Monday, May 11, 2009
Why I am a conservative/republican
I AM A PROUD REPUBLICAN, although I am definitely ticked at them lately because they aren't adhering to the conservative principles that made them great in the first place. They are too busy sucking up to the Liberals unfortunately and have forgotten their roots.I am a conservative because I believe in their basic principles. FREE MARKET, CAPITALISM, SELF RELIANCE- NOT GOVERNMENT RELIANCE,The RESPECT for HUMAN LIFE-ALL human life, JUSTICE for ALL,The STRENGTH to stand up to DICTATORS and TERRORISTS-which includes keeping our military strong and taking care of our vets, and LOVE OF COUNTRY and GOD.When this country gets back to those values,then we will be great again. Until then I will stand strong against the socialist, liberal onslaught that is warping this country. I love my country too much to ever give up on it.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
One more reason out of many to despise Obama
OBAMA IS SURPRISED VETS DON'T WANT TO PAY THEIR OWN MEDICAL EXPENSES
Here is Obama's RESPONSE WHEN HE BACKED OFF FROM HIS DECISION TO LET THE MILITARY PAY FOR THEIR WAR INJURIES........
(SEND THIS TO EVERYONE TO SHOW JUST WHAT HE THINKS OF OUR MILITARY WHO FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY AND GET HURT PROTECTING OUR FREEDOM)
Bad press, including major mockery of the plan by comedian Jon Stewart, led to President Obama abandoning his proposal to require veterans carry private health insurance to cover the estimated $540 million annual cost to the federal government of treatment for injuries to military personnel received during their tours on active duty.
The President admitted that he was puzzled by the magnitude of the opposition to his proposal.
"Look, it's an all volunteer force," Obama complained.
"Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice ? It doesn't compute.."
"I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country," Obama continued.
"I wasn't asking for blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I'd have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation's deficit. I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans."
I guess OBAMA just doesn't get that the American people love and appreciate our military guys and gals who lay their lives on the line so we can lay our heads down at night in peace.
That's because he is not an AMERICAN at heart. That much is obvious. Why in the world people voted for him I'll never know, but we all will surely pay the price and rue the day that he took office. America is getting change but not the change they were looking to get.
It's a shame but the people have been had again. (AS FOREST GUMP SAYS: "Stupid is as stupid does".)
Here is Obama's RESPONSE WHEN HE BACKED OFF FROM HIS DECISION TO LET THE MILITARY PAY FOR THEIR WAR INJURIES........
(SEND THIS TO EVERYONE TO SHOW JUST WHAT HE THINKS OF OUR MILITARY WHO FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY AND GET HURT PROTECTING OUR FREEDOM)
Bad press, including major mockery of the plan by comedian Jon Stewart, led to President Obama abandoning his proposal to require veterans carry private health insurance to cover the estimated $540 million annual cost to the federal government of treatment for injuries to military personnel received during their tours on active duty.
The President admitted that he was puzzled by the magnitude of the opposition to his proposal.
"Look, it's an all volunteer force," Obama complained.
"Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice ? It doesn't compute.."
"I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country," Obama continued.
"I wasn't asking for blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I'd have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation's deficit. I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans."
I guess OBAMA just doesn't get that the American people love and appreciate our military guys and gals who lay their lives on the line so we can lay our heads down at night in peace.
That's because he is not an AMERICAN at heart. That much is obvious. Why in the world people voted for him I'll never know, but we all will surely pay the price and rue the day that he took office. America is getting change but not the change they were looking to get.
It's a shame but the people have been had again. (AS FOREST GUMP SAYS: "Stupid is as stupid does".)
Saturday, May 2, 2009
This is very thought provoking and frankly made me count my blessings
This is from Miss Margo, an advice column similar to Ann Landers. It touched my heart and made me count my blessings.
This is just for the wOw family. It will not go to the newspapers that carry my column. It is also a first. I have made errors in judgment before, and I have owned up to them, but there has never been a situation where I was so totally uninformed about a subject I thought I understood reasonably well. The subject is domestic abuse. I feel the need to share my new understanding with others.
We will call her Miss X.
The abuse in my new, "loving" relationship started slowly. By the time my mother was dead I had no place to go but with him as I had exhausted my resources on my family. By that time I was $30,000 in credit-card debt because I had given him access to my accounts. I was in a new state with no friends. The night I was beaten and thrown into a dumpster the police drove me to a DV shelter, where I was told I would not be safe IN THE SHELTER; that they could only keep me overnight because a middle-class white woman would make the other residents uncomfortable. I had no place to go. I went back. It got worse, but I continued to go to work. We moved to another state. I worked and came home to abuse on a daily basis. I made no friends, for how can an intelligent person admit she is living this life? How can you admit that you are still trying to prove to yourself that nothing will break you, ever!? I now have a four-year-old. I entered the shelter system in NYC, and let me tell you, the system is broken. I cannot overstate how broken the system is, which is currently set up to "help" abused women. I was beaten, raped, subjected to verbal abuse on a daily basis and nearly choked to death in my relationship, but I could not get supervised visitation for my child with her father. The things I experienced and saw in the shelter system would make a decent human being break down in tears.
