I am not a politician, but I know what all Americans know (if they are honest with themselves) that we cannot spend more money in a year than we make in income.
A few days ago in answer to the sequester the administration began releasing illegal aliens, claiming they could no longer afford the cost of detaining them. Clearly this is yet another attempt by the Obama administration to enrage the American public (and it will no doubt be successful).
But, in fact they could have loaded them on a bus and returned them to "whence they came"; and thus not have released them into the rolls of the unemployed, and possibly into a life of crime (desperate people act desperately!).
Speaker of the House, John Boehner was appalled (once again) by the administrations actions. Boehner was in disbelief that Obama would possibly endanger the lives of American citizens by releasing criminals into the general populace.
Although many of these detainees may in fact be upstanding individuals, they entered the country illegally and it would seem to therefore dictate that they must be returned to their native land.
Obama is like a child who is told by his parents that he cannot go to the movies until he brings up his grades and therefore he burns down the house.In fact this precisely the kind of desperate measure that is required. WE MUST STOP UNCONTROLLED SPENDING! This is something that the administration is clearly opposed to doing.
We haven't had a budget since 2009. Sadly many in the senate perceive it as unnecessary. As they correctly point out, the Senate Appropriations Committee is all that's needed. But, without a budget, there’s no planning, just rampant spending; kind of like giving a credit card to 16 year old with the instructions to use it as needed!
In truth the a 10% cut (across the board) in the total wages and benefits of $236 billion paid to the 2.1 million executive branch civilian workers in 2011 (over $110,000 average per employee) would save taxpayers over $23 billion. To be sure, discomforting to those suffering the cuts but not entirely devastating.
There were 2,790,000 federal workers in January 2009 - now there are 2,804,000. Every month after January 2009 has seen more federal workers than were employed in January 2009. Moreover, there are more federal workers under President Obama than there were under President Bush.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
The Fiscal Cliff - Take the Leap
The Fiscal Cliff, in my naturally skeptical mind (and why should we not ALL be
skeptical) is a fear tactic being employed by BOTH parties in order to avoid having to
ace the bitter truth (and acting responsibly) rather than taking the decisive action
needed NOW, and stop trying to buy our way out of recession.
If our electorate is to be believed (we elected them and, therefore, we need to muster
up the faith to trust them) the effect of going over the "cliff" will be devastating.
However, I fear that the effect of not going over the cliff NOW, only postpones the
devastation to a later point in time; to point in time, when the devastation will be
even greater, precisely because we delayed and refused to face the reality of these
troubled economic times.
Both parties have "pet" policies and programs which they want to preserve (and even
expand), but the reality is that - "our government has grown too big". Why do we really
need a Department of Homeland Security? Haven't we always sought to keep our homeland secure? Is it not the responsibility of our entire national defense system and the Department of Defense strive to keep our nation secure? Do not the FBI, the FTA, the DEA and even CIA, all act in one way or another to keep our homeland secure?
Our entire government is fraught with duplicity; if (and this is a HUGE if) we could
take action eliminate even "some" small part of the duplication we could start down the
road to fiscal responsibility. The FBI use to handle issues involving firearms,
tobacco and alcohol (FTA) as well as drugs (DEA) and they still do, but now they share
the responsibility with the DEA, FTA and perhaps the CIA and Homeland Security, when
for example, drugs become a source of funds for terrorist activity.
What if congress took action and enacted Federal budget that even "began to approach"
the tax dollars available; would we not all applaud this act of fiscal responsibility?
What if we cut expenditures to all areas of the economy by as little as 2 - 5 percent
and held fast to this cut; would we as a nation suffer, and how many billions of dollars
would we save?
skeptical) is a fear tactic being employed by BOTH parties in order to avoid having to
ace the bitter truth (and acting responsibly) rather than taking the decisive action
needed NOW, and stop trying to buy our way out of recession.
If our electorate is to be believed (we elected them and, therefore, we need to muster
up the faith to trust them) the effect of going over the "cliff" will be devastating.
However, I fear that the effect of not going over the cliff NOW, only postpones the
devastation to a later point in time; to point in time, when the devastation will be
even greater, precisely because we delayed and refused to face the reality of these
troubled economic times.
