Personal thoughts, intended to be provoking, but not necessarily my beliefs. I often take one side opposing another of my previous posts for the sake of discussion. In recent years I have begun to take a more conservative slant toward my posts, largely in an effort to balance against a liberal mainstream media bias.
"This is not the road to national greatness, it is the road to ruin," Palin said of the growth in government spending, budget deficits, joblessness and housing foreclosures under Obama. "The federal government is spending too much, borrowing too much, growing and controlling too much," she said.
Palin said Obama had revived the era of big government, and she ridiculed the infrastructure spending and investment he outlined in his recent State of the Union speech.
"The only thing these investments will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy," the 2008 vice presidential candidate said in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, California, part of two days of festivities marking the late president's 100th birthday.
Reagan served two terms as president beginning in 1981, and his belief in limited government
TOKYO: The toll from a magnitude-8.9 earthquake in Japan could exceed 10,000 in the hardest-hit prefecture of Miyagi alone, police said on Sunday, as other officials tried to reassure the public that reactors at two damaged nuclear power plants posed no immediate danger.
"I have no doubt" that the death toll would rise above 10,000 in the prefecture, public broadcaster NHK quoted police chief Takeuchi Naoto as saying
Harry Sargeant III, a well-connected Florida businessman and once-prominent Republican donor, first faced scrutiny over his defense work in October 2008, when he was accused in a congressional probe of using his close relationship with Jordan’s royal family to secure exclusive rights over supply routes to U.S. bases in western Iraq.
Spiral energy-saving light bulbs could cause cancer, German scientists have found.
They say the compact fluorescent lamp bulbs should not be left on for long as they send poison into the atmosphere when switched on, according to a report in Britain�s Daily Telegraph.
And in particular, the scientists warn, they should be kept away from people�s heads due to an �electrical smog� of phenol, naphthalene and styrene.
�For such carcinogenic substances it is important they are kept as far away as possible from the human environment,� warned Peter Braun, who carried out research in Berlin.
Fellow researcher Andreas Kirchner added: �They should not be used in unventilated areas and definitely not in the proximity of the head.�
Earlier this year an Israeli report suggested CFL bulbs could trigger breast cancer and there have been fears about the environmental damage they could cause if dumped in landfills.
Despite those worries � and the fact they can cost up to six times as much as traditional incandescent bulbs � the CFL bulbs are in wide use worldwide. They are said to cut energy costs significantly and have a much longer lifespan.
Congress passed a measure in 2007 to phase out incandescent bulbs completely by 2014.
To read the entire Daily Telegraph report, Go Here Now.
But Big Brother knows best. This absolutely cannot be a matter of personal choice. The masses are asses, but "WE" are the brilliant and wise annointed who God (such that he is) chose to make such weighty decisions.
After five days of lying, Representative Anthony Weiner finally came clean in a tearful press conference yesterday. Yes, he said, he was the one who sent that lewd photo to a college student. Yes, the photo was of him.
Weiner then confessed to having many similar exchanges with other women over the years, including several in the year that he has been married.
Weiner said that he wasn't going to resign, and if he told the full truth yesterday, he might not have to. But already, there are indications that he might not have told the full truth, especially about not using "government resources" to carry on his sex chats.
Whether or not Weiner survives these transgressions seems a less important question than asking why on earth an otherwise responsible adult could be so shockingly stupid -- and then, when busted, blatantly lie about it for five days, blaming a "hacker."
While I don't condone any of this, it is mostly a private matter between him, his wife, and his God--unless public resources were used. Then it becomes another matter. I am not going to jump on him now while everyone else is piling on. I have long expressed my viewsabout his politics which are un-American, to be kind. this merely confirms what I've beens saying--that he is a liar.
'No risk' the US will lose its top credit rating, says Treasury's Geithner
By Michael O'Brien - 04/19/11 10:33 AM ET
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said Tuesday there is "no risk" the U.S. will lose its top credit rating amid a new analysis that revised its outlook on American debt to "negative."
