Your Fair Share is not in MY WALLET!

Since when, in our society did it become the providers responsibility to deliver the needs of the recipient? Put another way, when did the needs of the recipient trump the rights of the provider?

What we have going on in our country now, and it started under Bush (most recently but really began as far back as the 1930's), is that when you are too lazy to work, don't worry, the government will give you money. When you are hungry, don't worry, the government will give you bread. We are on a path where if I own land and build an artisian well to bring water from under the soil of my property up (and please don't legalize this hypothetical with mineral rights issues, etc) for my family to drink, the government will soon tell me that I must provide for the needy neighbor who has no water. But why should I? I am the one who put in all the hard work and my family should prosper from our hard work. I am not taking from someone else and I am not on anothers land taking their water. So why is it my responsibility to provide for my needy neighbor?

It's not my responsibility. If he is too lazy to build his own well, then I am sorry, but he should suffer the consequences of his inaction. However, the government now believes that the rights of the provider no longer outweigh the needs of the recipient. What this will soon do, and we are on a crash course to learn sooner rather than later, is that when the provider has to do 2x the work to see half the benefit (since the recipient isn't providing anything but realizes the other half of the providers benefit) then the provider will either produce less or stop producing. Why? Because it is economically not in his best interest to provide it if the costs outweigh the benefit. And guess who steps in and picks up the pieces....you guessed it, the US Federal Government. This, in turn, makes you more dependent on them to solve your problems. When this happens then the government creates 3 classes of society, 2 of which don't favor the working class. These classes are broken down in a 1) provider class (the employer), 2) the recipient (the worker) and 3) the access class (the wealthy, aka employer, celebrity). Put a simpler way as it relates to health care...what wealthy group is out there touting the most that we need government run health care? Hollywood! And their cadillac plans will leave them with the best quality health care. I mean, do you really think that Ashton Kutcher or Ben Afleck is going to stand in line next to you while trying to see a doctor? Not on your life. Is your elected politician going to hang out in the waiting room to live with the same level of health care service they voted to have you live with? Yeah, that's about as likely as Obama turning fiscally conservative. So what does that do? It places an even wider barrier between the working class and the class who provides the work. Get used to it. It's the 'change' and 'hope' you voted for. You asked for the mandate, its just too damn bad you have to live with that mandate. Like I now say, just because I empowered you doesn't mean you are empowered. Think about that for a second. Just because I voted for someone doesn't mean that that person does not now have to answer to me. But your liberal democrat friends say, 'we were voted in on a mandate.' No you weren't. If you were then you would have already passed health care, passed cap N trade, probably would have already rammed through another stimulus bill and would have gone ahead and bailed out another failed industry. Mandates are governed unfortunately by economics in a capitalist society. Of course, with the current administration it's just a matter of time before the laws of economics in a free market society ceases to exist.

If you want to understand a great example of economics 101, please click on the link below. This very short book, easily readable in about 20 minutes online, is an elementary guide to understanding the laws of economics and how it effects us every day. It's called, Economics in one lesson. It quite simply is the best, shortest and most to the point economics lesson one can learn. This teaches you for free what an economics major will teach you for about $100,000.

http://jim.com/econ/

Democrats, Racism & Slavery!

When the left in this country demonizes conservatives as racists, it and the media then push the claim with headlines and lead stories on the 24/7 news cycle with the likes of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton headlining and supporting the claims. What these people unbelievably FAIL to tell you is that history and RECENT history doesn't support the claim that the republican party is the racist party. Sure, are there conservatives that are racist? Of course. Just like there are equally as many liberals that are racist. These racists can be found all over the country but in extremely small numbers. The south garners the most 'racist' attention because of the Civil War and events leading up to the civil rights movement in the 1960's. Which then begs another question. What party was in control of the southern states during the mid to late 1800's who believed it was their right to keep and harbor slaves as property? And, who was the party who first championed civil rights for blacks?

So let's look at the history of race in the U.S. and how democrats have effected the evolutionary rise of the black American. Also, if you so choose the National Black Republicans go into great detail of the democratic parties racist views and positions dating back over 150 years (http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-OBAMA-CanYouSpareAPROCLAMATION).

