As I see it, we are certainly a country divided.
There are those who seem to want to put their head in the sand about the Global Threats we face and instead want to focus all of their energies into the questionable threat of Global Warming. The left just simply refuses to recognize that there is a Global Threat from very unscrupulous people who are bent on nothing more than destroying America and ALL who stand in it and for it. They can't fathom the danger that every American man, woman, boy & girl face each and every day. The left, with the media adhered to their sides, seem to have an attitude of, "If we ignore them, they will go away." "If we play nicely with them, they will play nicely with us." How unrealistic can they be?
When will they recognize the terrorist movement is not a political machine, it is a religion. A religion that demands a follower do all within it's power to defeat the enemy and guess what? We are the enemy, America! America is the enemy! We are in danger. We are threatened, every single day! They (the terrorist, Muslims to be exact) have declared war on us. We did not declare war on them, first. They did. They determined years before 9-11-01 to be at war with ALL other religions. They have set about bringing their own agenda to pass. They are on the warpath. And here we sit, gripping and complaining about Bush taking us into an "unpopular war". Bush only declared war on them after they destroyed thousands of innocent lives!
Specifically, the Muslim faith. The Muslim faith declares that all who refuse to believe in their religion are to be extinguished. We don't want to hear it. We have been fed this bull hockey line about that being the case ONLY with the extremist Muslim, not your ordinary, run of the mill Muslim, but read their literature. Read the Koran, it says their greatest accomplishment is to kill unbelievers. They can attain to no greater honor.
Yet, here we sit with our heads up the Global Warming Gore butts focused on a threat that may or may not be real and we may or may not have any ability to affect any kind of change in or on the environment. We ignore the real threat to focus on a supposed threat that is not even in the forecast for 100's of years. In 100's of years we may not have to worry about Global Warming, we may be a vapor in the past because we are choosing to ignore the right here, right now threat.
So let's set aside Global Warming for a minute and humor me and let's talk about Global Muslim. The Muslim faith, Islam, seeks to infiltrate the globe. They have determined long ago to skirt open carnage and instead slowly and meticulously position themselves to emerge victorious. The outward "Holy War" is a smokescreen for all of the behind the scenes activities that are making their agenda look more and more appealing. We thought 9-11 was massive yet their agenda makes 9-11 look like child's play.
And, unfortunately, we are playing right into their hands. The left, with their Velcroed media, just refuses to even comprehend the menace that we face and the dangers they represent. They refuse to even acknowledge there is a treat. And I know this because Barack Obama is running for the highest office in our land and the background information provided by him and on him is so questionable it is scary and the left and their media has refused to investigate further than Obama's mouth.
How often have any of us believed what a politician has said? We lost trust in what they say long, long ago. As a society we are forced to instead look at what motivators they have (i.e. the money trail), and what their past has produced (i.e. voting record and non-voting record; associations, etc.). And the reason I can say with certainty that the left and media have refused to see the obvious is because they refuse to even investigate Barack Obama and his ties to the very terrorists that catapult danger into American's lives.
Check out this article about Obama and his connections (i.e. money trail, associations).
Obama Had Close Ties to Top Saudi Adviser at Early Age
Wednesday, September 3, 2008 5:58 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
http://newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_sutton_saudi/2008/09/03/127490.html
This is scary! Much more frightening than any Global Warming seminar can ever hope to produce. Here we have this man one step away from the White House and everything we hold dear in America and yet he is beholden straight to the enemy. What in the world are we thinking?
This youtube video is this man telling about the association between Obama and our enemies.
Percy Sutton Reveals Association Between Khalid al-Mansour and Obama at Age 25
I'd say you heard it from the horses mouth. Now how do we know he doesn't have deep reasons for giving precedence to America's enemy? No matter what he says. We must think for ourselves America. We cannot go around depending on the media to provide the truthful answers we seek. It is our obligation and responsibility!
Snowy Day 1-20-09
Yate's Mill
See The Light
North Carolina Fall 2008
God's Amazing Beauty
Quiet Country
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Disrespectful Associate Press
I just wanted to post this, most recent letter, I sent to the Associate Press. It identifies a specific disrespectful comment by a reporter today and alludes to the many disrespectful comments made over the last 5-7 years by Associated Press reporters. I've tried to explain to them "The unpopular president" is a matter of opinion and should be kept on the opinion page, not in everyday reporting.
I doubt they will listen, but sound the alarm I must.
And hey! The address is below, feel free to lift it and write your own letter!
