-- by Micheal
What is it about Romney that makes the larger GOP keep looking for anyone else to be their front runner?
First it was Bachmann. Best thing since sliced bread. Then she faded out. After some muddled anticipation that it might be Palin, Perry jumps in. Almost instantly, HE is acclaimed as Sliced Bread.
After a bit of exposure, and some foot-in-mouth trouble, Perry loses his Sliced Bread crown. Almost as if the GOP power brokers didn't want Romney grabbing it, they quickly bestow it upon Herman Cain. HE is the new Sliced Bread.
After a bit of exposure, and some pesky accusations, Cain had the Sliced Bread crown yanked from his hands too. Again, there seemed to be an awkward silence in GOP land, as if trying to decide who else to crown. (but not Romney) Now it seems like Gingrich is being given his turn as Sliced Bread king.
After a bit of exposure, will Gingrich have the crown yanked from him? Most likely.
The open question is, why is the GOP machine trying so hard to NOT pick Romney?
It all reminds me of 3rd grade and picking teams for softball. The pool of kids has narrowed to Robin, the fat girl who just could not run, Miller the special needs kid, and myself. The two team captains squint long and hard at the three of us. Finally, the one captain picks Robin. Then it's down to me and Miller. The other captain takes even longer to decide between me and Miller.
Seriously? It's that hard to decide? Miller, nice kid in his own way, but could not put his two hands together without a half-hour of practice with the teacher's aide. Catch a ball? Not a chance.
But the other captain picked Miller over me. The "losing" captain rolls his eyes and whines that he got me. Solid leadership material, that captain.
I have to wonder if Romney feels like I did. The GOP seems eager to pick ANYONE else but him, no matter how bad. Why? What bones does he have under HIS bed? Or is it that he's as charismatic as, say, a slice of bread?
If the GOP is forced to pick a slice of bread to run against Obama, it would seem Obama will probably win.
11.16.2011
11.11.2011
Where are the atheists?
--- by Micheal
They should be crawling out of the woodwork, but I'll just bet they won't. Just this week I attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony to dedicate a new federal building. For the most part, it was your usual government "event." Agency managers and directors were on hand. A city official was there, as was the expected congressman and staff from other congressmen. Each gave the usual congratulatory speeches. Nothing for anyone to care much about.
It was the last part of the ceremony that should have spawned howls of violated civil rights, but did not.
A chief of a local native american tribe, and two of his cousins, conducted a "blessing" ceremony. After "cleansing" the two cousins and the drum with smoke, one cousin took the smoldering (whatever it was), walked around the group, then smudged the ribbon with smolder soot. The other cousin sang loudly a prayer of blessing and banged his hand drum. The words of the song, the chief told the crowd, translated to "Our Creator, we give thanks."
Now, I would venture that most of the assembled crowd did not believe that the tribe's Creator was real, nor share their native faith. I didn't share their faith, but was not particularly bothered or offended.
Where were the atheists feeling uncomfortable at someone pushing a faith on them? Where was the zealous ACLU lawyer bemoaning a government (apparent) endorsement of a religion? Only time will tell, but I predict that will be no atheist outrage. There will be no ACLU action on this -- ever.
Can you imagine if the local manager (a good woman, really) had invited the pastor of a local church to give a prayer of blessing? If a local priest had sprinkled the ribbon with holy water? The outrage would rattle the rafters.
Of course, this local agency, being well steeped in political correctness, would never have even asked a pastor or a priest to speak, but what if they had? Some atheist in the crowd would have had their psyche wounded deeply. Some ACLU lawyers would have waved their pitchforks about the separation of church and state, blah blah blah.
The obvious truth is that the fragile atheists who run to their lawyers are not really atheists, but anti-God-ists. More particularly, they are anti-christian. The proof of this, is exposed in what they complain about, and what is allowed -- without a peep of protest.
They should be crawling out of the woodwork, but I'll just bet they won't. Just this week I attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony to dedicate a new federal building. For the most part, it was your usual government "event." Agency managers and directors were on hand. A city official was there, as was the expected congressman and staff from other congressmen. Each gave the usual congratulatory speeches. Nothing for anyone to care much about.
It was the last part of the ceremony that should have spawned howls of violated civil rights, but did not.
A chief of a local native american tribe, and two of his cousins, conducted a "blessing" ceremony. After "cleansing" the two cousins and the drum with smoke, one cousin took the smoldering (whatever it was), walked around the group, then smudged the ribbon with smolder soot. The other cousin sang loudly a prayer of blessing and banged his hand drum. The words of the song, the chief told the crowd, translated to "Our Creator, we give thanks."
