Friday, November 29, 2013


Thursday, November 28, 2013

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Monday, November 25, 2013


“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

This quote is from one of my favorite spiritual leaders, the late Dr. Adrian Rogers.
Now whether you are a believer, non-believer, agnostic or atheist, that statement is true. You may denigrate its speaker if you are so inclined, but you will only be demonstrating your ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt.

That statement defines the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe you CAN legislate the poor into freedom if you can just get enough wealthy people to give up (or have confiscated) part of their wealth (Think 1%ers). Liberals believe that people who do not work should be sustained, regardless of the reason for their not working, and if they have some kind of addiction or social aberration, so much the better. They also believe that if you just spread the wealth everybody will be happy, quite apart from any incentive to be productive. And now it seems they believe that there is a heretofore unknown right to have any illness treated and paid for by the rest of the citizenry.
They believe that economy is a zero sum “game,” and that there is a finite amount of money available. They do not get the relationship between productivity and the increase in the overall wealth of the people.

They are running headstrong into the direction of taking The United States of America down and turning it into the same governmental chaos that prevails in most of the rest of the world.
Thanks, libs.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Saturday, November 23, 2013


How well has President BO (the man who would be king) performed in the following important areas?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) been truthful? Is his “If you like your plan you can keep your plan” an example of his idea of truthfulness? Was it when he said it?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done with the expansion of the massive Welfare State in the U.S.? How big should the Welfare State be allowed to become?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done enforcing immigration laws? Has he followed those laws as well as he has followed the ObamaCare law?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done controlling deficit spending? Has deficit spending increased proportionately with its expansion under former presidents or has it expanded more than all of the others put together?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done exploiting the Zimmerman trial, the Gosnell murders and other instances on which he has commented or failed to comment?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done giving millions of dollars to the abortion industry, both under the guise of welfare and of health care? Has he taken actions in his lives as a community organizer, senator or president to abate infanticide in this country?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done with his support of so-called “green energy?” How well have the companies he has supported with tax payer money done? Have those “investments” paid off or failed?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) handled the Justice Department’s Fast and Furious scandal?  Did he know about it, or was he kept in the dark? If he was kept in the dark, why haven’t those who kept him in the dark been summarily dismissed? If he know about it, why didn’t he stop it?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done with arming terrorists overseas? Has he taken steps to be certain that those who would (by their own admission) destroy the U.S. would never be able to do so?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) dealt with the issue of spying on journalists? Has he ensured that we will continue to have a free press, or has he tried to suppress it?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done with religious liberty in our country? Has he fought to preserve it or has he looked the other way when it was usurped?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) handled the IRS targeting of certain groups? After saying he wanted to get to the bottom of the issue, did he do anything about it? Does his administration continue to defend it, or to deny it ever happened?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) dealt with the truth about Benghazi? After he told us he would find the responsible parties and bring them to justice, has he found anyone? Has he tried anyone?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) been truthful about the recent “government shutdown?” After Republicans tried to pass several bills that would fund the government, did he then pretend that Republicans were responsible for the shutdown, or did he admit that he allowed it to happen because ObamaCare was much more important to him than a government shutdown?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done with his handling of the shutdown? Did he close any facilities or memorials that were largely funded by private enterprise and not the government? Did he spend tax payer dollars to block off and guard open air monuments when it would have been better to just let them be? Did he try to stop WW2 veterans from visiting their own, privately funded WW2 memorial?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) understood that places like the Lincoln Memorial have NEVER been shut down because of a government shutdown in the history of this country? Did he deliberately break with that practice, or did he just not know it existed?

So, in the end, how well has President BO (the man who would be king) done in his tenure? Are these just irrelevant questions or do they point to a basic short-coming of his ability to preside over, protect and defend our Constitution? Did his oath to do so carry as much truth as his ObamaCare promises?

Friday, November 22, 2013

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! Consider yourself warned.

After a recent wave of identify thefts, the FBI estimates there are over 500 fake Obama Care websites set up for the sole purpose of stealing your personal information. 

So protect yourself and remember; the real one is the only one that doesn't work.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

The Man Who Would Be King

How many times have we heard Harry Reid and other Democrat “leaders” scream and whine that ObamaCare is the law of the land and Republicans had better not mess with it?

Is what’s good for the goose good for the gander?