Both parties have "pet" policies and programs which they want to preserve (and even
expand), but the reality is that - "our government has grown too big". Why do we really
need a Department of Homeland Security? Haven't we always sought to keep our homeland secure? Is it not the responsibility of our entire national defense system and the Department of Defense strive to keep our nation secure? Do not the FBI, the FTA, the DEA and even CIA, all act in one way or another to keep our homeland secure?
Our entire government is fraught with duplicity; if (and this is a HUGE if) we could
take action eliminate even "some" small part of the duplication we could start down the
road to fiscal responsibility. The FBI use to handle issues involving firearms,
tobacco and alcohol (FTA) as well as drugs (DEA) and they still do, but now they share
the responsibility with the DEA, FTA and perhaps the CIA and Homeland Security, when
for example, drugs become a source of funds for terrorist activity.
What if congress took action and enacted Federal budget that even "began to approach"
the tax dollars available; would we not all applaud this act of fiscal responsibility?
What if we cut expenditures to all areas of the economy by as little as 2 - 5 percent
and held fast to this cut; would we as a nation suffer, and how many billions of dollars
would we save?
Saturday, November 3, 2012
OBAMA is Not Our Savior
Barack Hussein Obama is not our savior. Four years ago many American's placed their
hopes and passions for a better America in the hands of Barack Obama. Now many of
these same Americans feel they have been betrayed; and they have.
Mr. Obama's plan for America the America that we grew up believing in, it is not the
America that many of us have fought to preserve, it is not the America that values free
enterprise over free handouts, it is not the America forefathers created on the promise
that hard work will be rewarded and revered.
I grew up believing in Puritanism (or basically hard work was good) and the counterpart -
that hard work should be rewarded. Obama grew up and was educated to believe -
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Google this if you
seek the source).
I grew up honoring and revering men like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Henry
Ford and Thomas Edison. Other than Abraham Lincoln, I shudder to think who Obama's
boyhood heroes were.
Obama seems to resent and often disparages the wealthy that have, like it or not,
shaped our history and played a major role making America what it is today.
We Americans all want a better life for our family, our loved ones and, of course,
ourselves, but the "American Way" is to earn it by the fruits of our labor, and not have
it given to us by someone who rightly earned it in just that manner.
I question the whole philosophy of "redistribution of the wealth" as unbecoming to what
we are as Americans. Most of us were raised to respect success, not to feel threatened
or intimidated by it; for sure wealth is a part and parcel of success and a measure of it.
Contrary to what most Americans believe, the top 16% of American wage earners pay
70% of the income tax burden; while the remaining 84% of the American tax payers bare
only a 30% share of our nations income taxes. That is a far cry from most Americans
perceived reality.
Wealth in the hands of the wealthy builds on itself to the benefit of all - a wealthy America
is a strong America.
This is not to say that we ignore poor and impoverished, but the poor and impoverished
are best helped by giving them the means to help themselves; teaching them how to fish
rather than give them fish.
Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth is "a handout not a hand up," and it is
fundamentally bad for Americans in general and specifically bad for America a nation
bound to a common cause. A cause of freedom, justice and equality for all.
As an example, Obama has expanded the food stamp program by more than 100%, not
by reaching out to the truly needy, but by lowering the requirements to qualify for the
food stamp program. In so doing, Obama no doubt succeeds in endearing himself to an
electorate eager to get more than they either deserve or need, an electorate that is not
representative of the ideals of true Americans.
Nothing is more central to American ideology than "Free Enterprise" and the policies of
Barack Obama (and I believe his personal ideology) is the greatest threat to this core
philosophy that America has ever faced.
It is time for Americans to stand up for the ideals on which this great nation was founded.
hopes and passions for a better America in the hands of Barack Obama. Now many of
these same Americans feel they have been betrayed; and they have.
Mr. Obama's plan for America the America that we grew up believing in, it is not the
America that many of us have fought to preserve, it is not the America that values free
enterprise over free handouts, it is not the America forefathers created on the promise
that hard work will be rewarded and revered.
I grew up believing in Puritanism (or basically hard work was good) and the counterpart -
that hard work should be rewarded. Obama grew up and was educated to believe -
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Google this if you
seek the source).
