Archive for the 'fair' Category

15
Jun
17

Lessons Government Officials Should Learn From Charity Baseball Game Shooting

On Wednesday, June 14, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and four others, were shot at a Republican congressional baseball practice, by a gunman who appeared to have targeted Republican members of Congress. The alleged shooter–James Hodgkinson, 66, of Belleville, Illinois, who is reported to have been a disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporter–died following a shootout with police.

The Capital Police were only there, because a high-ranking official (Scalise) was in the group, practicing. If he hadn’t been there, with the armed detail, the situation could have been even worse.

‘Joe Six-Pack’ can’t afford, and is not allowed, to have an armed security detail follow him everywhere he goes, but these elitist government officials have access to such. That’s just another example of Animal Farm, in my opinion.

But I digress.

One witness said the scene was like being in Iraq without a weapon.

Sen. Rand Paul said it would have been a massacre if the Capital Police (people with firearms) hadn’t been there.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said that if it hadn’t been for the Capital Police (people with firearms), there would have been no one there to stop the gunman.

That’s right, because ridiculous gun control laws–and a court system that seems to love to prosecute people for self-defense–get in the way of people being able to protect themselves!

Wouldn’t it have been awesome if a bunch of peaceful* people, who were carrying concealed firearms, had taken this guy out from the start of his rampage? I have to wonder how many of those five injured people would have gotten out unscathed.

And wouldn’t it have been awesome if the gunman had decided not to risk shooting anyone, in the first place, because he would have known anyone around him could have been “packing” a firearm?

I hate to say it, but this is a case of reaping what you sow.

You want to limit self-defense, Government officials? Well, self-defense was also limited for you, because of it. You paid a high price, because of gun control nonsense.

There is a lesson to be learned, though: Now is a great time to eliminate gun control that gets people shot and killed!

MAKE IT HAPPEN!

 

*I absolutely detest, and completely disagree with, having to get a government-issued Permit (permission) to carry a concealed firearm for protection. Having gotten that off my chest and out of the way, statistics show that concealed carry permit holders cause less crime than even police officers.

Advertisements
04
Sep
16

Freedom of Speech Hypocrites

I have been channel surfing through political talk radio shows, lately, and I am not surprised by the reaction that Colin Kaepernick (49ers quarterback) is receiving for his refusal to stand for the National Anthem.

All the nationalists and authoritarians are viciously attacking his character, and attempting to shame him on a national stage, in an effort to get him to change his behavior—and hopefully create a hostile environment, so that no one else gets the crazy idea of following in his footsteps. Any other time, we’d be hearing these same guys talk about all the freedom we supposedly enjoy, and “American exceptionalism.”

The nationalists have even tried to turn this incident into an issue of Kaepernick somehow disrespecting the military, because supposedly so many “people fought and died” for his freedom, and he is just defecating all over them!

First of all, why do we sing the National Anthem, and have a military procession—complete with jets flying overhead—at a football game, in the first place? I’ll enlighten you: It’s to keep you all waving your flags, and get you teary-eyed when you think of your great country—even as it is going into the tank, and your freedoms are being trampled, more and more, each day. That’s why.

Hitler would be proud, I’m sure.

But I digress.

I have heard some people say, “People fought and died for your freedom! You’d better be glad you live in a place where you can say that!”

What they are really saying is, “You piece of garbage! You are challenging my belief system, and I would prefer to live in my little box, unchallenged, where I feel that everything I believe is right and good. You can have your freedom of speech—as long as you say things that I agree with. If I could shut you up, right now, I would! You’d better be glad you live in this country, where most people tolerate such things; otherwise, I would physically assault you—and I still might, if I think I can get away with it!”

This type of behavior begs the question: If people fought and died for freedom of speech—and you revere them so much for doing so—why are you trying so hard to stop people from exercising that freedom? You must not revere them as much as you say you do, because you obviously don’t want people to use what those dead folks supposedly fought for.

I’ve got news for you: The Flag of the United States is basically a corporate logo of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (intentional caps, for all of you in the know), in the same way that the “swoosh” logo represents Nike, or the “golden arches” represents McDonald’s. People get so wrapped up in that flag, but they don’t understand its true meaning.

Contrary to what you’ve been indoctrinated to believe, the US Flag does NOT represent the people of the United States. I know you’ve all been made to feel like it does, but it does not. It represents the warring, lying, stealing, murdering, enslaving US Government.

Getting you to pledge your allegiance, when you are too young to even understand what you are doing, for example, is how nationalism indoctrination is done—and it is absolutely necessary for keeping the State in control of everything. If you lose faith, it’s over—so the Powers That Be won’t have any of that. That is why nationalism is taught, as early as kindergarten.

Government constantly lies to us; literally beats us down with their officers and agents; attempts to disarm us; takes nearly half of everything we earn each year (taxes, fees, fines, permits, licenses, etc.); keeps us in a constant state of “war”; pushes us into dividing ourselves and fighting against each other; regulates our businesses to the point where they flee the country—and take all their jobs with them; monitors everything we do and say; destroys entire industries (coal and lead, for example)—and the jobs that go along with them—with the stroke of a pen; is the single biggest reason for the increase in our healthcare costs—and I could go on and on.