September 10, 2008
The Associated Press
Headquarters
450 W. 33rd St.
New York, NY 10001
RE: Disrespectful reporting
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing in regards to the continual disrespectfulness of the reporter's in your employ. Over the past 5-7 years I have read and/or heard report after report brought by various Associated Press reporters that show absolutely no respect to the office of president of the United States of America.
Over and over and over again President Bush is referred to as "the unpopular president". This phrase, almost without exception, prefaces his name in every article the Associated Press releases. This may be news to you, but he is NOT unpopular to the whole populous.
Some people really appreciate the protection he has harnessed, the stances he has made in the face of disgruntled media reports, and the fact that he has continuously made policy based on what he feels is best for the United States of America, even if some of the people don't like it. He obviously, is not out for a popularity contest. The thing some appreciate the most is the fact that he has been faithful, faithful to his wife and faithful to the people of the United States of America.
Yet, you the agency who is supposed to bring unbiased reporting to inform the American people of the facts continuously disrespects this man and his administration by throwing in various phrases that are anything but unbiased.
Case in point, "The unpopular president" is a matter of opinion and should be reserved for the opinion pages, NOT mainstream reporting. That is a very biased statement.
This brings me to the report that initiated this contact in the first place.
Bush, Babs to find common ground in Kennedy
Tuesday, September 9, 2008 11:18 PM EDT
The Associated Press
By BRETT ZONGKER Associated Press Writer
Within the body of this story, that circulated all over the internet on September 10, 2008 your reporter, Brett Zongker, referred to the president of the greatest nation on the planet as a "lame-duck host".
"Not all the honorees are hoping their lame-duck host will be preparing to hand the keys to the White House over to a Democrat: Jones said he usually leans toward supporting Democrats, but is backing McCain this year because of his experience."
That is simply again a matter of opinion, but more important than that, is the absolute disdain and disrespectfulness shown to the president. Like it or not, he IS the president and deserves respect. If you cannot find it within yourself to respect him then you at least should respect America enough not to condone such awful remarks of our Commander In Chief. It is a terrible precedence portrayed to the rest of the world, who is just waiting, looking for every opportunity to attack American and destroy everything we hold dear.
The general press of the 21st century almost acts as if the global threat from those who wish to destroy the America that we know doesn't exist. I would like to know, "What are you thinking?" How can the press continually push to present stories that do less to inform and more to destroy the America you claim to love? The world doesn't have to know what the military officials know about our enemies. The world shouldn't know. This gives the enemy a tremendous advantage and I say, "Shame on you, for putting me, and my family, at risk for your own gain." It's wrong and if terrorists again tromp on our shores, you will hold in your greedy little hand a large portion of the responsibility for the carnage. I hope you are prepared to deal with that. I actually hope you will stop and think about; not what is best for you, but instead; what is best for this country you claim to represent.
I would expect a response to how you are going to handle yourselves in the future. I may be reached at the above address and look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Camille Rodgers
I doubt they will listen, but sound the alarm I must.
And hey! The address is below, feel free to lift it and write your own letter!
September 10, 2008
The Associated Press
Headquarters
450 W. 33rd St.
New York, NY 10001
RE: Disrespectful reporting
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing in regards to the continual disrespectfulness of the reporter's in your employ. Over the past 5-7 years I have read and/or heard report after report brought by various Associated Press reporters that show absolutely no respect to the office of president of the United States of America.
Over and over and over again President Bush is referred to as "the unpopular president". This phrase, almost without exception, prefaces his name in every article the Associated Press releases. This may be news to you, but he is NOT unpopular to the whole populous.
Some people really appreciate the protection he has harnessed, the stances he has made in the face of disgruntled media reports, and the fact that he has continuously made policy based on what he feels is best for the United States of America, even if some of the people don't like it. He obviously, is not out for a popularity contest. The thing some appreciate the most is the fact that he has been faithful, faithful to his wife and faithful to the people of the United States of America.
Yet, you the agency who is supposed to bring unbiased reporting to inform the American people of the facts continuously disrespects this man and his administration by throwing in various phrases that are anything but unbiased.
Case in point, "The unpopular president" is a matter of opinion and should be reserved for the opinion pages, NOT mainstream reporting. That is a very biased statement.
This brings me to the report that initiated this contact in the first place.
Bush, Babs to find common ground in Kennedy
Tuesday, September 9, 2008 11:18 PM EDT
The Associated Press
By BRETT ZONGKER Associated Press Writer
Within the body of this story, that circulated all over the internet on September 10, 2008 your reporter, Brett Zongker, referred to the president of the greatest nation on the planet as a "lame-duck host".
"Not all the honorees are hoping their lame-duck host will be preparing to hand the keys to the White House over to a Democrat: Jones said he usually leans toward supporting Democrats, but is backing McCain this year because of his experience."