I grew up honoring and revering men like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Henry
Ford and Thomas Edison. Other than Abraham Lincoln, I shudder to think who Obama's
boyhood heroes were.
Obama seems to resent and often disparages the wealthy that have, like it or not,
shaped our history and played a major role making America what it is today.
We Americans all want a better life for our family, our loved ones and, of course,
ourselves, but the "American Way" is to earn it by the fruits of our labor, and not have
it given to us by someone who rightly earned it in just that manner.
I question the whole philosophy of "redistribution of the wealth" as unbecoming to what
we are as Americans. Most of us were raised to respect success, not to feel threatened
or intimidated by it; for sure wealth is a part and parcel of success and a measure of it.
Contrary to what most Americans believe, the top 16% of American wage earners pay
70% of the income tax burden; while the remaining 84% of the American tax payers bare
only a 30% share of our nations income taxes. That is a far cry from most Americans
perceived reality.
Wealth in the hands of the wealthy builds on itself to the benefit of all - a wealthy America
is a strong America.
This is not to say that we ignore poor and impoverished, but the poor and impoverished
are best helped by giving them the means to help themselves; teaching them how to fish
rather than give them fish.
Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth is "a handout not a hand up," and it is
fundamentally bad for Americans in general and specifically bad for America a nation
bound to a common cause. A cause of freedom, justice and equality for all.
As an example, Obama has expanded the food stamp program by more than 100%, not
by reaching out to the truly needy, but by lowering the requirements to qualify for the
food stamp program. In so doing, Obama no doubt succeeds in endearing himself to an
electorate eager to get more than they either deserve or need, an electorate that is not
representative of the ideals of true Americans.
Nothing is more central to American ideology than "Free Enterprise" and the policies of
Barack Obama (and I believe his personal ideology) is the greatest threat to this core
philosophy that America has ever faced.
It is time for Americans to stand up for the ideals on which this great nation was founded.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
HORSE AND MOTORCYCLE
Yesterday (now the day before yesterday) started pretty normal; 15 minutes of morning wake up exercises that take me 30 minutes, oatmeal breakfast, motorcycle ride to Union City for coffee, research the internet for the - "Secret to Internet Success" and go into Bronson to watch the grand kids' ball games.
Then, however, when all of the ball games failed to materialize, I suddenly found myself with time to burn; and so, burn it I did! I turned my motorcycle to the east and headed to Windy Hill Farm to ride my reining horse, Royal Kandy Kid (Kandy, for short).
Kandy has been much neglected over the past two years, but is shaping up well after having recently been shod (no sliders yet, but her first shoes in over two years). As a side note, many thanks to farrier Brad Davis for taking the extra care to "hot shoe" Kandy and really set her up right.
Kandy is a performance reining horse that deserves more than she's gotten over the past four or five years. The fact is that she has pleasantly surprised me by how well she is performing.
Although, without sliders (the specially designed shoes that let reiners drop their "A.." and Slide) she hasn't been able to perform, what is regarded as of one of the two "signature" moves of reiners. But, the other day when I first asked her to "spin" (the second "signature" move of a reiner), she dropped her head, hunkered down and started to spin like a top; I found myself grabbing the saddle horn (a definite "no-no") to keep from being thrown off. Kandy, hadn't forgotten a thing; Rex on the hand, is going to require some "special attention".
On Monday, though we had a decent or maybe even a "great" ride; she changed leads flawlessly, dropped down from a fast circle to a slow without incident, spun like a "whirl-wind" and even wanted to run into a slide (had I allowed her to do so). It was clear that she was remembering the reining pattern and wanted to "GO".
After completing the ride and unsaddling her, I tied her in a vacant stall in order to allow her some "cool down" time before turning her out to pasture, and then proceeded to motorcycle down the road to "Belle Vista" (the nearby golf course) to have a beer and coffee.
While there, I tried to strike up a conversation with the patron sitting beside me at the bar. First I tried talking about the Tiger's woes, but he clearly seemed disinterested; and so, went back to my beer "with my tail between my legs".
Suddenly, however, he made a comment in a dialect that was clearly not just a southern drawl. When I asked where he was from and he responded Australia. Now, his seeming disinterest, made perfect sense "down under" they play cricket, not baseball.
