Thursday, December 30, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
I didn't respond, because I didn't want to get into a heated argument on what had until that point been a very pleasant afternoon and evening.
So, let's say you have an electric bill this month. It's the same size it was last month. I could have gone up, what with climate change snowing everybody in and all, but it didn't. It's the same as last month.
Question: Did you lower your electric bill in the scenario above?
(For those of you educated in government schools, the answer is "No.")
Keeping taxes where they are instead of raising them is not lowering taxes on anybody. They're the SAME...don't you get it? The SAME!
My wife comes home and says she saved $50.00 on a new outfit. I look at my bank account and the balance has gone down!
I ask you...did she save me any money?
Answer: Not one penny. In fact, she cost me money.
I went to work today.
Funny thing...the person I went to work for has and makes a lot more money than I do. If he did not, he would not be able to pay me a salary.
I'm glad he's rich, and I hope he stays that way.
Where did the idea come from that if you make a lot of money through taking risks, shrewd investing, and hard work someone somewhere should take some of it away from you because you'll never miss it?
When you take what you have not earned or do not own, isn't that called theft?
(For those of you educated in government schools, the answer is "Yes.")
So who started the idea that it is OK for the government to take what they do not earn and do not own?
Where does this insane jealousy toward the people who have earned a lot come from?
By the way, how rich is too rich?
Who gets to set that amount? You? Me?
The fact is that you and I have exactly the same opportunity to be just as rich as Bill Gates if we are willing to do what Bill Gates did to get as rich as he is...have a great idea, market it well and hire lots of people to help you develop, promote and sell it.
You can do that.
But be warned...if you do, there will be those who think it is OK for someone, somewhere to take some of it away from you just because you'll never miss it.
Those people are called liberal/progressives, and they are a scourge on our society.
Frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves for promoting theft.
Has anyone ever heard of expanding the tax base by putting more people to work in the private sector...reducing unemployment to say, 4% or 5%?
Can we do that by taking money from the public and then paying the public to work (as in a government job)?
(For those of you educated in a government school, the answer is "No.")
See, the economy is dependent on productivity (ever heard of the gross national product?).
The government produces nothing (except stupid little electric cars that don't do what the government said they would do [surprise there, right?]). The government only costs. And the only way they know to pay those costs is by taking money from people who earned it.
When will we ever learn?
Monday, December 27, 2010
The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as 'the greatest scam in history' and accused global media of colluding with 'environmental extremists' to alarm the public.
The deceit behind global warming
Climate change is like 'World War Three'
"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM," John Coleman wrote in an article published on ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, which is known for challenging widely published theories on global warming.
The maverick weather forecaster is known for his regular critique of widely accepted global warming theories. The Weather Channel broadcasts weather forecasts and weather-related news in the US 24 hours a day.
His views challenge the consensus of the international science community that it is at least 90 per cent certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8ºC above 1990 levels by 2100.
This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources.
A recent joint statement by the scientific academies of 17 countries, including the UK's Royal Society, endorsed the theory of climate change and dismissed doubts raised over the need for action to mitigate possible damage caused by climate change.
"We do not consider such doubts justified," the group said in a joint statement, urging prompt action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
But Mr Colemen slams their views as part of a global conspiracy: "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming."
"Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims.
Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
"Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
"Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens.
"Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment."
He added: "I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
"There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."
Friday, December 24, 2010
Many people think that the word "Christmas" means "Christ's Birth."
While it can mean that by tradition, its real meaning is a little bit different.
The word Christmas originated as a compound meaning "Christ's Mass".
Let's take a look at the two parts of the word.
Eric Snow writes: "...the meaning of the word "Christos" (Greek: Χριστός, Strong's Concordance #G5547) (is) in relation to Jesus being called the Messiah. Both the Greek word Christos as well as the Hebrew word that comes out "Messiah" mean the same thing: "The anointed One."