That is simply again a matter of opinion, but more important than that, is the absolute disdain and disrespectfulness shown to the president. Like it or not, he IS the president and deserves respect. If you cannot find it within yourself to respect him then you at least should respect America enough not to condone such awful remarks of our Commander In Chief. It is a terrible precedence portrayed to the rest of the world, who is just waiting, looking for every opportunity to attack American and destroy everything we hold dear.
The general press of the 21st century almost acts as if the global threat from those who wish to destroy the America that we know doesn't exist. I would like to know, "What are you thinking?" How can the press continually push to present stories that do less to inform and more to destroy the America you claim to love? The world doesn't have to know what the military officials know about our enemies. The world shouldn't know. This gives the enemy a tremendous advantage and I say, "Shame on you, for putting me, and my family, at risk for your own gain." It's wrong and if terrorists again tromp on our shores, you will hold in your greedy little hand a large portion of the responsibility for the carnage. I hope you are prepared to deal with that. I actually hope you will stop and think about; not what is best for you, but instead; what is best for this country you claim to represent.
I would expect a response to how you are going to handle yourselves in the future. I may be reached at the above address and look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Camille Rodgers
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Where are the questions????????????
If there was ever any doubt in anyone's mind about media bias, boy oh boy, they have shown their true colors this week in regards to Sarah Palin as choice for the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. The actual reigning president can get caught having an affair, with activity in the Oval Office, and they try their hardest to downplay it. Get impeached for heaven's sake and they ignore it as if it never happened. The Democratic nominee can attend a hate spewing church for 20 years and they suppress the story for months and months. His patriotism can be very questionable and it is swept under the rug. The same nominee can get an illegal, sweetheart housing deal and the media acts like it is perfectly fine for him to have acquired his house in that manner. He can go to other countries and talk about how bad his country is. The American people really aren't all that concerned they contend. But when the Republican Vice Presidential nominee's daughter is found to be pregnant, out of wedlock, it becomes headline news for days and days.
Where are all of these woman's rights groups who, at every other time in recent history, would be saying this doesn't matter? The girl had the right to have pre-marital sex, she has the right to discover her body and the young man as well. It's just a natural part of growing up. Isn't that all of the rhetoric we keep hearing about sexual activity in young people? Why doesn't it apply to Republican young people? Somehow Republican young people (or the children of them) are immune from the images they see splashed all over the TV encouraging every kind of immoral behaviour imaginable? Does the media actually think our children have some kind of wall around them?
I heard this week the media talking about John McCain voting against contraceptive education. As if to say, if there had been contraceptive education in the Alaskan schools this wouldn't have happened to this young girl. No one has yet to even wonder, "How many pregnancies have been avoided through the abstinence education?" No one cares how many children, young people, have made the decision, based on the truthful information presented to them, to refrain from all intercourse so they can be pure for their spouse. The media is convinced that doesn't happen, ever, in this society. No, they have just taken this young girl and made her the poster child for abstinence education, disregarding the fact that in every school in America, where contraceptive education is taught or not, there are pregnant, unwed young ladies that didn't heed that education either. But has the media reported on that? Have they tried to find statics in favor or against contraceptive and abstinence education? No, they are just sitting on their butts refusing to do their job as journalist.
I find the term contraceptive education a bizarre term because no high school program in America teaches exactly about contraceptive education. They don't teach what contraceptives actually do, or how they actually work. They don't teach that many contraceptives don't actually prevent conception. The moral issue for many religious segments is if a fetus is conceived then it has the right to life. Yet, so many contraceptive methods do not prevent conception. They only prevent the ability of the fetus to attach to the uterine wall. Conception can take place and the fetus survive several days while traveling down the fallopian tubes and once it enters the uterus it would normally attach to the uterine wall and the fetus would then gain nourishment and grow and develop. However, the hormonal contraceptives cause the uterine wall to become an unwelcoming environment for the fetus. The fetus can't find a place to attach so it is prevented from getting the nourishment to allow the fetus to grow. The pill, folks. The pill does this.
The most disturbing reaction from the media is they act like it's a death sentence. They act like the girl has committed the unpardonable sin and will never ever live again. This is where I wonder where the woman's rights groups are? Where are they to stand up for this young woman and say, "Hey, everyone has a right to make her own choice?" I guess they are all sitting around wondering why she didn't have that abortion they have worked so hard for her to have the right to have? It's not really an issue of Pro-Choice, it really is simply Pro-Abortion. An unplanned pregnancy is, after all, exactly why they think an abortion is okay. That's their contention--Don't want it? Get rid of it? It doesn't matter that this new life will be welcomed into this world in a few months, the girl will make arrangements to finish high school (if she hasn't already) and will be watching an eternal soul grow and do all those fantastic things babies do in that first year and all of the years beyond.