1. Who was president and decided to fight the Civil War to end slavery of black Americans?
2. Who signed the Emancipation Proclamation?
3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
4. What political party filibustered in 1964 prior to voting on the Civil Rights Act?
5. Who was the president who invited the first black American (Booker T. Washington) to the White House and what political party was he from?
6. What party was the first black VP candidate (Frederick Douglas) on the ticket for?
7. Who was the party who refused to seat black delegates until 1933?
8. What political party during the reconstruction era, had as their slogan, "It's a white man's party, let the white man rule." And in 1948 campaign, what political party's slogan was "Segregation Forever!"?
9. What party was started in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, fought to free blacks from slavery and championed civil rights for blacks?
10. What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
11. What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP who were themselves white?
12. What is the Party of current Senator Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Fritz Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina when he was the governor, and Senator Ted Kennedy who recently insulted black judicial nominees by calling them “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
13. What was the Party of President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after his becoming president, and who later had the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
14. What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
15. What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?
16. What political party currently has a black man as their chairman?

People in this country are, for the most part, afraid to discuss race. One of my best friends, a very successful black man, and I have had several discussions about race. Of course, I can never relate to his situation, just like I cannot relate to the life experiences of my Korean best friend, my Indian best friend, or my Jewish best friend. However, we can have an open discussion about it which I wish every American could do with all races in this country, not just black and white. It will be educational to each race to understand the others viewpoints, outlook and historical context by which we arrived here today and how to progress forward. Constructive discussion would go a long way to removing 'racist' labels from being placed on someone for simply saying, "You lie". But, no matter how constructive those discussions are, it of course will never put to rest the fact that some very ignorant people will always judge a person based upon the color of skin and not the content of their character.

The point of this blog entry was not to show that republicans/conservatives don't have, included in its party, racist voters. Nor was it a 'ha, ha, ha, gotcha'. Any person who believes that the republican party, especially after labeling Joe Wilson AND all tea partier's "Racist", must ask themselves...what political party, historically, has done more for helping to push black America's progress? Study history and the truth may very well surprise you. Also, since your federal government took over education how much better have blacks done, and even whites, in their graduation rates? You might want to research that for yourself. For all that democrats claim to do to help the black American, the evidence points to far different facts.

Thomas Sowell (links below) speaks from experience and I wish I could hear someone with facts that clearly demonstrates that welfare's expanse has helped increase jobs, lower abortion rates, lower children being born out of wedlock, increase wages, increase education and graduation rates, etc. It's unfortunate that the rod and staff that so many like to hit with is also the crutch that so many use. Ironic? And a great article was just written about minimum wage and what the detriment to the black community minimum wage has done to their job skill acceleration and employment. Democrats continue to push minimum wage hikes claiming it 'helps blacks and minorities', yet the exact opposite holds true. So, if democrats are so for blacks succeeding then why are literally all their policies flawed to the point that it actually holds back blacks and minorities?

But like liberal democrat socialists like to say, if you are against continued dependence upon welfare and minimum wage then you are a racist since these programs helps poverty stricken minorities. When will minorities have the freedom of thought to wake up and ask themselves, "Demonstrated by my constant support of the democratic party agenda, how much better is my life today?"

http://www.youtube.com/user/FightTheGoodFightUSA#p/a/f/1/2GklCBvS-eI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyG1zmdh1pA&feature=PlayList&p=BE7B862704D31B44&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

10 Conditions for transition to Communism

I have provided a link from another blogger who eloquently points out the road we are headed down if we don't wake up quickly as a nation. Please read the 10 points memo and ask yourself, "Is he a crazy right wing nut or does he make legitimate points that I need to be more concerned about?" If you do feel that he is speaking on things that you feel directly are effecting you and what you see then follow his support of "TakeAmericaBack2010" (www.takeamericaback2010.com). You can follow his blog to...and no, I do not know this gentleman other than to say that I agree with much he has to say.

http://myspiritof76.blogspot.com/2009/09/calling-spade-spade-or-in-this-case.html

Good luck and lets hope that saying of "God bless America" will continue well into our future generations. It's up to you to help make that happen!