Geithner took to the airwaves of financial news networks to push back against a report Monday by Standard & Poor's that lowered its outlook on U.S. debt to "negative," reflecting political uncertainty over whether lawmakers will reach an agreement to address long-term debt.
I am not a so-called Tea-Partier. I am not, because the title is so vague that it really has no definition. What I am,is a fiscal conservative. By that ,I mean that it's not rocket-science to realize that the brand of economy and and recovery that our current administration has been following is false and delusional. It's historical. It has never worked long-term. I don't know why so many Americans have allowed this to go on so long--led like lemmings off a cliff. The reason I mention the Tea-Party is that they have been so vilified for their general common sense approach to improving the economy just as me must at home. The main precept for this approach is to stop the out-of-control governmental spending, reduce the need for so much individual taxation, and allow Capitalism and free-enterprise to happen without so many constraints. In other words--to live our means. Why is that so hard to understand? Remember that the Tea Party IS NOT A PARTY AT ALL. It's not a Republican thing. Neither is fiscal conservatism, unfortunately. It is not merely a pie-in-the-sky ideal; it is the only course that can work. It will happen one way or another. It will happen it a planned way for whch we can prepare. Or it will happen from cause and effect regardless of what we do. This is why Communism has never worked. Okay--maybe it IS human greed that makes this idea work. Call it that if it makes you feel better. Maybe it would sound better to call it work for rewards or something like that. Either way, it is what it is, or from a pessimists viewpoint, it ain't what it ain't. Better? Whatever it is entitled, it just IS. By nature humans tend to do the things that personally reward them. No matter how idealistic a minority of people are, or even a majority, they will be the most productive and the most personally satisfied if the gain from being industrious. Even criminals work under this premise (possibly, especially criminals). People tend to steal and rape and plunder and deal drugs or use drugs--because there is some "positive" payoff for them so doing. Remove the incentive and they'll likely stop. Too bad our justice system doesn't seem to provide such deterrence. This thought should be examined too. Meanwhile, our personal ideals cannot be imposed upon everyone else just because we think they are the right ones. They HAVE to actually BE the correct ideals. The ones that work. The sky is not blue if it is black. It's just not--even if you are blind or in a cave. Now for all of the vilification of the TEA PARTY that has taken place in the media, among liberals, among status-quo (so-called progressive) Republicans, among most Democrats, and by the finger-pointing of President Obama's Administration--it should be dawning upon rational people that the downgrading of America's credit rating has happened BECAUSE OF THE HIGH-DEBT THAT HAS BEEN RUN UP! It Is not because during the past few weeks the freshmen Congressmen who were voted in last fall have at least tried to keep their promises to their constituents. so don't EVEN keep up that stupid line. Not because taxes have not been high enough. It's real easy to cry fowl and demand taxes from people and classes who are not you. I suppose everyone does such things. But this approach is no better an approach than any other prejudiced finger-pointing. So it is prejudice toward a vast minority--the rich. The rich are anyone who has more than we do. They are a moving target that's easy to assign blame to in order to deflect blame from being directed at us--and it is emotion-driven. It is the approach that has always been divisive. It is class distinction. We don't have enough. They appear to. So it is their fault. It's not fair! We cry. When in reality what WE propose is not fair. Why should someone other than us have to pay for our existence? I have never got that. I have never been rich--except in the eyes of people poorer than I, and that's means poor. Maybe they DO need our help. They are mentally and/or physically handicapped. This is why good and responsible people share their wealth charitably with the less-fortunate--voluntarily. Not by force. I am willing to bet that it is religion more than any other one factor that influences people to be altruistic. So stop damning those terrible and out of touch old time religionists who have worked hard enough to have a few more bucks that you. They are currently running interference for you with the tax man. They are also giving more to the truly unfortunates of the world way more than any government. The amazing thing to me, and I've said it before but it is still amazing, is that what I grew up being taught and what most Americans believed some twenty, thirty, forty years ago--certainly less than an average lifetime ago--HAS NOW BEING CALLED THE RADICAL RIGHTWING BELIEF OF THE CRAZIES! To hear the above