In July of 2013 President BO (the amateur president) rewrote the employer mandate that is in the ObamaCare law. He ordered the date of the statute changed. It was the law of the land, but he chose to rewrite it. Can he do that?

Now he has changed the “grandfather” issue in the law of the land, ObamaCare by saying, “I’m going to extend the “grandfather” to some of these plans that people got after 2010.” It was the law of the land, but he chose to rewrite it. Can he do that?

When Congress tried to pass bills to deal with these issues by law, the same changes President BO (the amateur president) ordered changed, he threatened to veto them. Does he want them dealt with or doesn’t he?

This is the same guy who, during his campaign, said, “I believe in the Constitution, I taught the Constitution for ten years and I will not be doing an end run around Congress.”

Does all of this mean that if Congress passes a bill, the president signs it and it becomes law, the president can change some parts of the law if he wants to? Is that the way we work now in America?

Suppose a Republican gets elected president? Will it be OK for him to change the content of laws he does not agree with or that have issues? Will that be accepted by Democrats?

Are we to abandon the legislative process in favor of a presidential decree process?

Whatever you call that, its acting like a monarchy, not a representative Constitutional republic.

President BO is now President (the man who would be king) BO.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Thursday, November 14, 2013


"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan...period."

""hat was not a lie. I just didn't know what was going to happen.

"I said if you like your plan, you can keep your plan if it hasn't changed?"

"Even though I didn't add that part in my previous statements, they were not really left out. It's in the bill (which we didn't get to read until it was passed)."

"OK. It didn't work and that's on me (even though it is really on the American people, who could not understand that I was including things in my first statement that I did not say and now I have to fix it)."

So, if it was a good plan, and if President BO (the amateur president) knew what he was doing, and if millions did NOT get to keep their plan, but it was a good plan and was working like it was supposed to, (except for where it wasn't)...





A comment by Mustang sums it up: The president’s announcement (and his response to questions) tell us two important things. First, the president’s proposed administrative fix is completely impractical, suggesting that Mr. Obama is out of his depth in understanding simple frameworks. Six states have already changed their laws to conform to ACA rules and regulations. For the citizens of these states, there is no “going back.” For everyone else, state insurance commissioners, who have largely completed their regulatory and oversight work for 2014, will now have to reopen the files and take another look at what can even be done, given that insurance companies have already begun to implement new state rules. The second thing we learned is that Obama has only attempted to give himself (and all the other communists who passed ACA without any idea what was in it) some cover in the next election.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

ObamaCare Affects Many More Than Advertised

I have three cardiologists (one primary, the others electrophysiologists), a pulmonologist, an orthopedist and a family practitioner/dermatologist. They are all top-notch physicians who love their work and love their patients. Four of them tell me they are going to be adversely affected by ObamaCare and may have to change the superior way they do medicine.

My primary cardiologist is going to have to cut back his staff to meet the new demands placed on him by ObamaCare. Can you say, “Increased unemployment?” The electrophysiologists are going to be compensated less per case under this despicable plan. Their decisions about who can get what care is going to change for the worse, not the better.

Sure. These are anecdotal to the “experts” and to the masses, but they are directly affecting the way they are able to treat me, and thus are important to me.

For many years, The United States has been the destination of people from all over the world because of our high standard of health care.

Now I am the first to admit that the insurance industry had (has) major problems. Most of those problems, though, were brought on by federal regulations that made it increasingly difficult for them to provide the proper type of insurance coverage. Many of them are going to be forced out of business by ObamaCare. Can you say, “Unemployment” again?

One of the things that should have been done (and what can still be done if anybody has the political fortitude to get it done) is to have eliminated certain regulations that prevented insurance companies from directly competing with each other.

If an insurance company wants to expand to serve people in another state, it has to actually form a completely new business in that state, one that disconnects it from its parent company. In other words, it is prohibited from effectively crossing state lines to compete with companies already in that state.  A few large companies managed to accomplish this kind of service, but many have not. The result has been less competition and higher prices for policies.

That is the result of government regulation that has nothing to do with health care or insurance but is a result of government’s insatiable desire to control everything and to prohibit the free exercise of business.

Now I am not talking about health standards, I am talking about commerce standards.

Liberty demands that companies be able to offer what they want to offer, to whom they want to offer it when and how they want to offer it. If I don’t want what company “A” offers, I’ll go to company “B”, who offers what I want at the price I want.