An allusion to the title of Christos is made when a person is anointed with oil in order to be made king. Samuel did this with David when he was first chosen to be king while the prior king, Saul, was very much still alive (see 1Samuel 16:12-13). Hence, being the Anointed One meant, among other things, that Christ was to be a king (John 18:37; Luke 1:31-33). However, in the Gospel of John (John 18:36), He explained that His kingdom was not of this world, meaning, derived from it. So he wouldn't make Himself king by human means, such as when He withdrew from a crowd that wanted to make Him king by their force (John 16:15). Instead, Jesus will be made king by divine fiat when He returns during the Second Coming as the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:14-16).
So being the Messiah or the Christ indicates that Jesus will have royal prerogatives, and be able to rule the earth as king when He returns (Daniel 7:13-14; 2:44.) All human governments, whether kingdoms, democracies, or dictatorships, will be abolished then, and the world will have a true direct theocracy (not merely humans ruling in God's name, such as in Iran's "Islamic Republic.") Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit, it should be noted, not literal oil (see Acts 10:38 and Luke 4:18).
Another allusion to Jesus' title here (Christos) comes from the high priests being anointed in the Old Testament when being ordained (Leviticus 8:2, 10, 12). Jesus was also to be the high priest for Christians after His death and resurrection (Hebrews 5:5-6, 10; 7:20-28). He intercedes for their sins with God the Father. So here there would be a union of church and state, of the king and high priest roles in the divine Person of Jesus under the rule of the kingdom of God.
A Mass service (which is sometimes called Communion or Eucharist) is where Christians remember that Jesus died for us and then came back to life. The 'Christ-Mass' service was the only one that was allowed to take place after sunset (and before sunrise the next day), so people had it at Midnight! So we get the name Christ-Mass, shortened to Christmas.
So, technically, "Christmas" has a deeper, more significant meaning than just the celebration of the birth of Christ.
It is really a celebration of the meaning of the gospel, and the incarnation, which we celbrate at Christmas is only its beginning.
In the end, it is all part and parcel of the essence of being a Christian.
We celbrate His birth, not as the beginning of Jesus, but as the time when God became a man for the very purpose of dying a substitutionary death for man's sin and for the resurrection, which in effect "sealed the deal."
Monday, December 20, 2010
Not to me.
I actually think gridlock would be a good thing.
With some 600 bills waiting in the wings for consideration and more being added all the time, there will come a time when we will have more laws than we can keep up with...a time which may have already come.
The result would be (or is) utter legislative chaos.
With earmarks and all, we get so many new...mostly unnecessary...laws in one bill that it boggles the mind.
So here is my solution:
ONE BILL - ONE SUBJECT. ALL AMENDMENTS MUST RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ONE BILL
That means no "bridges to nowhere" added to a bill about mayonnaise.
If a congressperson thinks his state should get some federal funds for some project, fine. Just introduce a bill and let the congress vote on that bill all by itself.
Better yet, let that congressperson run for state office and introduce the bill in his own state, using his own state's tax money and keep the federal government out of it.
So there you have it: ONE BILL - ONE SUBJECT. PERIOD.
Don't hold your breath, though.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Players and coaches must play by the rules or be punished for disobeying them.
There is a rule book in which the rules are written.
There is a way to change the rules if they need changing.
The rules cannot be changed by those whose job it is to enforce the rules or to apply the rules on the field.
We are a nation of rules.
There is a rule book. It is called "The Constitution of the United States of America."
There is a way to change the rules.
It's called "the amendment process."
There's even a way to re-write the entire rule book.
It's called "a constitutional convention."
But just as neither the referees nor the NFL can't change the rules of football while it is being played, judges can't change the rules of our country "while it is being played" (although they certainly seem to have forgotten that part of the rule book).
There is a set of bodies that can make laws, but even they are subject to the master rule book (although they certainly have shown plenty of disdain for it).
These bodies are called the Houses of Congress, and they are made up of the Senate and the House of Congress.
Calling them both "congress" and one of them individually "congress" at the same time can be confusing, but that's the way it is.
