent sincerity, is the notion that it is irrational to fear Islam, that describing the religion as violent and dangerous is "Islamophobia." They seem to have largely talked themselves into believing that they have nothing personally to fear from Islam. Jihadists may throw gays off of buildings in Syria, but it can't happen here.

This is nonsense, of course, but it is revealing of the mindset. They actually talk themselves into believing that "censorship of LGBT artists" is an equal or even greater threat, far more urgent than anything having to do with Islam. For the left, the main source of evil in the world always comes from within America and from within the West, never outside of it....

The point is that the left doesn't kowtow to Islam because they actually love Islam, but rather because they hate our own culture. They have been steeped in a narrative about how American and Western culture is racist and "imperialist," and they've been trained to see anyone with a dark complexion and a non-Western origin as the victim of our crimes. When they see criticism of Islam, or deliberate attempts to defy Islam, they filter it through that narrative. They see it as: there go those bigoted right-wing Christians, demeaning dark-skinned foreigners again. So they reflexively oppose it.

See the rationale offered by the writers who protested the PEN award given to Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine whose staff was murdered by jihadists early this year. If ever anyone was a martyr for free speech, they were. But the PEN writers denounced the award as "cultural intolerance" which showed a "blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation, which does not recognize its moral obligation to a large and disempowered segment of their population." Leftist icon Garry Trudeau declared that "by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech." So, as one of the writers put it, this is not something for Americans "to be self-righteous about."

This is shallow and condescending. Equating the Charlie Hebdo murderers with a "disenfranchised minority" of French Muslims implies that all Muslims are terrorists, which is precisely what we're told we're not supposed to think. Meanwhile, Bosch Fawstin, the illustrator of the winning cartoon at the Garland event, is an ex-Muslim of Albanian descent. And when leftists validate a Muslim prohibition against offensive cartoons, they think they are denouncing Western provocateurs like Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders; instead, they are selling out people like Atena Farghadani, a young woman imprisoned in Iran for drawing cartoons considered insulting to the Islamist regime.

But anyone who knows the left knows that the narrative, once established, is nearly impossible to kill. It must be preserved because it serves as a source of personal identity and moral authority. In fact, you can pretty much ignore everything and skip right to that last quote from the PEN protest, because it's what everything else is really about: that America should not believe in its own rightness. The left seeks to gain moral authority, not from what they are for, but from what they are against. If you look at the history of the left, you find that they have frequently changed their favorite causes and their vision of the ideal society, often in ways that are wildly contradictory. But the one thing that remains constant is what they oppose.

The left used to present themselves as hyper-industrial and super-technological. In H.G. Wells's The Shape of Things to Come, the ideal future society was going to be ruled by a technological elite of airplane pilots, while the Soviets projected a grandiose vision of industrial giantism, with huge hydroelectric dams, steel mills, railroads, and chunky Bakelite telephones. Then the left flipped, and now they're anti-industrial and their central crusades are to shut down power plants and to eat locally grown organic kale. You can frequently catch them making this flip in mid-conversation, as with an acquaintance I was talking to recently who expressed his concern for the plight of the poor under capitalism--and then a few minutes later, after I argued that hundreds of millions of people across the world have been lifted out of poverty by capitalism, he told me that Western affluence is overrated and destroys the environment. Everyone on the right has, at some point, had a conversation exactly like this, and it is maddening.

Or: if you go back and look at early 20th-century Progressivism, you will find it shot through with racism of the pseudo-scientific sort--Progressive icon Woodrow Wilson introduced segregation in the federal government--along with schemes for eugenics and a generally uncomplimentary view of homosexuals. Yet today's Progressives claim the opposite position on these issues as one of their central virtues. Or: the left will champion insults to Christianity as so essential to free speech that they must be funded by the government--then regard insults to Islam as so inflammatory that they must be banned as "fighting words."

So everything changes, but one thing stays the same. Capitalism is bad, the West is bad, America is vicious and corrupt and needs to be fundamentally transformed. Transformed into what? That's always vague and subject to change without notice, and ultimately it doesn't matter.