I feel really bad for this young lady. She is the one suffering the most by this. Other than the effect on this poor young lady, the media's reaction is almost comical. I keep thinking, "When are they going to do their actual job?" When are they going to get off their butts and go find out exactly who Sarah Palin is? The media has successfully communicated that she has a daughter who is pregnant, so what else? The American people want to know who Sarah Palin is, what has she done, when did she do it, where has she been, and how, how has she accomplished all of these things?
The media is going to be quite surprised if the Republican ticket gets in the White House and they have had all of this time to research this woman and they didn't. They are going to be wondering who she is and why she makes decisions like she does and it will be because instead of doing their job they sat around and talked about a non-issue for weeks on end.
Where are all of these woman's rights groups who, at every other time in recent history, would be saying this doesn't matter? The girl had the right to have pre-marital sex, she has the right to discover her body and the young man as well. It's just a natural part of growing up. Isn't that all of the rhetoric we keep hearing about sexual activity in young people? Why doesn't it apply to Republican young people? Somehow Republican young people (or the children of them) are immune from the images they see splashed all over the TV encouraging every kind of immoral behaviour imaginable? Does the media actually think our children have some kind of wall around them?
I heard this week the media talking about John McCain voting against contraceptive education. As if to say, if there had been contraceptive education in the Alaskan schools this wouldn't have happened to this young girl. No one has yet to even wonder, "How many pregnancies have been avoided through the abstinence education?" No one cares how many children, young people, have made the decision, based on the truthful information presented to them, to refrain from all intercourse so they can be pure for their spouse. The media is convinced that doesn't happen, ever, in this society. No, they have just taken this young girl and made her the poster child for abstinence education, disregarding the fact that in every school in America, where contraceptive education is taught or not, there are pregnant, unwed young ladies that didn't heed that education either. But has the media reported on that? Have they tried to find statics in favor or against contraceptive and abstinence education? No, they are just sitting on their butts refusing to do their job as journalist.
I find the term contraceptive education a bizarre term because no high school program in America teaches exactly about contraceptive education. They don't teach what contraceptives actually do, or how they actually work. They don't teach that many contraceptives don't actually prevent conception. The moral issue for many religious segments is if a fetus is conceived then it has the right to life. Yet, so many contraceptive methods do not prevent conception. They only prevent the ability of the fetus to attach to the uterine wall. Conception can take place and the fetus survive several days while traveling down the fallopian tubes and once it enters the uterus it would normally attach to the uterine wall and the fetus would then gain nourishment and grow and develop. However, the hormonal contraceptives cause the uterine wall to become an unwelcoming environment for the fetus. The fetus can't find a place to attach so it is prevented from getting the nourishment to allow the fetus to grow. The pill, folks. The pill does this.
The most disturbing reaction from the media is they act like it's a death sentence. They act like the girl has committed the unpardonable sin and will never ever live again. This is where I wonder where the woman's rights groups are? Where are they to stand up for this young woman and say, "Hey, everyone has a right to make her own choice?" I guess they are all sitting around wondering why she didn't have that abortion they have worked so hard for her to have the right to have? It's not really an issue of Pro-Choice, it really is simply Pro-Abortion. An unplanned pregnancy is, after all, exactly why they think an abortion is okay. That's their contention--Don't want it? Get rid of it? It doesn't matter that this new life will be welcomed into this world in a few months, the girl will make arrangements to finish high school (if she hasn't already) and will be watching an eternal soul grow and do all those fantastic things babies do in that first year and all of the years beyond.
I feel really bad for this young lady. She is the one suffering the most by this. Other than the effect on this poor young lady, the media's reaction is almost comical. I keep thinking, "When are they going to do their actual job?" When are they going to get off their butts and go find out exactly who Sarah Palin is? The media has successfully communicated that she has a daughter who is pregnant, so what else? The American people want to know who Sarah Palin is, what has she done, when did she do it, where has she been, and how, how has she accomplished all of these things?
The media is going to be quite surprised if the Republican ticket gets in the White House and they have had all of this time to research this woman and they didn't. They are going to be wondering who she is and why she makes decisions like she does and it will be because instead of doing their job they sat around and talked about a non-issue for weeks on end.
Monday, August 11, 2008
What the Dems Want, Really?
Okay, I'm going to try and cover some ground today in regards to the recent announcement by the Democrat National Committee (DNC) on it's party platform in the upcoming election.