Lately, the collective congress has forgotten the principles laid out in the rule book. They have gotten confused about their job and have come to believe that they "rule" the country.
They are not supposed to.
The other night I heard one of the members of the House of Congress (not to be confused with the Houses of Congress) expound on how they were elected to exert "leadership" (that's a word they use for "boss citizens around").
They have gotten the idea that their job is to lead the country in the direction they think best for all of us.
That's how other countries do it, not the United States of America.
In America, the lawmakers' job is to lead the country in the direction its citizens want it to go.
Abraham Lincoln called it "...government of the people, by the people and for the people."
Our Houses of Congress (not to be confused with just the House of Congress) have tried to turn us into a "people of the government, by the government and for the government."
This past November we said "Enough, already!"
Turn it back around!
Many members of the House of Congress and the Senate (you remember, the Houses of Congress), failed to get the message.
Either that or they got the message but preferred to pretend that they did not by twisting the message into a congressional pretzel.
It is my hope and prayer that this January, when the new members of the Houses of Congress, (the Senators and the Congresspersons) take their place in our government they will remember their job: find out what the citizens want and lead us in that direction.
Each side (there are at least three: Democrats, Republicans and Independents) prefaces every speech with, "The American people want...," when they really don't have a clue what the American people want because they don't listen to the American people, they listen to their favorite sub-group (special interest groups) to find out which ones are going to give them the most money for their re-election campaign in two, four, six or eight years.
Time to wake up, Congress persons of both houses.
You've been sent to Washington D.C. (not to be confused with Washington state in the great Pacific northwest) to represent us, not to get us to represent your ideas of how things should be.
Now you Lame Duckers (not to be confused with blog commenter, Ducky) need to develop some character and integrity and stop trying to lead the country where you think it should go in a mad rush before you have to leave Congress.
Try leading us in the direction WE want to go!
What a concept!
I wonder how our framers came up with it?
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Without any fanfare, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday it was dropping the crystalline powder -- widely used in diet soft drinks, chewing gum, juice and toothpaste -- from its list of hazardous substances.
"Saccharin is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health," the EPA says.
You can read the rest of the story HERE.
Are any of you old enough to remember the hoopla over this?
I continued to use saccharin because, in spite of the government's insistence to the contrary, the amounts fed to the rats "proving" its danger was way out of proportion to their weight and the comparison to the amount humans would have to consume to produce a similar result was extraordinary.
I'm not a scientist...I don't even play one on TV.
But I am a clear thinker, and like Judge Judy says, "If something doesn't make sense, it's probably not true."
What the "scientists" were saying did not make sense.
Turns out, it wasn't true.
A lot like "global warming."
Monday, December 13, 2010
No, not the picture...where I live.
I live in Florida.
Not just Florida...SOUTHWEST Florida!
This is where snowbirds come to get away from the cold!
Right now, much of the country is covered in snow so deep people are stranded on roadways, stadium roofs are collapsing and IT'S ALL LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVES' FAULT!!!
It was you guys who worked so hard to convince us that our cars and factories and power generating plants and oil rigs and coal mines were causing a greenhouse effect that was resulting in GLOBAL WARMING!
Those were YOUR words, not ours.
Sure, you changed in mid-stream and began using the new term, climate change, which was really typically liberal/progressive stupidity, since the word "climate" has historically MEANT "weather change."
But you didn't let up on your insistance that our cars and factories and power generating plants, etc. were the problem.
I can hear the echoes of your words now, "We HAVE to stop driving those polluting cars...."
Well now look what you've done!
We all stopped driving, we no longer produce power in oil, coal or other fossil fuel consuming plants and look where it got us!
For the second year in a row, we have record, paralyzing cold with snow in some places up to 25 feet in drifts!
People in Miami, Florida, who have never had to worry about heat in winter, are now actually freezing and have no way to heat their homes!
Here in Southwest Florida we will experience sub-freezing temperatures tonight, possibly wiping our our vegetable crops, resulting in higher prices at the grocery store in this poor economy brought on by, who else, stupid liberal/progressives like Barney there's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mack Frank, and Nancy we have to pass the bill to know what's in it Pelosi.