Now, I would venture that most of the assembled crowd did not believe that the tribe's Creator was real, nor share their native faith. I didn't share their faith, but was not particularly bothered or offended.
Where were the atheists feeling uncomfortable at someone pushing a faith on them? Where was the zealous ACLU lawyer bemoaning a government (apparent) endorsement of a religion? Only time will tell, but I predict that will be no atheist outrage. There will be no ACLU action on this -- ever.
Can you imagine if the local manager (a good woman, really) had invited the pastor of a local church to give a prayer of blessing? If a local priest had sprinkled the ribbon with holy water? The outrage would rattle the rafters.
Of course, this local agency, being well steeped in political correctness, would never have even asked a pastor or a priest to speak, but what if they had? Some atheist in the crowd would have had their psyche wounded deeply. Some ACLU lawyers would have waved their pitchforks about the separation of church and state, blah blah blah.
The obvious truth is that the fragile atheists who run to their lawyers are not really atheists, but anti-God-ists. More particularly, they are anti-christian. The proof of this, is exposed in what they complain about, and what is allowed -- without a peep of protest.
8.20.2011
Stop political campaign contributions!!! What a great idea.
By Jerry McConnell
Just don’t count on it ever happening though; there are too many greedy fingers in that pot of lucre.
What prompted me to write this column advocating that well-intentioned people who start with an idea that they would like to serve their fellow citizens in a government position, elected or appointed and the next thing you know they are hardened political fixtures in a dog eat dog arena.
Whatever happened to the good thoughts and ideas of trying to help one’s neighbors by performing public service? It probably all started many years ago in a relatively small town that was in need of people to take the lead in gathering the groups of people who came to America to get away from foreign despots who ruled cruelly and uncivilly.
Eventually some did step forward, unsolicited and took charge of a situation that was for the benefit of all of the people who had gathered there, wherever ‘there’ may have been. Those who volunteered their own time to see to the needs of others were the first appearances of what we today call politicians.
But Oh Dear God; where did we go wrong? Was it when the first settler forced a few pennies into the palm of the unelected leader for doing such a service to his friends and neighbors; or was it when those settlers found that there was a great need for someone to lead them and show them how a community should operate? Or both?
At any rate, the politicians were born of those circumstances; they just didn’t know that they were politicians until someone else among the group decided that the first fellow who stepped forward seemed to be doing quite well with the small amount of gratuities that he received for “helping” his fellow man.
It was then that the lust for some of that gratuitous lucre, be it in pennies or other ‘in kind’ materials of value such as food, clothing or other hardware goods. And as custom would have it, those services became a standard part of daily living, so the spirit of competition got embedded in others to step forward and offer their services, as they preached that they could do a better job than that first fellow. Sound familiar?
Well you can see where this is going and you know where it went and how the politician was born. As is so hugely apparent today the dominating factor then as it is today was greed. Only today, it is totally out of control to the point where individuals become different people from what they were with pre-political persona.
On August 17, 2011 FoxNews.com published an online report titled “Starbucks Claims Widespread Support for CEO’s Call to Boycott Campaign Donations” authored by Judson Berger in which the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz claimed that the company has “rallied ‘hundreds’ of people to support a call by Schultz to suspend campaign contributions until Congress and the president produce a long-term deficit reduction plan.”
Now that’s what I call ‘high-level’ clear thinking and not just more of ‘let’s see just how much we can give this guy to do things our way’. Schultz has clearly become a leader in trying to “cut off the fundraising spigot.” Berger says Schultz even wrote in a memo, “This effort is not concerned with helping or hurting one party or another - it’s about applying pressure on all those now in office to compromise for the good of the country.”
Of course, the sticking point is that if both sides of the mess in Washington were to compromise, we would essentially be in the same sad and sorry spot as we are now. Looking at the big picture, the Democrats want more revenues coming in; that is exactly why they wanted the debt ceiling raised. To spend more money they HAD TO HAVE the debt ceiling raised. And to get more revenues they want to raise taxes.
Their compromise is to cut as little as possible of their spending habits, and raise taxes while continuing “business as usual” meaning, continued deficits and additions to the national debt.
The Republicans have nothing to compromise as they favor higher amounts of reduced spending and no increases in taxes. These are not compromises they are necessities. If they, the Republicans, compromise it has to be to agree to tax increases and no cuts in spending, both of which contribute to a continuation of a higher national debt.
Maybe Starbucks can convince the Democrats that excessive spending has to stop and taxes should not be raised as that takes a toll on businesses resulting in job losses.