For those of you who are Democrat and want your party running the White House and the Congress this article's for you!
First, you need to be asking yourself, is this REALLY what I want? Really?
Secondly, will this REALLY be what is best for America?
Thirdly, where in the world have we gone wrong?
The DNC announced this week its platform for the upcoming Democratic National Convention and what it hopes to lead America to get accomplished through this election.
This platform deals with:
Guaranteed Health Care,
Pension Subsidies,
Energy rebates,
Tax breaks for some (vague group),
Higher taxes for those making over $250,000,
Stricter rules on "predatory" lenders,
Closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility,
"Tough, practical and humane immigration reform in the first year of the next administration,"
NAFTA,
Doubling of the Peace Corp,
Restoration of the ban on assault-type weapons and additional "reasonable regulation" on arms
Safe, legal abortions for everyone,
Prenatal care for the needy,
Favors helping religious groups provide social services as long as "public funds are not used to proselytize or discriminate".
I'm sure this is not an exhaustive list, but enough to make you consider what are we thinking? (I've got a call in to the DNC Committee to get a full copy of the report but have to call back in a few days.) In the meantime, muse about the following:
First, Guaranteed Health Care
I believe we ALL want a healthy society. But where is the debate about BIG government, verses government by-the-people? Guaranteed Health Care is a great big phrase for more money out of your pockets and more money in the coffers of Washington politicians. We know what will happen if they get their hands on that money. Look at Medicaid today. If you are on Medicaid you have to search high and low to find a doctor that will accept it. Why? Medicaid takes 3 times longer to actually pay the bill than any other insurance company. How would you like to render services and not get paid for 3-9 months, sometimes a year? Will the grocery store accept your story about you'll pay when you get paid? Of course not. Our society can't run like that, yet here is the Democrat party stating they want ALL doctors, nurses, clinics, etc. to operate that way for ALL of the populous under their "guaranteed" plan. Not only do doctors that accept Medicaid have to wait extra long for their money, when they get it, it is at a GREATLY reduced rate than the insurance companies or self-insured pay. You have a $100 office visit. Insurance pays $80 (insured pays $20), Self-insured might be able to work out a pay-today plan where they can pay-in-full the day of service for $75 instead of the $100. Medicaid wants the services paid at $35 and the doctor is to eat the rest. This is what Washington has already dished up for us. We cannot expect anything different and it would be foolish for us to hope beyond what is before us.
Now let's cover the next several agenda items together:
Pension Subsidies,
Energy rebates,
Tax breaks for some (vague group),
Higher taxes for those making over $250,000
Pension subsidies, energy rebates, vague group getting tax breaks (that's political speak, isn't it?), higher taxes for those making over $250,000. The Dem plan is to pay for all of its new "funding" by placing higher taxes on those making over $250,000 a year. Health care, pension subsidies, energy rebates, vague tax break group. All of those are supposed to be supported by this one little "raise taxes" on those making over $250,000. How many people do they think make over $250,000? How do they think they make over $250,000? I have always seen raising taxes on the wealthy as a ghost-rider plan. Those who make over $250,000 are expert on how to charge ALL increases right back to the lesser paid workers. It's happened over and over again. That's what Reaganomics was about. It's called the trickle-down effect. You raise their taxes, the affect trickles-down. Now please understand, I believe everyone should pay their fair share. But to penalize a person for success is stupid! If you penalize a person for success, it stands to reason that you have also just rewarded a person for failure. Where is the motivation in that? The person who is rewarded for failure is not motivated to do better, and the person who is penalized for success is not motivated to be more successful.
Then there's the strict rules on "predatory" lenders
Can someone tell me who exactly is a "predatory" lender? This is about the most political thing this document covers. This is nothing more than words filling paper to tickle the ears of voters. Aren't there already rules about lending to people who can't pay back? This is just rhetoric.
Closure of Guantanamo Bay facility
Doesn't this come with the end of the war in Iraq? I feel so sorry for the military. They can't protect the country they have vowed to protect because said country has tied their hands behind their backs and refused to support them in the most basic forms. Do the Dems really want those who belong in the Guantanamo Bay facility to be out wondering around the world seeking whom they may devour? You and me.
