"Hillary Clinton told The New York Times recently, 'I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market... You try to find common ground, insofar as possible. But if you really believe you have to manage the economy, you have to stake a lot of your presidency on it.' Notice that she equates government power and market power. That is absurd. 'Power' in a free market means success at creating goods and services that your fellow human beings voluntarily choose to buy. Government power is force: the ability to fine and imprison people. Politicians who talk about managing the economy ignore the fact that, strictly speaking, there is no economy. There are only people producing, buying and selling goods and services. Keep that in mind, and one realizes that government action more often than not interferes with the productive activities that benefit everyone... The economy is far too complex for any president-no matter how smart-to manage. How can politicians and bureaucrats possibly know what hundreds of millions of individuals know, want and aspire to? How can government employees fathom what trade-offs to make in a world of scarce resources? They can't. That's why free people are more prosperous than unfree people. Presidential candidates should promise to keep their hands off the economy."
-- John Stossel
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Sent to me by Dear Old Mom
Father-Daughter Talk:
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words....
REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus - college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Did Ben Franklin Know a Barack Obama in His Day?
"Here comes the great orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason."
-- Benjamin Franklin
-- Benjamin Franklin
Thursday, February 21, 2008
New York Times at it Again!
The Times has published a story alleging that Republican Presidential nominee and U.S. Senator John McCain had an unethical, sexual relationship with a female lobbyist more than eight years ago, allegations that both John McCain and the lobbyist both categorically deny. What makes this most interesting, is that the Times' story completely lacks any confirmed sources, quotes or facts to back up the accusations. Even more interesting to me, is that while the New York Times was sitting on this story, apparently waiting for the right moment to print, it was endorsing John McCain for President!
The object of this strange, slanderous attack is pretty clear. The Times endorsed John McCain during the primaries because they were scared to death of Mitt Romney. The Times wanted desperately to see Romney defeated because he's a Reagan-type conservative. Being a major part of the left-wing establishment, the Times sought to crush Romney's quest for the GOP nomination by endorsing "the lesser of two evils", given that McCain is less conservative. And the ploy worked.
So now the Times has turned on its heels. With Romney now out of the race, we see the paper falsely attacking the only remaining threat to Obama and/or Clinton. The Times' editors/reporters are so desperate to see a democrat win the White House in November, that they'll go so far as to publish a story that has NO merits, NO confirmed sources and NO evidence to back it up! In the end, the New York Times has done nothing more than reinforce its reputation for piss-poor reporting, liberal bias and scandal.
Perhaps Senator McCain should send the Times a "thank you" letter. For in the end, this blatant, slanderous smear campaign against the Republican nominee will likely galvanize conservative support for the GOP nominee. Conservative voters who may be less than thrilled at McCain winning the nomination, will circle the wagons around the man standing between Che Guevra Hussein Obama winning the White House.
-- Skyboss
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Barack Obama's Record on Gun Rights & The 2nd Amendment
In the United States, roughly 52 million households own guns, equaling an estimated 260 million privately owned guns in this country. I urge my fellow gun owners and patriots to pay close attention to this post where I'll detail Barack Obama's stance on gun owners' rights.
* In 2004, Obama said he supports a federal ban on concealed carry for personal protection because the states that allow it are "threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Interesting. How can a Floridian who has a permit to carry a firearm for personal protection possibly be a threat to Illinois residents?? Sadly, in Illinois the only citizens who carry guns are the criminal kind, while law-abiding citizens are left utterly defenseless.
* Obama says, "I believe we need to renew, not roll back, this common sense gun law." He was speaking about the Clinton gun ban of 1994 that banned certain handguns, rifles and shotguns based solely on their appearance! Said gun ban was allowed to expire in 2004 after DOJ and FBI statistics showed it had no impact whatsoever on reducing violent crime.
* In 2003, the town of Wilmette, IL. prosecuted Hale DeMar for using a handgun in his home to defend his family during a home invasion. Like many other Chicago area suburbs, Wilmette had imposed a ban on the possession of handguns. In response to this outrageous prosecution, several state legislators introduced a bill that would protect the right of self-defense for residents like Mr. DeMar. Barack Obama voted against the legislation!
* As a state senator, Obama regularly supported "gun control" measures including a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. This kind of thinking clearly punishes law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals since law breakers are not the type to go into a gun store, submit to instant background checks and fill out the paperwork to buy a firearm.
* In 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to frivolous lawsuits that threaten to put gun manufacturers and dealers out of business. You know, the kind where a careless gun owner accidentally shoots himself in the foot, then sues the gun manufacturer because they didn't prevent him from being so stupid.
* Obama told voters prior to the Iowa caucus that he is a "strong believer" in the rights of hunters and sportsmen and that homeowners should have a firearm to protect their home and their family. But in the next breath, he said, "It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic." I love that quote because there's no such thing as a "17-clip semiautomatic." What Obama either doesn't realize or refuses to accept is that the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting and/or sports shooting. It has everything to do with the right of "The People" to protect themselves from criminals and tyrants in government.