mentioned segments led by the decidedly left-leaning media tell it. But just that short time ago those RIGHTWINGERS were considered mainstream or even leftests. I am not kidding. If you have lived long enough, then you know this is true. If you have not lived long enough--you can read it in archived newspapers. Or ask your parents and grandparents. My parents nearly starved to death during their early lifetimes--during the Great Depression. They were Southern Democrats. But they espoused principals based upon history and common sense. What they believed--would now be considered solidly right--for the most part. What regular Democrats believed was what a few left-wing-nuts believed then. And what true lefties now believe was FREAKIN ILLEGAL. It was not politically correct to plot to overthrow your government--whether or not it was merely called fundamentally changing it. It was not politically correct, just that short lifetime ago, to want a handout from people richer than us. This was reserved for those having absolutely no hope left, no self-respect, no nothing. It was not considered fair, good, or deserved. It was the exception ot the rule. It was sad. It was not popular nor was it something to strive for. Maybe that was harsh, but it was that way then. Guess which set of principles made America a world power? It was not the rhetoric we hear now coming out of the White House and the Senate. Sure, relatively blessed and rich brat that I was, I got in on the cool protests of the sixties and early seventies. But I out-grew that foolish little tangent. But by the eighties I had a family and a bunch of kids and needs and wants and desires. If anyone was giving such things away back then, I did not get them. The only way for me and my family to survive was for me to be productive, work hard, use tried and proved principles of wealth, and try to catch up to where I could have been if I had not played liberally for a decade or so. In other words I woke up. I didn't sell out. I relearned age-old truths which--had I just listened to my parents, our parents, the previous generation--I would not have to learn for myself. But it seems like so few do the smart thing. Those who do are blessed for it. Yeah, maybe we all gained a little from the mistakes we made. We were certainly sincere. Maybe we even made some corrections that needed to be made. But as with most corrections--we went overboard. Like a friend once said--peace and love, became drugs and sex. And other such things. If I didn't once think there was a devil. I sure do now. I saw him obliterate the goodness of the ideals of my generation's best. Now I am watchning current generation's best run off the cliff following by watching following the rear-ends leading them. I am hoping that future generations of my children and grandchildren relearn the lost lessons. It is still within our power to correct our over-corrections. If not for us, for the kids I hope Americans wake up. But I really fear that it's too late for the country. I can only hope that some individuals will look after themselves and theirs. And survive to rebuild again. A country can crash without all of its citizens going down with it. If fact, we have an obligation to survive.
Does Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and his boss know what they are doing? I rest my case.
I agree that these criteria are good benchmarks for allowing illegals to stay in the US. But it distrubs me deeply that on this and so many other issues, our administration feels that it has the right to wave a wand or gavel and circumvent Congress on so many issues. Shouldn't the rule of law be observed? Shouldn't the immigration laws be ammended before such controversial actions are undertaken? Federal responsibilities notwithstanding? And few if any who CAN call him on it, are doing so. My gosh. Is this is beginning to resemble just another totalitarian country, with just another vain leader at the head. Just asking. Someone please tell me I am wrong--and why?
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh ,
had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can
vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the
most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has
been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." The Obituary follows:
Born 1776, Died 2012 It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota ,
points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29 Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000 Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.
If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at
stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom..
This is truly scary!
Of course we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic .
Someone should point this out to Obama.
Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution.
There couldn't be more at stake than on Nov 6, 2012.
If you are as concerned as I am please pass this along.
"Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government
that requires every citizen to prove they are insured ...