"Tough, practical and humane immigration reform in the first year of the next administration"
Can we all say, "amnesty?" Do you, who are Democrats, really want those from other countries (specifically Mexico, but not exclusively) to be able to freely come here, work, play and make hay, then send the wealth into foreign coffers? Can you see the expense it is having on the American workforce? Right now we are having record unemployment rates, companies are laying off workforces right and left. True blue American's can't find work, even lesser paying work, because we have allowed 10-20 million (no one really knows an accurate figure, they're hiding out, remember) illegal aliens to work in our stead. Now they have the money and we are left with nothing. A couple of years ago we took a vacation to visit our nation's capitol. Here we were enjoying the sights and sounds of Washington, D.C., remembering all of the sacrifices that were made for us to be such an amazing nation and we walk to the steps of the Capitol building only to find demonstrators. Not American demonstrators, no. People who snuck across our borders, hid out in the desert, lied about who they were and forged papers to steal jobs out from under our feet and then there they were protesting on the steps of our nation's capitol for their right to be here. Right in front of everyone! What an atrocity! They have no legal right to press their big toe on the soil of this country and the dems (and probably unfortunately the RNC, too) want to allow them to freely continue since they are here anyway. It's awful. They have no right. We have legal, legitimate ways to immigrate. If we expect them to be law abiding citizens, we should expect them to start with obeying the laws, not hope they will obey once they've broken the laws to get here.
NAFTA
I'm not sure what to think about NAFTA. The vast majority of what I've heard I don't like. It seems here again we have simply sold out our national sovereignty for money. The quote is, "We will work with Canada and Mexico to amend the North American Free Trade Agreement so that it works better for all three North American countries." Why are we working to make anything better for Canada or Mexico? Why aren't we focused on making things better for America, we have enough to do here. The document is vague and promises nothing in regards to NAFTA. As I recall, President Clinton is the author of NAFTA and as a fellow Democrat, you would just have to assume Obama would continue the rhetoric. He has said nothing to indicate otherwise.
Doubling of the Peace Corp
At who's expense? Here again, we have quite a large pile of garbage to be handled here. We certainly don't need to add additional pie-in-the-sky programs to be funded on the backs of hardworking Americans.
Restoration of the ban on assault-type weapons and additional "reasonable regulation" on arms
Okay, the recent ruling by the Supreme Court is worthless? Why do we have a Supreme Court? Why are we not listening to the people? How are we justifying ignoring the 2nd Amendment? The Dems seem to have this mindset that they can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to agree with and which one's to bypass. Do we really want to move further away from what the founding father's set in place? Is this really the Dem agenda? As American's we have the right to keep and bear arms. Not just certain arms, all arms. We have that right because the founding father's knew we would need it. And we do need it. The right to bear arms empowers the people to fight for this country in every way. We have to ask ourselves, Why? Why wouldn't the government want the people to be able to fight for themselves? They don't because if we can fight for ourselves then we can fight against them. They are dead set against having to be accountable to anyone. I'm not saying we need to go on a shooting rampage in Washington. I'm saying empowering people is what democracy is about. Not tying their hands and denying them the ability to govern themselves.
Safe, legal abortions for everyone
You know, this is the biggest blight on the society in which we live today. We have decided murder is a viable choice. Now the DNC has made it part of their platform to insure every American woman has the right to murder, unequivocal. The DNC wants to legalize lawbreakers and murderers! First, no abortion is 100% safe, now is it? How in the world do the Dems intend to meet this point on their own platform? And second, legal, doesn't make something right. They are demanding the American people pay for women to commit murder. As an American citizen, I am not interested in paying for women to murder their babies. How dare the government of this country demand such a thing from me? Or you?
Prenatal care for the needy
Isn't this a bit redundant? If we have government run health care for ALL wouldn't this include prenatal care? Or is this targeted specifically to those who have snuck across the borders and forged paperwork to allow themselves to reap the benefits that aren't theirs? Now the Dems want to not only make it legal for them to be there but also want to force those of us here legally to pay for them to have healthy babies. I'm all for every baby being a healthy baby (including those who are so rudely murdered). However, I'm not for funding prenatal care for the world or, everyone who can step foot on American soil. We just DO NOT have those kind of resources. We need to understand that. Are you ready to foot the bill?
Favors helping religious groups provide social services as long as "public funds are not used to proselytize or discriminate"
This is a real kicker. The DNC is in favor of using religious groups, and all of their resources, as long as they abandon the cause for which they were established. Where is the "Freedom of Religion" in this agenda? Religious groups are usually all about helping others, showing love and compassion. Why do you think that is? Religious groups want to show the love of the god they serve. They want those receiving the assistance to know it is done out of a love that is to be shared. So the DNC wants to use church fellowship halls, sanctuaries, parking lots, funds, etc. to help the needy but they want to take away Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion to do this. Where's the motivation for the religious organizations? Does the DNC really think the religious groups want the government's conditional money? Faith based initiatives work because they are "Faith based"!
For those of you who are Democrat and want your party running the White House and the Congress this article's for you!
First, you need to be asking yourself, is this REALLY what I want? Really?