Do you really expect me to pledge my allegiance to that, or stand and wave the logo that represents it, and get all mushy inside? Don’t be ridiculous!

I love the location of my birth, and most other people here, but I despise governments—all of them.

It has been said that the only speech that needs protecting is unpopular speech. Now, I’m not crazy about the wording of that statement, but I get what the person was trying to say.

If Kaepernick wants to exercise his freedom of speech, and speak out against what he feels is injustice, I support him. If not standing for the National Anthem is what he feels is necessary to get his message across, I won’t try to stand in his way—and neither should you, if you believe in real freedom.

Maybe, one day, your words may not be so popular, and you might need a little “protecting,” too.

 

 

 

Copyright 2016. All Rights Reserved.

04
Apr
14

3 Very Needed Changes in the Political System

1.  End anonymous voting, for every office, NOW!

With all of the election fraud, rigged elections and vote tampering that has been reported over the years–especially now, with electronic voting machines–the next logical step would be to remove all anonymity from the electoral process, and make each vote traceable, public and verifiable.

I can hear certain people screaming, already: “But I don’t want people to know who I voted for!”

The problem with that is this: We already know exactly who you are going to vote for, blabbermouth, because you talk about it with all your friends, you have the bumper stickers on your car, you write letters to the editor, and you call to rant and rave on the local talk radio shows. We already know how you vote, so stop whining.

With removing anonymity from the voting process, each person would be able to verify their votes and put an end to vote tampering. Plus, if you’re going to “vote” to (illegitimately) empower someone to rule over everyone, shouldn’t you at least have the balls to put it out there in public?

2.  Put politicians on a similar wage scale as restaurant wait staff.

There are laws on the books that say restaurants don’t have to pay above a $2.13/hour wage, if tips make up the slack toward the minimum wage per hour (the reason why you are constantly guilt-tripped into tipping, even when you don’t feel someone deserved it).

Personally, I feel that employees and employers should be able to work out the terms of their employment contract, voluntarily, but since politicians created this standard, I want politicians to be hit even harder–and lead by example. With that in mind, I propose we end a politician’s pay if he/she receives more than his/her office’s salary level from money made in the private sector.

In other words, if the Speaker of the House makes more than the office’s $223,500/year salary from business done in the private sector, he/she does not get a government paycheck. Period. No pension payments (if “retired”), or any other benefits, either.

You want to cut costs in government? That’s the first place I would start.

3.  Require ALL current politicians to be enrolled in Obamacare, and have to deal with the same level of coverage and headaches that everyone else will have to endure. Maybe that will get the nightmare legislation repealed.

Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but a good place to start, until we can eventually abolish ALL of it.

25
Mar
14

Hobby Lobby and Birth Control

Hobby Lobby is currently engaged in a battle with the Obama Administration over its refusal to provide contraceptives and abortion services to employees, in violation of the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare).

Hobby Lobby says providing birth control goes against their religious views, while MSNBC–along with Huffington Post, Vox Media and Senator Barbara Boxer (D)–portrays it as an “attack on women” and gays.

The MSNBC socialists say that Hobby Lobby is attempting to “claim religious freedom,” and if this is allowed then civilization as we know it will collapse and the sky will fall.

First of all, no one is being denied birth control; anyone can walk into their local clinic and get an abortion, or condoms, or purchase condoms at any pharmacy. Those things are available, any time. The issue, here, is freedom of choice–for Hobby Lobby, that is.

MSNBC says people have a “right” to birth control. They can have a “right,” all they want, but they don’t have a “right” to force someone else to provide it for them.

In the supposed “Land of the Free,” Hobby Lobby should be able to choose what’s best for them, their company and their beliefs. No one should force them to pay for things with which they disagree. Thomas Jefferson called that “tyranny,” and I firmly agree.

Hobby Lobby isn’t attacking women; they are simply acting according to their religious beliefs, which should be respected. If people don’t like the company’s position, they can refuse to work there and find another job, or refuse to shop there and do business with them. Now that is real freedom of choice, for everyone involved.

Pro-abortion folks often say, “my body, my choice.” Maybe Hobby Lobby should start saying, “my company, my choice.” What’s good for one is good for the other.

This isn’t about birth control, gays, women or anything else; this is about freedom of choice.

09
Dec
13

Glenn Beck and AMAC

I have been hearing Glenn Beck (national radio talk show host) broadcast his support for AMAC–an organization being touted as being a better, or more “conservative,” alternative to AARP–quite a bit, lately, so I decided to take a look at AMAC to see where they really stood on certain important issues.

This is my opinion of what I read from the AMAC website:

1)  AMAC claims to support an armed citizenry and reduction in taxation.

So far, so good.

2)  USA continuing to borrow money is a bad thing.

Right on.

3)  AMAC opposes government-funded abortion.

I firmly agree. This isn’t about the abortion morality debate; this is simply saying that if you’re going to have one, other people should not be forced to pay for it through taxation.