By the way, it would be billions of dollars cheaper, and far less destructive, for the government to just provide demonstrably necessary coverage on preexisting conditions only for those whose insurance doesn't cover them than it would be for them to usurp the entire commercial activity of existing companies. As it is, we are going to proudly provide coverage for 30 million people while causing nearly 50 million people to lose the coverage they want. To a liberal, that makes good sense, but only to a liberal.

If my house catches fire, I’m going out immediately to purchase a fire insurance policy to cover the costs. If I have an accident I’m going to contact GEICO and save up to 15% on my car insurance and let them cover the costs of the accident. If I die, my wife is going to contact Met Life and let Snoopy give her a settlement (4 million dollars sounds about right).  I’m sure my home insurance company, GEICO and Met Life will appreciate the opportunity to cover what has already happened.

There are dozens of other regulations and restrictions that could have been lifted or altered to allow health insurance companies to offer better coverage at lower rates, but the government has a vested interest in keeping that from happening.

Instead we get ObamaCare, that will cost trillions of dollars and will work to provide good health care coverage about as well as their web site works.

Of course, Obama is sorry for the inconvenience 50 million people are going to experience, losing their health care. Not to worry, though. He will force them to sign up for ObamaCare, as soon as he can figure out how to make the sign up process work. He’s sorry alright.

Monday, November 11, 2013

Toward A Classless Society

When I was a kid, my mother had a very strong role in choosing my friends. While kids today seem to think parents have no business selecting their friends, and some parents feel the same way, they are distinctly wrong.
Parents not only have the right to be involved in the friends and associates procurement process for their kids, they have a moral obligation to be so involved.

Children are not adults. They do not have the reasoning power of adults, nor do they have the skills, social and otherwise, to make such important decisions. They need and deserve the help of their parents.

Here’s the thing. Children will tend to become like the people with whom he associates. If the people they associate with are classless, they will lift them up, but will sink to the level. This is almost a universal rule.

As a society, we have yielded the control and influence of our kids to the public school system. Not only does their education suffer as a result of this, their social skills do, too.

Does this seem counter intuitive? Does it seem like school would be a viable, maybe even ideal, place to develop social skills? Think again.

There might have been a time when schools were good places to make friends, develop relationships and grow socially. That time has passed. Schools have become quasi war zones and social cesspools.

When did schools degrade to the levels they are at today? The answer is multi-fold. It began with the moral degeneration associated with the removal of prayer the public school life. It progressed with the methods used to desegregate public schools.

The instantaneous desegregation that took place provided an extreme cultural shock to students. They were thrust into social situations for which they had not been prepared. In typical government form, desegregation was thrust upon children without their previous knowledge or training.

Desegregation was very late in coming to public schools in the United States. It should have been done from the beginning, of course. Failing that, however, it should have been introduced gradually over time, beginning with preschool and proceeding year-by-year until it was accomplished and appropriate adjustment had been made. By now the process would have been completed and schools would have been much more of a melting pot and less of a boiling pot.

But like everything else the government does, it was all-or-nothing. Thus the process bred contention and dissimilation. Teachers were not trained, administrators were not trained. The government just threw the desegregation baby in the pool and said, “Swim!”

Another influence in the degradation of class in the society is the entertainment industry’s insistence that people behave without respect or civility toward each other. To see this in its most reprehensible form, watch a few episodes of Maury. 

There you’ll find the dregs of society drowning in the depths of depravity. Other shows, as well as movies, are not any better.

The result of all of this is that children have been relegated to the lowest common denominator of society’s fractional nature. As they have grown up, no one has cared to correct their sociological plunge and they have led society to its present condition of virtual classlessness.

Isn’t it time to take steps to reverse the downward spiral? Are we beyond the point of no return? Will we ever see the day when there is a distinction between ignorant classlessness and societal maturity?

Friday, November 8, 2013


For those liberals who can't really understand English because they keep changing words' meanings, I present the following translation.

"I'm sorry that what we 'intended' to do didn't happen because we are so incompetent."

"I'm sorry that we, the most articulate, smartest, Constitutionally savvy, suave, sophisticated, intellectually astute people ever to hold office, couldn't find the words to properly express ourselves before thrusting this abysmal plan on the nation."