After that, Jack and I, we had an interesting conversation. It turns out that he owns a motorhome manufacturing plant in Angola (didn't even know that Angola had such an animal) and exports them to Australia. This seemed incredible to me. The fact that he could build a motorhome in America and transport that them to Australia (at $35,000 a unit in shipping cost) and make a sizeable profit seemed incredible.
Switching to coffee (after only one beer) the topic changed to motorcycle and Jack commented that rode "crotch rockets" because, "he wasn't old enough to ride a Harley!" - touche, (and ouch) Jack.
After that, his cell phone rang and walked outside to better converse; and I left, as I began - "with my tail between my legs.
Then, however, when all of the ball games failed to materialize, I suddenly found myself with time to burn; and so, burn it I did! I turned my motorcycle to the east and headed to Windy Hill Farm to ride my reining horse, Royal Kandy Kid (Kandy, for short).
Kandy has been much neglected over the past two years, but is shaping up well after having recently been shod (no sliders yet, but her first shoes in over two years). As a side note, many thanks to farrier Brad Davis for taking the extra care to "hot shoe" Kandy and really set her up right.
Kandy is a performance reining horse that deserves more than she's gotten over the past four or five years. The fact is that she has pleasantly surprised me by how well she is performing.
Although, without sliders (the specially designed shoes that let reiners drop their "A.." and Slide) she hasn't been able to perform, what is regarded as of one of the two "signature" moves of reiners. But, the other day when I first asked her to "spin" (the second "signature" move of a reiner), she dropped her head, hunkered down and started to spin like a top; I found myself grabbing the saddle horn (a definite "no-no") to keep from being thrown off. Kandy, hadn't forgotten a thing; Rex on the hand, is going to require some "special attention".
On Monday, though we had a decent or maybe even a "great" ride; she changed leads flawlessly, dropped down from a fast circle to a slow without incident, spun like a "whirl-wind" and even wanted to run into a slide (had I allowed her to do so). It was clear that she was remembering the reining pattern and wanted to "GO".
After completing the ride and unsaddling her, I tied her in a vacant stall in order to allow her some "cool down" time before turning her out to pasture, and then proceeded to motorcycle down the road to "Belle Vista" (the nearby golf course) to have a beer and coffee.
While there, I tried to strike up a conversation with the patron sitting beside me at the bar. First I tried talking about the Tiger's woes, but he clearly seemed disinterested; and so, went back to my beer "with my tail between my legs".
Suddenly, however, he made a comment in a dialect that was clearly not just a southern drawl. When I asked where he was from and he responded Australia. Now, his seeming disinterest, made perfect sense "down under" they play cricket, not baseball.
After that, Jack and I, we had an interesting conversation. It turns out that he owns a motorhome manufacturing plant in Angola (didn't even know that Angola had such an animal) and exports them to Australia. This seemed incredible to me. The fact that he could build a motorhome in America and transport that them to Australia (at $35,000 a unit in shipping cost) and make a sizeable profit seemed incredible.
Switching to coffee (after only one beer) the topic changed to motorcycle and Jack commented that rode "crotch rockets" because, "he wasn't old enough to ride a Harley!" - touche, (and ouch) Jack.
After that, his cell phone rang and walked outside to better converse; and I left, as I began - "with my tail between my legs.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Coming Out
Whoa! Before you get the wrong idea I want to clarify that I still declare myself a 100%
TOTALLY committed heterosexual male.
So why the title? I think it is the best way to announce my commitment to "throwing off" the covers and - "Coming Out of the Closet", so to speak, stating my views and making them clearly known to all without fear (or a care) what others think; further stated, only that they think!
And so, for a topic for this inaugural blog I have chosen, appropriately enough the subject of homosexual marriage (choice of words chosen VERY deliberately - only because I'm still struggling to muster the courage to use what I believe is a far more fitting proper title to such a queer relationship).
Years ago I recall having a conversation with a friend who (only half joking) stated, "They have taken a perfectly good word and substituted it with a totally deceptive word - "Gay". Recognizing, however, how (although, nonetheless in my view, aptly descriptive) offensive the word queer is to most Americans I am encouraging the use of the totally proper, correct and inoffensive term "homosexual" be used in all cases to properly the nature of such queer relationships.