The left is fundamentally reactionary. It is a reaction against capitalism and against America. The left are defined by what they are against, or more accurately who they hate. So they are drawn to sympathy toward Islam because it is not-us: non-Western, non-American, neither Christian nor a product of the Enlightenment. And I guess that's what the two ideologies have in common: they are both reactions against the supposed evils of the West. Which explains why leftists tend to find themselves uncomfortable and look for excuses to retreat when they are called upon to defend the West against this rival group of reactionaries.

The only corrective is to start over again from a very different starting point. Anyone who wants "progress" ought to start by asking how we achieved any in the first place. That would require some extended meditation on the virtues of the West, an appreciation of its achievements, an understanding of the ideas and values behind them--and a touch of self-righteousness that makes us too proud to kowtow to the enemies of those ideals.

...Read more at The Tracinski Letter

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Voices Needed!

What do you think is a need.

We are fast approaching the next round of Presidential, Congressional, and Senatorial elections. During the next year and half we will hear all sort of issues raised. We as part of the electorate should have our voices heard. What is it that we are interested in? 
I feel the nation should be concerned with effective control of terror. Overall economy improvement.

This will require governments to remove themselves from the job market. We need services but do we need ineffective methods of control. How many people work for our Departments of Revenue, local, state and federal? We pay taxes to collect taxes.

For job creation we need to reduce the drain of giveaway spending without destruction of safety net programs. Our national debt must be dealt with. The conflict is a stronger dollar will drain manufacturing jobs from our country. Other nations need to strengthen their economies.

Return of state, local and family control and responsibilities, such as education. Subsidies to education have created colleges and schools that are consuming our finances and draining the moral position of the family. We hear the politicians beating the drums for better education. We seldom hear that parents are the first line or responsibility with regard to education. Crime starts with the education of moral values, which begin in the home. Racism is not the bailiwick of politicians but the moral education in the home. We have come a long distance from the birth of civilization, morality continues to be the method or steps to overcoming hate and bigotry. Every step our governments take to control an issue seems to create reactions that cause reactions that are counter to intent. Many will say that G. W. Bush should have not gone into Iraq. An age old rule is if you break it you bought it. It seems we are forgetting to pay for it. We are trying to pull out by making small payments. We have responsibilities for our actions.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Sunday, May 3, 2015

Is this the name to watch?

Fiorina Has Hillary Defenders Worried fullscreen Fiorina at CPAC. (Nicholas Kamm/Getty) 
 A long parade of presidential contenders presented themselves before a convention of New Hampshire Republicans this weekend. But only one was a former top business executive, and only one was a woman, and they were the same candidate. Carly Fiorina is no doubt getting attention because of her unique background, but more and more people are staying to listen because she has something fresh to say. “For the first time in U.S. history, we are destroying more businesses than we are creating,” Fiorina told her audience in Nashua. “The weight of the government is literally crushing the potential of the people of this nation.” Electing standard-issue politicians will no longer do, she said. “Managers are people who do the best they can within the existing system. Leaders are people who do not accept what is broken just because it has been that way for a long time.” Fiorina also seems to relish the role of being the most pointed critic of Hillary Clinton. “She tweets about women’s rights in this country and takes money from governments that deny women the most basic human rights,” she jabbed back in February when a scandal involving the Clinton Foundation surfaced. She contrasts her background as a “problem solver” with Clinton’s record as a professional politician. Her critique of Clinton’s record is withering: “I come from a world where speeches are not accomplishments. Activity isn’t accomplishment. Title isn’t accomplishment. I come from a world where you have to actually do something; you have to produce results.”

Read more at:

Sunday, April 26, 2015


The following is old and has not been checked in SNOPES. IT is posted here because the questions are valid at least in the level of who knew him, dated him or where are his photographs?
"This (is claimed to have) came from a  union guy in Chicago who didn't vote for Obama.
   Very,  very interesting  perspective that I never thought of in this light.                                        -------------------   