* Obama told the NAACP, "We've got to make sure gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities." So let me get this straight... according to the illustrious, well-spoken Senator from Illinois, legitimate gun dealers are actually loading vans full of thousands of dollars in firearms and "dumping" them in black communities??? Wouldn't that just be really bad business sense? Think about it.
Barack Obama is nothing more than a spit-polished windbag who lacks substance! But one thing is for sure, if elected President, he would do everything in his power to abolish the rights guaranteed to us by our Founding Fathers under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. No different than Hillary Clinton, Obama is a fascist who seeks to destroy our rights as individuals.
The source of this article, along with many other eye-opening facts can be viewed at http://gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm
-- Skyboss
* In 2004, Obama said he supports a federal ban on concealed carry for personal protection because the states that allow it are "threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Interesting. How can a Floridian who has a permit to carry a firearm for personal protection possibly be a threat to Illinois residents?? Sadly, in Illinois the only citizens who carry guns are the criminal kind, while law-abiding citizens are left utterly defenseless.
* Obama says, "I believe we need to renew, not roll back, this common sense gun law." He was speaking about the Clinton gun ban of 1994 that banned certain handguns, rifles and shotguns based solely on their appearance! Said gun ban was allowed to expire in 2004 after DOJ and FBI statistics showed it had no impact whatsoever on reducing violent crime.
* In 2003, the town of Wilmette, IL. prosecuted Hale DeMar for using a handgun in his home to defend his family during a home invasion. Like many other Chicago area suburbs, Wilmette had imposed a ban on the possession of handguns. In response to this outrageous prosecution, several state legislators introduced a bill that would protect the right of self-defense for residents like Mr. DeMar. Barack Obama voted against the legislation!
* As a state senator, Obama regularly supported "gun control" measures including a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. This kind of thinking clearly punishes law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals since law breakers are not the type to go into a gun store, submit to instant background checks and fill out the paperwork to buy a firearm.
* In 2005, Senator Obama voted against S. 397, a bill that was designed to put an end to frivolous lawsuits that threaten to put gun manufacturers and dealers out of business. You know, the kind where a careless gun owner accidentally shoots himself in the foot, then sues the gun manufacturer because they didn't prevent him from being so stupid.
* Obama told voters prior to the Iowa caucus that he is a "strong believer" in the rights of hunters and sportsmen and that homeowners should have a firearm to protect their home and their family. But in the next breath, he said, "It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic." I love that quote because there's no such thing as a "17-clip semiautomatic." What Obama either doesn't realize or refuses to accept is that the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting and/or sports shooting. It has everything to do with the right of "The People" to protect themselves from criminals and tyrants in government.
* Obama told the NAACP, "We've got to make sure gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities." So let me get this straight... according to the illustrious, well-spoken Senator from Illinois, legitimate gun dealers are actually loading vans full of thousands of dollars in firearms and "dumping" them in black communities??? Wouldn't that just be really bad business sense? Think about it.
Barack Obama is nothing more than a spit-polished windbag who lacks substance! But one thing is for sure, if elected President, he would do everything in his power to abolish the rights guaranteed to us by our Founding Fathers under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. No different than Hillary Clinton, Obama is a fascist who seeks to destroy our rights as individuals.
The source of this article, along with many other eye-opening facts can be viewed at http://gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm
-- Skyboss
The Angry White Man
There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.
Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.
He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.
--Gary Hubbell (columnist with the Aspen Times Weekly)
Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.
He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.
--Gary Hubbell (columnist with the Aspen Times Weekly)
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
For The Record
"Senator Barack Obama rejects the 'politics of the past' while borrowing from its phoniest chapters. His promised caravan toward a new Camelot, with Teddy Kennedy bringing up the rear, may generate feelings in Chris Matthews' leg and cause women to swoon, but over time it is likely to pall and bore. Obama's speeches are like cotton candy, sweet but substanceless and dangerous to one's health if turned into a steady diet. Is he saying nothing? Unfortunately not. Glimpsed through the haze of his sophistical rhetoric is something, and it is tiresomely false, namely, the dogmatic assertion that 'hope' and liberalism are synonymous. His reliance on sentiment and rhetoric rather than reasoning to advance that assertion will not inspire a new politics of bipartisan unity but revive old and bitter resentments. Liberalism, after all, has no monopoly on hope, and the chapters of history to which Obama makes implicit reference-the New Frontier and Great Society-concluded in despair. While the Democrats won't stop squealing over him for some time, the larger culture has already begun to mock Obama as a platitudinous lightweight."
--George Neumayr
--George Neumayr
Revealing Statement From Michelle Obama
Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, has stated, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country." Reaaaally? So the extreme left-wing wanna-be First Lady has NEVER been proud to be an American up until now? Given all that America has accomplished during Michelle's lifetime, only her husband's quest for the Presidency has given her reason to be proud of the United States? Oh that's right... I keep forgetting that in the mind of liberals, America is the problem, not the solution.A little vain, self-centered and narcissistic, aren't we Michelle??
-- Skyboss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)