"I'm sorry people find themselves in these terrible situations based on assurances they got from me. They really should have known better. It's their fault."

"I'm sorry we have to work hard to make sure 'they' know we hear them, even though we don't really want to hear them. They make us very nervous."

"I'm sorry we're going to have to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position because of the fact that we wanted them in a tough enough position that they would have to enroll in our 'exchanges', even though they were happy with what they had and thought they were going to get to keep what they had."

"I'm sorry that the fact that the plans we offer are so much better than the ones they had that they have to have premiums 40%-80% higher than the premiums for the plans they actually wanted to keep."

"I'm sorry that millions of people are going to loose their health care coverage so that millions can have health care coverage. I sure hope they don't discover that the whole thing will be a net wash in terms of numbers of people  covered. If they do discover it, I'll be sorry for that, too. I promise. And you know how I keep my promises."

"I'm sorry that everybody didn't get moved into better plans because they want them, as opposed to being forced into them by us, which is what we really wanted to do."

"I'm sorry you found out that I said you could keep your health care plan if you like your health care plan, when I knew I was lying about it."

"I'm sorry you heard me say that I never really said you could keep your health care plan if you like your health care plan but said it was tied to whether or not insurance companies made any changes to your plans."

"I'm sorry we were hijacked by a website. Even though it was our web site, designed and developed by our people, we didn't mean for you to find out that we knew all along that it was not ready for release."

"I'm sorry you are hearing me now trying to make you think I'm sorry I misled you, even though I'm really saying I'm sorry you didn't hear the stealth words I meant that were never once included in my original promise."

"I'm sorry you don't like me for lying. I really, really need you to like me. I'm worth liking, you know."

"I'm a sorry bunch of trash and lies, but I'm sorry you have discovered that, and if you haven't I hope you don't. If you don't you're probably a liberal."

Thursday, November 7, 2013


Is that related to the following?:

Monday, November 4, 2013

Clever with Words

I was wrong once last year. (Does that surprise you?)
How do you understand the statement? If you are a liberal, you think I said I was wrong ONLY once last year. That is not what I said. I was wrong more than 50 times last year, but “50” includes one. So I WAS wrong once last. Not ONLY once, but I was wrong once.
Liberals treat words that way. They hide behind “secret” meanings and half-truths. Remember, a half-truth is a complete lie.
Kathleen Sibelius told Congress that there was no data to support the idea that business has been adversely affected by ObamaCare. She did not say that businesses were NOT adversely affected, only that there is no data to support the idea. THAT does not mean businesses were not affected adversely by ObamaCare, only that the government either does not have or has suppressed data about the issue.
Because they already know the answer, and it would make them look worse, the government is not likely to start releasing data about businesses adversely affected by ObamaCare. Or, if they do, they will either not release the data or will deliberately skew it for their benefit.
Sibelius is the one who testified to Congress under oath that they did not know how many had enrolled in ObamaCare via the famously defective website. She said she would not have the figures until the middle of November. She said it over and over again.
(At the risk of embarrassing myself, I know how many people view and/or comment on my blog site every single day!)
Then someone leaked the documents. Surprise! We discover that she knew all along. In fact, we know that she deliberately lied to Congress. (It won’t mean anything, though, because she is immune to Congress.) What we found out is that on the first day a mad rush to the website resulted in 6 people being registered. I wouldn’t have admitted that either, if I were Sibelius.
Liberals play games with other words, too. If they don’t like a particular social tradition, they just change the descriptive words. For 81/2 billion years, “marriage” meant the legal and spiritual union of a man and a woman. Liberals did not like that tradition, so they just changed the meaning of the word so it now includes gays, transvestites and sand fleas.
Y’all think this post is about ObamaCare and marriage, but it’s not. It’s about how liberals think (or rather don’t think). Evasiveness, distraction, misdirection, deflection and half-truths are their favorite methods of discussion (as well as testifying before Congress).

Sunday, November 3, 2013

Saturday, November 2, 2013


Written in 2003 by ONE person, Face Mash (Face Book’s predecessor), written by Mark Zuckerberg, was rolled out in February of 2004 (one year later-for you liberals). The first day it successfully attracted 450 students (from a population of a few thousand students – the only ones allowed on). By the time it became Face Book, it had cost $13 Million USD. That’s all. Just $13 Million dollars.