The real answer is Term Limits; one term not to exceed six years. It would save money by not having to hold national elections every two years. And our Congress would not be mired down in reelection campaigning which, now in the House, is a continual process and the fountainhead from which corruption and greed are born.
No campaign funds are needed if there are no reelections. One six-year term and we have returned to the Founders dreams of a civilian legislature.
Just don’t count on it ever happening though; there are too many greedy fingers in that pot of lucre.
What prompted me to write this column advocating that well-intentioned people who start with an idea that they would like to serve their fellow citizens in a government position, elected or appointed and the next thing you know they are hardened political fixtures in a dog eat dog arena.
Whatever happened to the good thoughts and ideas of trying to help one’s neighbors by performing public service? It probably all started many years ago in a relatively small town that was in need of people to take the lead in gathering the groups of people who came to America to get away from foreign despots who ruled cruelly and uncivilly.
Eventually some did step forward, unsolicited and took charge of a situation that was for the benefit of all of the people who had gathered there, wherever ‘there’ may have been. Those who volunteered their own time to see to the needs of others were the first appearances of what we today call politicians.
But Oh Dear God; where did we go wrong? Was it when the first settler forced a few pennies into the palm of the unelected leader for doing such a service to his friends and neighbors; or was it when those settlers found that there was a great need for someone to lead them and show them how a community should operate? Or both?
At any rate, the politicians were born of those circumstances; they just didn’t know that they were politicians until someone else among the group decided that the first fellow who stepped forward seemed to be doing quite well with the small amount of gratuities that he received for “helping” his fellow man.
It was then that the lust for some of that gratuitous lucre, be it in pennies or other ‘in kind’ materials of value such as food, clothing or other hardware goods. And as custom would have it, those services became a standard part of daily living, so the spirit of competition got embedded in others to step forward and offer their services, as they preached that they could do a better job than that first fellow. Sound familiar?
Well you can see where this is going and you know where it went and how the politician was born. As is so hugely apparent today the dominating factor then as it is today was greed. Only today, it is totally out of control to the point where individuals become different people from what they were with pre-political persona.
On August 17, 2011 FoxNews.com published an online report titled “Starbucks Claims Widespread Support for CEO’s Call to Boycott Campaign Donations” authored by Judson Berger in which the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz claimed that the company has “rallied ‘hundreds’ of people to support a call by Schultz to suspend campaign contributions until Congress and the president produce a long-term deficit reduction plan.”
Now that’s what I call ‘high-level’ clear thinking and not just more of ‘let’s see just how much we can give this guy to do things our way’. Schultz has clearly become a leader in trying to “cut off the fundraising spigot.” Berger says Schultz even wrote in a memo, “This effort is not concerned with helping or hurting one party or another - it’s about applying pressure on all those now in office to compromise for the good of the country.”
Of course, the sticking point is that if both sides of the mess in Washington were to compromise, we would essentially be in the same sad and sorry spot as we are now. Looking at the big picture, the Democrats want more revenues coming in; that is exactly why they wanted the debt ceiling raised. To spend more money they HAD TO HAVE the debt ceiling raised. And to get more revenues they want to raise taxes.
Their compromise is to cut as little as possible of their spending habits, and raise taxes while continuing “business as usual” meaning, continued deficits and additions to the national debt.
The Republicans have nothing to compromise as they favor higher amounts of reduced spending and no increases in taxes. These are not compromises they are necessities. If they, the Republicans, compromise it has to be to agree to tax increases and no cuts in spending, both of which contribute to a continuation of a higher national debt.
Maybe Starbucks can convince the Democrats that excessive spending has to stop and taxes should not be raised as that takes a toll on businesses resulting in job losses.
The real answer is Term Limits; one term not to exceed six years. It would save money by not having to hold national elections every two years. And our Congress would not be mired down in reelection campaigning which, now in the House, is a continual process and the fountainhead from which corruption and greed are born.
No campaign funds are needed if there are no reelections. One six-year term and we have returned to the Founders dreams of a civilian legislature.
8.04.2011
Why the Lust for Revenue?
--- by Micheal
Throughout the protracted debate of raising the debt ceiling, it became clear that the two parties disagreed most on the question of taxes. The Republicans -- especially the new Tea Party representatives, vowed to oppose any new taxes. The Democrats, Obama and the congressional leaders, were equally adamant that trimming the deficit required increased revenue. More taxes.
As Obama and the various Democrat leaders gave their speeches, they kept beating the old drum about making the top 1% of Americans "pay their fair share". That certainly sounds reasonable enough, but it presumes that they're not.