I tell you all of this for this reason: Abused women are not "slow learners." They are human beings who are seeking a small sign of kindness and affection from wherever they can get it. They are scared, if they are smart, that the cycle will perpetuate and their children will be exposed to the same horrors they have seen. I have not been with a man since my daughter was conceived, nearly five years ago. I am lonely, but I will not take the chance that my daughter is hurt by poor choices on my part. I have not succeeded in rescinding my daughter’s father’s rights to unsupervised visitation. She tells me he spanks her, which kills me, but I have no control. I have no money and went through four court-appointed lawyers, none of whom wanted to hear my story or cared about the details.
If the friends of the lady who is in the bad relationship want to do something, they should take her out. Spend time with her. Listen to her. Validate the truth of her situation. Support her. If their friend does the unthinkable and marries this abuser, a friend will still stay by her side. If you judge a person who is used to abuse, and turn away in disgust, you only serve the purposes of the abuser. You have isolated her further and allowed him to be the sole source of emotional solace. The only way that the cycle of abuse can be stopped is in the light of day. Full transparency, loads of patient, sympathetic, empathetic friends, and empowerment of the victim. Please do not ever call a victim of domestic violence a "slow learner."
This is just for the wOw family. It will not go to the newspapers that carry my column. It is also a first. I have made errors in judgment before, and I have owned up to them, but there has never been a situation where I was so totally uninformed about a subject I thought I understood reasonably well. The subject is domestic abuse. I feel the need to share my new understanding with others.
We will call her Miss X.
The abuse in my new, "loving" relationship started slowly. By the time my mother was dead I had no place to go but with him as I had exhausted my resources on my family. By that time I was $30,000 in credit-card debt because I had given him access to my accounts. I was in a new state with no friends. The night I was beaten and thrown into a dumpster the police drove me to a DV shelter, where I was told I would not be safe IN THE SHELTER; that they could only keep me overnight because a middle-class white woman would make the other residents uncomfortable. I had no place to go. I went back. It got worse, but I continued to go to work. We moved to another state. I worked and came home to abuse on a daily basis. I made no friends, for how can an intelligent person admit she is living this life? How can you admit that you are still trying to prove to yourself that nothing will break you, ever!? I now have a four-year-old. I entered the shelter system in NYC, and let me tell you, the system is broken. I cannot overstate how broken the system is, which is currently set up to "help" abused women. I was beaten, raped, subjected to verbal abuse on a daily basis and nearly choked to death in my relationship, but I could not get supervised visitation for my child with her father. The things I experienced and saw in the shelter system would make a decent human being break down in tears.
I tell you all of this for this reason: Abused women are not "slow learners." They are human beings who are seeking a small sign of kindness and affection from wherever they can get it. They are scared, if they are smart, that the cycle will perpetuate and their children will be exposed to the same horrors they have seen. I have not been with a man since my daughter was conceived, nearly five years ago. I am lonely, but I will not take the chance that my daughter is hurt by poor choices on my part. I have not succeeded in rescinding my daughter’s father’s rights to unsupervised visitation. She tells me he spanks her, which kills me, but I have no control. I have no money and went through four court-appointed lawyers, none of whom wanted to hear my story or cared about the details.
If the friends of the lady who is in the bad relationship want to do something, they should take her out. Spend time with her. Listen to her. Validate the truth of her situation. Support her. If their friend does the unthinkable and marries this abuser, a friend will still stay by her side. If you judge a person who is used to abuse, and turn away in disgust, you only serve the purposes of the abuser. You have isolated her further and allowed him to be the sole source of emotional solace. The only way that the cycle of abuse can be stopped is in the light of day. Full transparency, loads of patient, sympathetic, empathetic friends, and empowerment of the victim. Please do not ever call a victim of domestic violence a "slow learner."
Friday, May 1, 2009
article worth noting from Investors Business Daily
Not Much To Show For 'First 100 Days'
By LARRY ELDER | Posted Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Aided by an eagerly compliant, Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.
Obama — to use one of his favorite expressions — doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses and even deficit-running states.
Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" — whatever that means — from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.
Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" — whatever that means — 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number.
Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" — whatever that means.
Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam — that eminent, well-regarded banker.
Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight."
Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.
As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages — are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.
Did the president, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes.
Will the president's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes.
Will the president's budget really double the national debt within a few years and increase it still more beyond that? Yes.
Do the president and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe they can "modernize" health care, "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.
America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something.
Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism — or we used to.
Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders — at least in America — have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System?
Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages?
Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.
Now let's turn to Job No. 1 — national security. We no longer call the war on terror the "war on terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The president embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour.
To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the president flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing.
What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.
The president offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclench their fist." The president even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays.
What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."
Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy.
What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, tried to launch a long-range missile. The president condemned the act. The U.N. Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing.
Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.
On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned, swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.
At least he looks good.
By LARRY ELDER | Posted Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Aided by an eagerly compliant, Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.
Obama — to use one of his favorite expressions — doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses and even deficit-running states.
Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" — whatever that means — from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.
Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" — whatever that means — 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number.
Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" — whatever that means.
Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam — that eminent, well-regarded banker.
Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight."
Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.
As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages — are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.
Did the president, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes.
Will the president's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes.
Will the president's budget really double the national debt within a few years and increase it still more beyond that? Yes.
Do the president and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe they can "modernize" health care, "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.
America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something.
Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism — or we used to.
Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders — at least in America — have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System?
Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages?
Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.
Now let's turn to Job No. 1 — national security. We no longer call the war on terror the "war on terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The president embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour.
To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the president flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing.
What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.
The president offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclench their fist." The president even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays.
What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."
Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy.
What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, tried to launch a long-range missile. The president condemned the act. The U.N. Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing.
Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.
On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned, swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.
At least he looks good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