AND IT ISN'T EVEN WINTER YET!!!!!
I am voraciously angry with you liberal/progressives!
You did this to us and don't try to deny it!
YOU are the ones who told us we were warming up, not Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity or Levin, YOU!
"Listen to us!" you urged! "We are smarter than you'll ever think of being because we're elites and we know what's good for you better than you do!"
Well give it up!
I will never listen to you again.
As for the rest of us, I URGE you to drive your cars more!
If your family has two cars, or more, drive them all as far as you can every day!
IF YOU HAVE A HYBRID OR ALL ELECTRIC VEHICLE, HURRY DOWN TO YOUR DEALER AND TRADE IT IN FOR A HUMMER!
If you run a coal burning plant, fire up the furnace! Get those greenhouse gasses flowing!
It's the only way we're going to stop this pre-winter madness!
WE HAVE TO DO IT NOW! BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE! BEFORE THERE IS ACTUAL LOSS OF LIFE DUE TO THE FREEZING TEMPERATURES!
COME ON, PEOPLE! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?
THE IRON IS NOT HOT, BUT WE MUST STRIKE ANYWAY!
Friday, December 10, 2010
See, if you make it sound intellectual, mysterious and scientific, you can dupe almost anybody on just about anything.
But that would be just the ignorant masses, right?
Smart, wise, all-knowing science types would never fall for this, would they?
These are the very same tactics used by Algore and his "global warming aka climate change" idiot liberal/progressive buddies use to "prove" just about everything they ever "prove."
But we should believe them, because they're so smart.
So very, very smart.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
It is by Yashiko Sagamori, and well worth reading.
If you are so sure that "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history", I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:
1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine?
10 What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
11.What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.
12. Have they left any artifacts behind?
13. Do you know of a library where one could find a work of Palestinian literature produced before 1967?
14. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
The people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are nothing more than but generic Arabs collected or thrown out of all parts of the Arab world because they didn't want them either. And they still don't! If they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?
I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines, substituting etymology for history that crap just won't work here.
The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it "Palestinian people" and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza, respectively?
The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so called "Palestinians" have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in my book that is not sufficient to consider them a "nation" -- or anything else except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.
In fact, there is only one way to achieve piece in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.
The "Palestinians'" murderous motives started with the siege of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, an event to which the Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasa Arafat. I pray the United States and Israel lead the world to victory in the days to come. Come to think of it, there is no choice.
Yasser Arafat was a leader of the state of Palestine and 1st President of the Palestinian National Authority. The leader is also known as the Chairman of the Palestine liberation Organization who founded the secular political party Fatah in 1959, stepping in as its leader. Mainly known for his anti-Israeli stance, Arafat pushed the country in to a long war with Israel in the name of self-determination. While he is portrayed as a martyr in his own country Palestine, Arafat is also condemned for his attacks on Israeli civilians.
During the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, “Black September”, a Palestinian militant group, kidnaped and killed eleven Israeli athletes. The incident came to be known as “Munich Massacre”. The Black September, as reported by some noted historians, was a branch of Fatah used for paramilitary operations. In 1973–74, Arafat directed the PLO to withdraw from acts of violence outside Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
To investigate the Munich Massacre, the Israeli government launched the Operation Bayonet. It ordered its intelligence agency, Mossad to hunt down those known to have been involved. In 1979, the Mossad had assassinated at least eight PLO members including Ali Hassan Salameh, a commander of Yasser Arafat's personal security squad.
Yasser Arafat was a power hungry, sub-human, murdering loathsome piece of shit who deserves nothing but disrespect and hatred towards his name. May he not be remembered as anything but the scum that he was, he was responsible for countless deaths of innocent people, This thing called Yasser was nothing to this earth but a waste of space, oxygen and time. Dying of Aids was the only good thing in his life that ever happened.
I would truely like some comments that directly answer the questions above. Don't just attack Israel, give me answers to the actual questions.