Three years and nine months after it became law, ObamaCare’s registration  website was rolled out with national, yea, even international fanfare. It cost at least $88 Million USD (the amount already paid to developer CGI – a Canadian firm) and some estimates run as high as $600 Million USD!

On its first day of operation, the ObamaCare web site managed to sign up 6 people from a population of 300,000,000 people. DID YOU GET THAT! 6 PEOPLE!!

By the second day, there were 100 enrollees and by October 3rd, there were 248. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Two hundred forty eight people enrolled. Not two hundred forty eight thousand or two hundred forty eight hundred, TWO HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT PEOPLE ENROLLED!

No wonder Kathleen Sibelius balked at revealing to Congress how many had signed up. It was NOT that she didn't know (although she said she would no know until mid-November). It was that she did not want anybody to know how colossal a failure its roll out had been. She admitted to its having had “problems,” but would not give the actual numbers.

Now documents have been obtained that show the actual numbers.

And it STILL doesn't work right.

But that’s OK. President BO (the amateur president) is now going to employ the “brightest and best” people from, of all places, Verizon (Can you hear me now?). Please explain why he spent between $88 Million and $600 Million on folks who were not the “brightest and best!”

I’ll bet you liberals will STILL defend it. I’ll bet you think this is normal for a new site.

(Warning: Do NOT read the history of the development of E-Bay, Amazon, Craig’s List, Angie’s List, YouTube or Linkdin. It will depress you).

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!  HA! Now the ObamaCare website has been shut down for “extended maintenance!”  "Extended maintenance"...right (Psst: Try "rebuilding from the first line of code to the last".)

Well, not for months, just much longer than usual  The site will go offline this weekend from 9 p.m. Saturday until 9 a.m. Sunday. Just 12 hours. No, wait! Thirteen hours. We set our clocks back an hour tonight, remember?
What a bunch of fools you people are.

Friday, November 1, 2013


So, how much does speech cost? If you are close to normal, it is free. In other words, speech is not a commodity. One does not go out and purchase speech.

We could say virtually the same thing about getting together with friends or to make a point to our leaders, having and expressing religious ideas and sharing what we know with others. Those are called “assembly,” “religion,” and the press, respectively.

You don’t buy unalienable rights. Once purchased (by bloodshed, if necessary), they do not have to be paid for again. They are free.

In language, we have to make distinctions between various ideas. Things you don’t buy but are able to exercise without interference are called rights. Things you have to pay money for are called commodities.

Americans do not have to buy their right to speech, their right to their religion, or their right to print what they want to print. They do not have to purchase their right to bear arms, their right to refuse the quartering of soldiers, the right to be secure against unwarranted search and seizure. They don’t buy their right to due process, their freedom from self-incrimination, their right to speedy trial if accused of a crime, their right to be free from double jeopardy, or their right to reasonable bail. They don’t purchase their right to keep their rights and to protect the rights of others and their right to be free to do anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Those rights are not granted by the Constitution, but are recognized by the Constitution.

Rights are the recognition by government that there are certain things they can neither grant nor prohibit. That’s what rights are. If the government can require, provide it or prohibit it, it is not a right.

Commodities, on the other hand, are purchased. I go to the grocery store to purchase my food. I do not have a right to food. If I want food I have to grow it or buy it. If I want a car, I have to earn enough money to buy one.

I am free to choose whether to by food or a car. Nobody forces me to buy either. Since neither is prohibited by the Constitution, I can make that choice freely and of my own accord.

Now the government has dictated that I have a “right” to health (something that on their best day they cannot provide for me) and that I must purchase a commodity to “insure” it. Apparently, the government of the United States has decided that it has the right to decide what a right is and what is a right.

What, then, are the limits of the rights the government can bestow upon me. Can they decide I have a right to a house? Can they decide I have a right to a car? Can they decide I have a right to food? If they can decide these things, can they decide how much I pay for each? Can they decide what kind of each I can buy? How far can we take that concept and still dare to call ourselves a people of liberty?

Maybe, as long as the government is filled with kind, reasonable people, they can make those kinds of decisions without doing too much harm…maybe. But what if the government is infiltrated with people who are not so kind and not so reasonable? What if they overreach? Who decides when they have overreached?

The outcome could be very different. And it will be.