4)  AMAC supports income tax reductions for all wage earners.

Amen!

There are two or three other things that AMAC supports, but the thing that really turns me off to AMAC is this, taken directly from their website:

“To our members, and on behalf of many other mature Americans across the country, AMAC has already pledged to combat these funding cuts at the Federal level and to continue to educate lawmakers about the popular, robust benefit that is Medicare Advantage.  As part of what will certainly be an ongoing effort to defend MA, an AMAC letter of support for the Cassidy-Barrow initiative was submitted to the Congressional Record and can be viewed on our website and Facebook page.  The Cassidy-Barrow initiative – which has garnered the bipartisan support of more than 80 members of Congress – urges the Majority and Minority leaders of the House of Representatives to protect MA from detrimental program cuts in budget negotiations slated to occur in 2014.”

AMAC is actually fighting to stop a reported $308 billion dollar cut to Medicare Advantage!

Sorry, but I can’t go along with that. I don’t want government redistributing wealth, at all, so this is completely unacceptable.

AMAC also claims to have a Social Security Guarantee plan that would keep this socialist monstrosity of a program solvent for 75 years–without raising taxes, of course, according to their website.

Again, NO REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH! Stop propping it up, AMAC!

In my personal opinion, if organizations like AARP and AMAC were truly concerned about the well-being of Seniors, they would both advocate for an immediate end to Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc., push for a truly free market in heath care, and have all of the money that people have paid into that government slush fund returned to them, immediately! AARP and AMAC won’t do that, because Social Security turmoil keeps both of them in business.

I can’t understand why people fight so hard for Social Security, in the first place.

With Social Security, we constantly hear of delayed benefits (sometimes years), difficulties in applying, denial of benefits, politicians using SS as a slush fund (with lots if IOUs in it, already), no actual government obligation to pay anyone (written in the law), having to secure attorneys to secure payments, and then the benefits that do come are a drop in the bucket compared to what the People have been forced to pay in. Why in the world would you want to protect that?!

Is AMAC better than AARP? AMAC seems to be much more in line with things I support (armed citizens, tax reductions, stopping Uncle Sam from borrowing more money, etc.), but neither of them goes far enough, for me, since they both seem to want to make sure government never loses its power in the area of Social Security.

If either AMAC or AARP decide they want to shake off their support for socialism, I’ll be willing to give them another look. Until then, I can’t support either one.

09
Dec
13

Facebook’s CIA Connection

A disturbing behind-the-scenes look at Facebook’s policies and origin.

01
Aug
13

Racism: Divisive Nonsense

The Trayvon Martin case has turned into an excuse for more racial division, on both ‘sides.’

For the last two days, ESPN has been repeatedly broadcasting a story about Eagles football player, Riley Cooper, over some remarks that were supposedly very racist in nature. (I haven’t bothered to research it, because, frankly, I just don’t care about this crap anymore.)

That’s right; I couldn’t care less, anymore.

We can’t get upset about the NSA spying on everything we do; militarizing police, along with increased police checkpoints and home invasions; government takeover of healthcare (just as Hitler once did, and then rationed); high unemployment; gas prices; gold market manipulations; currency devaluation; killing innocents with drone strikes in foreign lands, etc. No, we have to start a civil war over derogatory comments that deal with the amount of pigment in someone’s skin.

And it seems that the same evil things (murder, rape, robbery, etc.) can occur, and the same names can be used in certain places and in certain social circles without any problems, but as soon as someone with a different type of skin pigment uses the same word, or does the same atrocious act, then people want to get upset.

When someone says that blacks are ‘this,’ or whites are ‘that,’ they are basically saying, “People who have a [choose dark or light] type of skin pigment are [insert favorite racist stereotype, here]”–and that’s about as ridiculous as it gets.

It isn’t skin tone that makes people who they are; it’s what is in their hearts that counts. And I’ve seen undesirable behaviors on display in every race, so no race can claim any kind of superiority over another.

Another thing that bothers me about racial division is censorship: As soon as someone makes a “racially-insensitive” remark, the news media jump on it and plaster it on every screen, in every newspaper and constantly repeat the story, over and over again, in an attempt to get you to “watch what you say!”

Sorry, but I don’t support that “political correctness” garbage; I think people should be free and open to say whatever they feel–no matter how idiotic or atrocious we may view it to be.

And I don’t care if people want to throw a racial slur at me; it’s just words! Sure, it can be irritating or hurtful, but as soon as you show it, they know they got to you. If you brush it off and ignore them, they soon learn that the tactic is ineffective and stop using it.

Personally, I would much rather someone come right out and say exactly what’s on his mind and in his heart, because it’s a more honest reflection of who he really is–and it gives me the opportunity to better weed out the ‘bad apples’ and avoid those people.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be shaking hands, hanging out, or doing business with people who secretly hold venom within. I would never want to censor their speech, but I certainly don’t have to be around them.

Government loves to distract the nation from the truly serious issues (and it’s failures) with issues of racism and tales of the “unfair.” Stop buying into it, and keep the spotlight on issues that should be uniting us, instead of dividing us!

Racism. So, what?