Secondly, will this REALLY be what is best for America?
Thirdly, where in the world have we gone wrong?
The DNC announced this week its platform for the upcoming Democratic National Convention and what it hopes to lead America to get accomplished through this election.
This platform deals with:
Guaranteed Health Care,
Pension Subsidies,
Energy rebates,
Tax breaks for some (vague group),
Higher taxes for those making over $250,000,
Stricter rules on "predatory" lenders,
Closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility,
"Tough, practical and humane immigration reform in the first year of the next administration,"
NAFTA,
Doubling of the Peace Corp,
Restoration of the ban on assault-type weapons and additional "reasonable regulation" on arms
Safe, legal abortions for everyone,
Prenatal care for the needy,
Favors helping religious groups provide social services as long as "public funds are not used to proselytize or discriminate".
I'm sure this is not an exhaustive list, but enough to make you consider what are we thinking? (I've got a call in to the DNC Committee to get a full copy of the report but have to call back in a few days.) In the meantime, muse about the following:
First, Guaranteed Health Care
I believe we ALL want a healthy society. But where is the debate about BIG government, verses government by-the-people? Guaranteed Health Care is a great big phrase for more money out of your pockets and more money in the coffers of Washington politicians. We know what will happen if they get their hands on that money. Look at Medicaid today. If you are on Medicaid you have to search high and low to find a doctor that will accept it. Why? Medicaid takes 3 times longer to actually pay the bill than any other insurance company. How would you like to render services and not get paid for 3-9 months, sometimes a year? Will the grocery store accept your story about you'll pay when you get paid? Of course not. Our society can't run like that, yet here is the Democrat party stating they want ALL doctors, nurses, clinics, etc. to operate that way for ALL of the populous under their "guaranteed" plan. Not only do doctors that accept Medicaid have to wait extra long for their money, when they get it, it is at a GREATLY reduced rate than the insurance companies or self-insured pay. You have a $100 office visit. Insurance pays $80 (insured pays $20), Self-insured might be able to work out a pay-today plan where they can pay-in-full the day of service for $75 instead of the $100. Medicaid wants the services paid at $35 and the doctor is to eat the rest. This is what Washington has already dished up for us. We cannot expect anything different and it would be foolish for us to hope beyond what is before us.
Now let's cover the next several agenda items together:
Pension Subsidies,
Energy rebates,
Tax breaks for some (vague group),
Higher taxes for those making over $250,000
Pension subsidies, energy rebates, vague group getting tax breaks (that's political speak, isn't it?), higher taxes for those making over $250,000. The Dem plan is to pay for all of its new "funding" by placing higher taxes on those making over $250,000 a year. Health care, pension subsidies, energy rebates, vague tax break group. All of those are supposed to be supported by this one little "raise taxes" on those making over $250,000. How many people do they think make over $250,000? How do they think they make over $250,000? I have always seen raising taxes on the wealthy as a ghost-rider plan. Those who make over $250,000 are expert on how to charge ALL increases right back to the lesser paid workers. It's happened over and over again. That's what Reaganomics was about. It's called the trickle-down effect. You raise their taxes, the affect trickles-down. Now please understand, I believe everyone should pay their fair share. But to penalize a person for success is stupid! If you penalize a person for success, it stands to reason that you have also just rewarded a person for failure. Where is the motivation in that? The person who is rewarded for failure is not motivated to do better, and the person who is penalized for success is not motivated to be more successful.
Then there's the strict rules on "predatory" lenders
Can someone tell me who exactly is a "predatory" lender? This is about the most political thing this document covers. This is nothing more than words filling paper to tickle the ears of voters. Aren't there already rules about lending to people who can't pay back? This is just rhetoric.
Closure of Guantanamo Bay facility
Doesn't this come with the end of the war in Iraq? I feel so sorry for the military. They can't protect the country they have vowed to protect because said country has tied their hands behind their backs and refused to support them in the most basic forms. Do the Dems really want those who belong in the Guantanamo Bay facility to be out wondering around the world seeking whom they may devour? You and me.