So, I did a little online research. Who is paying the bulk of the income tax in America. Are middle Americans shouldering the lion's share and the top 1% skating? The answer wasn't hard to find, but it was surprising. The top 1% pay about 38% of the nation's income tax revenue. The top 5% pay over half of it. The top 50% of income earners pay over 97% of the nation's income taxes. That means the bottom 50% pay less than 3%. What do we get to label as "fair"?
Now, from figures like this, it's hard to understand what the Democrats are so angry about regarding those top 1%. They ARE paying, and more (percentage of income-wise) than the lower 99%. What's the problem?
The problem, I think, is that the Democrat mindset just cannot abide by anyone having more money than they (the Dems) feel is proper. You may recall President Obama chatting (hypothetically?) about him having a hundred thousand he didn't need which he could use to put a poor student through school, etc. The revealing part of that comment was the notion that wealth above a certain line is "unneeded," and therefore ought to become property of the state. (The Dems don't speechify for more philanthropy, but for most taxes)
In reality, the Dems can't hate the top 1% like the pretend to. There are quite a few very wealthy Democrats, after all. Instead, this faux hate is a mask for an addiction. The Democratic leadership are addicted to spending. There just isn't a social program out there that they can't love and want to pour millions of your dollars into. Any program created simply MUST be continued and funding increased. To make ANY cut is bemoaned with dire "grandma in the snow" consequences.
But that's just tough. Imagine some average working 'stiff' going in to his boss to demand more money -- maybe double his previous wage. Not because he gets more work done, or landed a big contract. He comes with the excuse that he had run up huge credit card debt and needs more money to support the debt AND the lifestyle that keeps up the spending. "Well, stop spending so much," the boss might justifiably say. "That's cruel and insensitive," our stiff replies. "I HAVE to buy all those things and MORE! I just do. Give me more money or my grandma will have to sleep in the snow!"
No, this independent voter has come down on the side of the cutters, not the taxers. No revenue raise for YOU, Congress, just because you can't handle your credit card. Live within your means. I have to do it. You should to.
Throughout the protracted debate of raising the debt ceiling, it became clear that the two parties disagreed most on the question of taxes. The Republicans -- especially the new Tea Party representatives, vowed to oppose any new taxes. The Democrats, Obama and the congressional leaders, were equally adamant that trimming the deficit required increased revenue. More taxes.
As Obama and the various Democrat leaders gave their speeches, they kept beating the old drum about making the top 1% of Americans "pay their fair share". That certainly sounds reasonable enough, but it presumes that they're not.
So, I did a little online research. Who is paying the bulk of the income tax in America. Are middle Americans shouldering the lion's share and the top 1% skating? The answer wasn't hard to find, but it was surprising. The top 1% pay about 38% of the nation's income tax revenue. The top 5% pay over half of it. The top 50% of income earners pay over 97% of the nation's income taxes. That means the bottom 50% pay less than 3%. What do we get to label as "fair"?
Now, from figures like this, it's hard to understand what the Democrats are so angry about regarding those top 1%. They ARE paying, and more (percentage of income-wise) than the lower 99%. What's the problem?
The problem, I think, is that the Democrat mindset just cannot abide by anyone having more money than they (the Dems) feel is proper. You may recall President Obama chatting (hypothetically?) about him having a hundred thousand he didn't need which he could use to put a poor student through school, etc. The revealing part of that comment was the notion that wealth above a certain line is "unneeded," and therefore ought to become property of the state. (The Dems don't speechify for more philanthropy, but for most taxes)
In reality, the Dems can't hate the top 1% like the pretend to. There are quite a few very wealthy Democrats, after all. Instead, this faux hate is a mask for an addiction. The Democratic leadership are addicted to spending. There just isn't a social program out there that they can't love and want to pour millions of your dollars into. Any program created simply MUST be continued and funding increased. To make ANY cut is bemoaned with dire "grandma in the snow" consequences.
But that's just tough. Imagine some average working 'stiff' going in to his boss to demand more money -- maybe double his previous wage. Not because he gets more work done, or landed a big contract. He comes with the excuse that he had run up huge credit card debt and needs more money to support the debt AND the lifestyle that keeps up the spending. "Well, stop spending so much," the boss might justifiably say. "That's cruel and insensitive," our stiff replies. "I HAVE to buy all those things and MORE! I just do. Give me more money or my grandma will have to sleep in the snow!"
No, this independent voter has come down on the side of the cutters, not the taxers. No revenue raise for YOU, Congress, just because you can't handle your credit card. Live within your means. I have to do it. You should to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)