I heard a lady say, "As a born-again Christian, I cannot in good conscience vote for Mitt Romney." I was raised as as a Christian. Except for a brief period when I was a teen, I have never even doubted the divinity of Of Jesus Christ.When I converted to the "Mormon" Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) forty years ago, I prayed that I was indeed following Christ by doing so. My faith in Jesus Christ has only multiplied during those ensuing years. Mitt Romney is similarly a Christian; it still amazes me that apparently good people can be so mislead as to believe their minister over a person's own testimony whether the person is a Christian or not. I mean--who would know? The person who claims to be a Christian, or another person's preacher? Ridiculous, right? Let me put it this way--Mormons, including me (and Mitt Romney), believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He is God--that he is the only name under heaven by which a person may be saved and have eternal life--that Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of those who believe in and follow Him. There is no other. Now, you tell me--am I a Christian? I know, and I know that He knows--that I am a Christian. How does any man dare to say or think otherwise? Does any MAN have the authority to dispense or withhold the precious saving blood of Jesus Christ to those whom he arbitrarily chooses? I think not! Christians are becoming a minority. The issues of this election are clearly a choice between the Godly and the Worldly. If you ARE among the true Christian minority--you need to get out and vote! The choice is clear
So here is the scoop on Romney's so-called magic underwear. Will the
left stop at nothing in order to defame or convolute the truth. I
mean--who even wants to do under there?
They are not "magic underwear". They are sacred garments. This is
straight from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints official
website.
News Release — October 13, 2011
Mormonism 101: FAQ
Do some Latter-day Saints wear temple garments?
Yes. In our
world of diverse religious observance, many people of faith wear special
clothing as a reminder of sacred beliefs and commitments. This has been
a common practice throughout history. Today, faithful adult members of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wear temple garments.
These garments are simple, white underclothing composed of two pieces: a
top piece similar to a T-shirt and a bottom piece similar to shorts.
Not unlike the Jewish tallit katan (prayer shawl), these
garments are worn underneath regular clothes. Temple garments serve as a
personal reminder of covenants made with God to lead good, honorable,
Christlike lives. The wearing of temple garments is an outward
expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.
Biblical
scripture contains many references to the wearing of special garments.
In the Old Testament the Israelites are specifically instructed to turn
their garments into personal reminders of their covenants with God (see Numbers 15:37-41).
Indeed, for some, religious clothing has always been an important part
of integrating worship with daily living. Such practices resonate with
Latter-day Saints today.
Because of the personal and religious
nature of the temple garment, the Church asks all media to report on the
subject with respect, treating Latter-day Saint temple garments as they
would religious vestments of other faiths. Ridiculing or making light
of sacred clothing is highly offensive to Latter-day Saints.
Do Latter-day Saints practice polygamy?
No.
There are more than 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints and not one of them is a polygamist. The practice of
polygamy is strictly prohibited in the Church. The general standard of marriage in the Church has always been monogamy, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (see Jacob 2:27).
For periods in the Bible polygamy was practiced by the patriarchs
Abraham and Jacob, as well as kings David and Solomon. It was again
practiced by a minority of Latter-day Saints in the early years of the
Church. Polygamy was officially discontinued in 1890 — 122 years ago.
Those who practice polygamy today have nothing whatsoever to do with the
Church.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be found at every level of society — in business and charity, education and the sciences, political parties and government, the entertainment industry and news media.
Describing the character of Latter-day Saints, Newsweek magazine wrote: “No matter where Mormons live, they find themselves part of a network of mutual concern; in Mormon theology everyone is a minister of a kind, everyone is empowered in some way to do good to others, and to have good done unto them: it is a 21st century covenant of caring. This caring is not limited to Church members alone, but extends far beyond.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the four
So here is the scoop on Romney's so-called magic underwear. Will the left stop at nothing in order to defame or convolute the truth. I mean--who even wants to do under there?
They are not "magic underwear". They are sacred garments. This is straight from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints official website.