"Tough, practical and humane immigration reform in the first year of the next administration"
Can we all say, "amnesty?" Do you, who are Democrats, really want those from other countries (specifically Mexico, but not exclusively) to be able to freely come here, work, play and make hay, then send the wealth into foreign coffers? Can you see the expense it is having on the American workforce? Right now we are having record unemployment rates, companies are laying off workforces right and left. True blue American's can't find work, even lesser paying work, because we have allowed 10-20 million (no one really knows an accurate figure, they're hiding out, remember) illegal aliens to work in our stead. Now they have the money and we are left with nothing. A couple of years ago we took a vacation to visit our nation's capitol. Here we were enjoying the sights and sounds of Washington, D.C., remembering all of the sacrifices that were made for us to be such an amazing nation and we walk to the steps of the Capitol building only to find demonstrators. Not American demonstrators, no. People who snuck across our borders, hid out in the desert, lied about who they were and forged papers to steal jobs out from under our feet and then there they were protesting on the steps of our nation's capitol for their right to be here. Right in front of everyone! What an atrocity! They have no legal right to press their big toe on the soil of this country and the dems (and probably unfortunately the RNC, too) want to allow them to freely continue since they are here anyway. It's awful. They have no right. We have legal, legitimate ways to immigrate. If we expect them to be law abiding citizens, we should expect them to start with obeying the laws, not hope they will obey once they've broken the laws to get here.
NAFTA
I'm not sure what to think about NAFTA. The vast majority of what I've heard I don't like. It seems here again we have simply sold out our national sovereignty for money. The quote is, "We will work with Canada and Mexico to amend the North American Free Trade Agreement so that it works better for all three North American countries." Why are we working to make anything better for Canada or Mexico? Why aren't we focused on making things better for America, we have enough to do here. The document is vague and promises nothing in regards to NAFTA. As I recall, President Clinton is the author of NAFTA and as a fellow Democrat, you would just have to assume Obama would continue the rhetoric. He has said nothing to indicate otherwise.
Doubling of the Peace Corp
At who's expense? Here again, we have quite a large pile of garbage to be handled here. We certainly don't need to add additional pie-in-the-sky programs to be funded on the backs of hardworking Americans.
Restoration of the ban on assault-type weapons and additional "reasonable regulation" on arms
Okay, the recent ruling by the Supreme Court is worthless? Why do we have a Supreme Court? Why are we not listening to the people? How are we justifying ignoring the 2nd Amendment? The Dems seem to have this mindset that they can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to agree with and which one's to bypass. Do we really want to move further away from what the founding father's set in place? Is this really the Dem agenda? As American's we have the right to keep and bear arms. Not just certain arms, all arms. We have that right because the founding father's knew we would need it. And we do need it. The right to bear arms empowers the people to fight for this country in every way. We have to ask ourselves, Why? Why wouldn't the government want the people to be able to fight for themselves? They don't because if we can fight for ourselves then we can fight against them. They are dead set against having to be accountable to anyone. I'm not saying we need to go on a shooting rampage in Washington. I'm saying empowering people is what democracy is about. Not tying their hands and denying them the ability to govern themselves.
Safe, legal abortions for everyone
You know, this is the biggest blight on the society in which we live today. We have decided murder is a viable choice. Now the DNC has made it part of their platform to insure every American woman has the right to murder, unequivocal. The DNC wants to legalize lawbreakers and murderers! First, no abortion is 100% safe, now is it? How in the world do the Dems intend to meet this point on their own platform? And second, legal, doesn't make something right. They are demanding the American people pay for women to commit murder. As an American citizen, I am not interested in paying for women to murder their babies. How dare the government of this country demand such a thing from me? Or you?
Prenatal care for the needy
Isn't this a bit redundant? If we have government run health care for ALL wouldn't this include prenatal care? Or is this targeted specifically to those who have snuck across the borders and forged paperwork to allow themselves to reap the benefits that aren't theirs? Now the Dems want to not only make it legal for them to be there but also want to force those of us here legally to pay for them to have healthy babies. I'm all for every baby being a healthy baby (including those who are so rudely murdered). However, I'm not for funding prenatal care for the world or, everyone who can step foot on American soil. We just DO NOT have those kind of resources. We need to understand that. Are you ready to foot the bill?
Favors helping religious groups provide social services as long as "public funds are not used to proselytize or discriminate"
This is a real kicker. The DNC is in favor of using religious groups, and all of their resources, as long as they abandon the cause for which they were established. Where is the "Freedom of Religion" in this agenda? Religious groups are usually all about helping others, showing love and compassion. Why do you think that is? Religious groups want to show the love of the god they serve. They want those receiving the assistance to know it is done out of a love that is to be shared. So the DNC wants to use church fellowship halls, sanctuaries, parking lots, funds, etc. to help the needy but they want to take away Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion to do this. Where's the motivation for the religious organizations? Does the DNC really think the religious groups want the government's conditional money? Faith based initiatives work because they are "Faith based"!
Saturday, August 9, 2008
See What I Mean?
I ran across this youtube video while reading and thought it went so well with my recent blog I would include it. Get some tissues, you will laugh so hard you will need them. Too bad it is at our children's expense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