In my mind, (as Abe Lincoln might have said) "it is all fitting and proper that we do this, but in a larger sense ... "; because if you able to be honest with yourself, it is hard to deny how much of a right of passage the use of the word "Gay" has given to members of whathas now become (sadly) the "Gay Community".
Before the substitution of this word a vast number (if not a majority) of homosexuals were "closet homosexuals" for a good reason. That being that society did not openly approve and accept queer behavior.
Today, however, our liberal bent has promoted such relationships to the point that it is now not only accepted, but is promoted and even, it would sometimes appear, even promoted. Just yesterday, your President came out in favor of "homosexual (Gay) marriage".
Make no mistake about it, "It is not about LOVE, it's about MONEY". I'm not opposed to their right to have whatever relationship they choose, so long as I am not expected to support (and therefore summarily encourage) that relationship.
In fact, I favor, promote and encourage "the closet homosexual"; in my opinion, "Gay pride" sucks! I believe that they were fine "in the closet" doing as they choose behind closed doors. I am not afraid to say that I find that type relationship offensive and neitherencourage nor support it.
If I had a son or daughter who was a homosexual, I would, of course, struggle with their sexuality; but, I would not be ashamed of them. I would still love them for where they were at. I would, however, be saddened by their abnormality and the beauty of heterosexual relationship that they were missing.
I know that homosexuals will offended by my even pronouncing them to be suffering from an abnormality, but ... it is what is, and I would even conclude with where I began and state that(forgive my many cliché’s, but the strength and clarity of their meaning is beyond reproach); and so, "call a spade a spade" - queer still defines the nature of the relationship.
TOTALLY committed heterosexual male.
So why the title? I think it is the best way to announce my commitment to "throwing off" the covers and - "Coming Out of the Closet", so to speak, stating my views and making them clearly known to all without fear (or a care) what others think; further stated, only that they think!
And so, for a topic for this inaugural blog I have chosen, appropriately enough the subject of homosexual marriage (choice of words chosen VERY deliberately - only because I'm still struggling to muster the courage to use what I believe is a far more fitting proper title to such a queer relationship).
Years ago I recall having a conversation with a friend who (only half joking) stated, "They have taken a perfectly good word and substituted it with a totally deceptive word - "Gay". Recognizing, however, how (although, nonetheless in my view, aptly descriptive) offensive the word queer is to most Americans I am encouraging the use of the totally proper, correct and inoffensive term "homosexual" be used in all cases to properly the nature of such queer relationships.
In my mind, (as Abe Lincoln might have said) "it is all fitting and proper that we do this, but in a larger sense ... "; because if you able to be honest with yourself, it is hard to deny how much of a right of passage the use of the word "Gay" has given to members of whathas now become (sadly) the "Gay Community".
Before the substitution of this word a vast number (if not a majority) of homosexuals were "closet homosexuals" for a good reason. That being that society did not openly approve and accept queer behavior.
Today, however, our liberal bent has promoted such relationships to the point that it is now not only accepted, but is promoted and even, it would sometimes appear, even promoted. Just yesterday, your President came out in favor of "homosexual (Gay) marriage".
Make no mistake about it, "It is not about LOVE, it's about MONEY". I'm not opposed to their right to have whatever relationship they choose, so long as I am not expected to support (and therefore summarily encourage) that relationship.
In fact, I favor, promote and encourage "the closet homosexual"; in my opinion, "Gay pride" sucks! I believe that they were fine "in the closet" doing as they choose behind closed doors. I am not afraid to say that I find that type relationship offensive and neitherencourage nor support it.
If I had a son or daughter who was a homosexual, I would, of course, struggle with their sexuality; but, I would not be ashamed of them. I would still love them for where they were at. I would, however, be saddened by their abnormality and the beauty of heterosexual relationship that they were missing.
I know that homosexuals will offended by my even pronouncing them to be suffering from an abnormality, but ... it is what is, and I would even conclude with where I began and state that(forgive my many cliché’s, but the strength and clarity of their meaning is beyond reproach); and so, "call a spade a spade" - queer still defines the nature of the relationship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)