Obama, the Olympics and failure!

As Barack took off on Air Force One there were many, including myself, that thought 'he wouldn't go there unless he knew, with underhand dealings, promises of future endeavors and untoward dealings that Chicago was a sure bet to win the 2016 Games. Many here in America lauded the presidents effort and said that well 'with health care seeming to now be on firm footing showing signs of promise' then the 'be all' president had time to be all to Denmark. In the middle of a huge health care debacle, with the cap and trade travesty looming at our front door, and with the economic numbers indicating strongly that the stimulus isn't working, the international president has the time to travel on AF One for 8 hours and pitch why Chicago should be the IOC choice to host the Olympic games.

Forgetting for a second that we have two wars going on in far away lands, one in which the president said we 'took our eye off the ball' in the war that 'really matters in Afghanistan,' Obama also convened for the first time under any US President, the role of the head of the UN Security Council. So now the man who takes over companies, fires GM's, sets executive level pay, won't meddle in Iran elections but cuts off ties to Honduras who constitutionally had the right to remove their expectant tyrant by law, the man who can't go on TV enough to push his far left health care reform bill, who touts the success of his Stimulus Bill as having saved the US economy from the brink of collapse, who gets involved in the arrest of a black professor by a white cop, and who is so childish as to not grant Chris Wallace a Sunday morning round of interviews while he did 6 others, but now this man has time with all this on his plate to go pitch the 2016 Summer Games in Chicago aside from his trying to be the savior to so many? I mean who could possibly have the time? He wants credit for everything but takes blame for nothing. In fact, he delegated the writing of all his major policy initiatives to Congress and Senate democratic leaders so that his 'hands' aren't on the bills.

You see, by having Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and Harry Reid write most of the legislation for Stimulus, Omnibus, Cap and Trade, Health Care and other major economic policy, Obama can say, "hey, they wrote it and when it came to my desk I signed it because so much had gone into the crafting and political capital had been spent by so few to give health care to so many." But if the bill fails then Obama can say that his fingers weren't on it. "It was up to the house and senate to deliver me a bill" he would say. This way only that which he personally touches would turn to gold!

Except for the Chicago Olympic games bid. The man who supposedly the international community reveres and loves just got a right-cross to the left chin in the 1st round of a major heavyweight fight. The liberal pundits out there now say, 'this is not a story. It's no big deal.' However, had the tide been different and Chicago had won, do you honestly believe for one second that these same pundits and Obama himself would not have been taking credit for this? Hell, Michele and Barack in their two separate speeches referred to themselves in the "I" or "Me" context exactly 26 times each in telling their story. Then both of them at the end of their respective speeches said that Chicago winning the Olympic games is not about 'them' its about Chicago. Really? After spending your 5 minutes cramming in reference after reference of yourself in the first or third person you are able to actually hope that the reader believes that your touching speech is about something greater than yourself and is actually about others?

The sad fact of the matter is that the US could have used the 'spirit' of the games to pick itself up off the mat, much like LA did in 1984 and possibly help rejuvenate American society into believing again. But, I suspect, that had we won the bid for the Olympic games, not only would Chicagoans and Illinois have been broke, the taxpayers of the US would have had to pick up a large piece of the pie and the only ones who would have gotten rich and had their pockets lined were the one's using our taxpayer dollars to fly to the country whose citizens wear wooden clog...Valerie Jarrett, Michele Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Mayor Daley and David Axelrod.

Hell, it would have been 2016 and what else are you supposed to do after you have quite possibly ruined the greatest superpower the world has ever seen? You light a torch to go out down in flames. Sleep well Obama's and cronies, so far the international stage is pitching shut out against you and we are fairly deep into the ballgame. Who's your ace in the bullpen and who is the DH who can swing for the fences?

Senate panel blocks GOP's abortion, illegals measures - Washington Times

Liberal democrats block GOP explicit request to block federal funding for ABORTIONS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS! Who's looking out for you? Be honest with yourself, ask yourself the tough questions and demand answers from your politicians.

Senate panel blocks GOP's abortion, illegals measures - Washington Times

Shared via AddThis