    It will be  interesting to see what they put in his Presidential  Library" about his early  years when he is out of office.   
  In a country where  we take notice of many, many facets of our  public figures' lives,  doesn't seem odd that there's so little we know  about our current  president, Barack Obama.
For example, we  know that Andrew Jackson 's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery; Abe Lincoln never  went to school; Jack Kennedy wore a back brace; Harry  Truman played the piano.
    As Americans, we  enjoy knowing details about our news-makers, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the  history of our own president.
      We are all aware  of the lack of incontestable birth records for  Obama; that document  managing has been spectacularly  successful.
There are however,  several additional oddities in Obama's history  that appear to be as well managed as the birthing issue.
    One other  interesting thing... 
There are no birth certificates of his daughters that can be found  ?  
  It's interesting  that no one who ever dated him has shown up.  The charisma that  caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during  his campaign,  certainly would in the normal course of events,   lead  some lady to come forward,  if only to garner some attention for herself.    We  all know about JFK's  magnetism, that McCain was no monk and quite a  few details about  Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess,   Joe Biden's aneurisms  are no secret;  look at Cheney and Clinton, we all  know about their heart  problems. Certainly Wild Bill Clinton's  exploits before and during  his White House years, were well known.  That's  why it's so odd that  not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was  soooo shy..." or "What a  great dancer..."
    It's virtually  impossible to know anything about this  fellow.
Who was the best  man at his wedding?    Start there. Then check  groomsmen.
     Then get the  footage of the graduation ceremony.  Has anyone talked  to the professors?   It  is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or  lived with him.
     When did he meet  Michele, and how?   Are there photos there?  Every president gives to  the public all their photos, etc. for their  library,  etc.    What has he  released?    
 And who in hell voted for him to be the  most popular man in  2010?   Doesn't this make you wonder?
  Ever wonder why no  one ever came forward from President Obama's  past saying they knew  him, attended school with him, was his friend,  etc??
Not one person has  ever come forward from his past.
It certainly is  very, very strange...
   This should be a  cause for great concern. 
To those who voted for  him, you may have  elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man.   Have  you seen a movie named  "The Manchurian Candidate"
    As insignificant  as each of us might be, someone with whom we went  to school will  remember our name or face; someone will remember we  were the clown or the dork  or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or  something about  us.
George  Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during  the 2008 campaign.   He  questions why no one has acknowledged the president  was in their classroom or  ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu  speeches on campus.  Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at  Columbia -- the class of 1984.  He says he never had a single class with  him.  
     He is such a great  orator; why doesn't anyone in Obama's college  class remember him? Why  won't he allow Columbia to release his  records?  Nobody remembers  Obama at Columbia  University ....
    Looking for  evidence of Obama's past, 
Fox News contacted 400  Columbia University  students from the period when Obama claims to have  been there... but none  remembered him.  
    Wayne Allyn Root  was, like Obama, a political science major at  Columbia who also graduated  in 1983.    
In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know  a  
single person at  Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I  don't have a classmate  who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia,  ever."       Nobody recalls  him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, Class of  '83 Political Science,  and says, "You don't get more exact or closer  than that. Never met  him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him.   At  the class reunion,  our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to  be the speaker of the  class?  Me. No one ever heard of Barack!   And  five  years ago, nobody  even knew who he was. The guy who writes the  class   notes, who's kind  of the, as we say in New   York, 'the  macha' who knows everybody, has yet  to find a person, a human who ever met  him."
  Obama's photograph  does not appear in the school's yearbook and  Obama consistently  declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school  records, or provide the name of any former classmates  or friends while at  Columbia .
    Some other  interesting questions:
Why was Obama's  law license inactivated in 2002?
    it is said there  is no record of him ever taking the Bar  exam.
   Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order?
    We understand that was forced to avoid fraud charges.
  It is circulating  that 
according to the U.S. Census, there is only  one Barack Obama but  27 Social Security numbers and over 80 alias connected  to him.  
The Social  Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut  where he is  reported  to have never lived.  
And was originally registered to  another man  
(Thomas Louis  Wood) from Connecticut   , who died in Hawaii while on  vacation there.   As we all know  Social Security Numbers are only issued 'once, they  are not reused'
  No wonder all his  records are sealed...  
Please continue  sending this out to everyone. Somewhere, someone had  to know him in  school ... before he reorganized"  Chicago & burst  upon the Scene at the 2004 Democratic  Convention.
Clint Eastwood  said his Republican National Convention speech achieved exactly what he wanted it to. He then proceeded to label President Barack Obama a “hoax.”....“President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,”