Retired (good thing for us) Army General (and Democratic Vice Presidential hopeful ) Wesley Clark, recently took an opportunity to attempt to marginalize the service record of the de-facto Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain. It seems that Clark feels that, "McCains military record was overblown since he did not make major combat decisions." This is as opposed to Barack Hussein NObama's nonexistent -military record - and his inability to make any decisions as a Senator, generally voting "Present" when voting on bills before the Senate. Clark also said that, "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." I think it puts him a few steps closer to being qualified, than NObama! NObama has never served a single day in any function of the military -not active duty, not reserves, not even ROTC in school. How does that total lack of personal experience qualify him to become Commander in Chief of our military forces? If YOU were going into combat, would you want NObama making life or death decisions for YOU ... or your loved ones?
Excuse me for thinking that any President should have some military experience - or at the very least training - as preparation for the single most powerful position in the United States, but that's the mindset that I have. Perhaps it's from my own 20 years, 23 days, 14 hours, and 27 seconds in the military, during which time I was relatively comfortable in the knowledge that my leaders - from the White House to the field commanders - had both knowledge of, and experience in, the military art and science of conducting war.
I am not going to glorify war as a means of human interaction but, suffice it to say, war has been, and will continue to be, with us until the concept of pacification infects the entire world. Until such time, a strong military will be required in order to insure that the word pacifist does not become synonymous with the word VICTIM.
For one military man to belittle the service of another military man - without just cause, and purely for personal political gain - is an egregious act of selfishness. But then, what else can we expect from people with political ambitions? And, anyone that reaches the lofty position of General in the military has done so more by way of political networking than honest effort.
Shame on you Wesley Clark! You weren't captured and imprisoned in the defense of your country because you were so well insulated from the actual battles of Vietnam. If it had been you captured, perhaps your Jane Fonda attitude would be somewhat different.
I'm Gil, and I approve this Blog!
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
HOMOPHOBIA - It's More Than Just a Word, It's a MISNOMER!
The generally accepted definition of 'homophobia' is "an unfounded and irrational fear of homosexuals." I'd like to coin a new, if somewhat clumsy, word to more accurately reflect the feelings most 'straights' have about those who engage in physical love with members of the same sex - homocontemnor is that word, and it means (using the same flexibility demanded by the term 'homophobia'): "having contempt for those who engage in physical love with members of the same sex." Most people have no 'fear' of homosexuals. What most people do have is distaste, disdain, and contempt for that lifestyle.
Whether you agree with me or not makes absolutely no difference (none, nada, zip, zero, zed).That IS the truth of the matter. It seems that the two things which have suffered most from our politically correct society are the language ... and the truth. Did I just commit a 'hate crime'? No - there is no hatred there, just a statement of the facts as I see them.
Whether you agree with me or not makes absolutely no difference (none, nada, zip, zero, zed).That IS the truth of the matter. It seems that the two things which have suffered most from our politically correct society are the language ... and the truth. Did I just commit a 'hate crime'? No - there is no hatred there, just a statement of the facts as I see them.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
"Hate Crimes" - WHAT A CONCEPT!
Our national legislators, in their infinite disregard for the will of the people, and the constraints of our Constitution, defined offenses against certain groups/classes as "hate crimes". To emphasize the importance of such acts, the Congress included additional penalties for these newly-defined crimes. The additional crime is now composed of thought, attitude and/or state of mind during the commission of the true criminal act. Hate crimes are crimes that are "motivated in whole or in part by a bias against the victim's perceived race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability." Criminal acts are rarely committed out of love for the victim, and crimes against persons and property have always carried penalties.
When I say 'always,' I can only refer back as far as beginnings of recorded human history. Hammurabi, the ruler of Babylon from 1795-1750BC, was credited with the creation of the oldest known written set of laws. These laws were known as Hammurabi's Code or, alternatively, as the Code of Hammurabi (a rose by any other name, etc ...). Numbering a mere two hundred and eighty-two items, the Code was obviously written for much simpler times, and the punishments were also much simpler. Hammurabi's Code prescribed death as the preferred method of punishment for the majority of violations. Harsh? Perhaps by today's standards, but we must look at everything in its historical perspective. Life itself was harsh - from the beginning of time until the 19th century (for 'civilized' nations, anyway). Until the mid-1800s slavery was an accepted way of life throughout the world! Penalties have become much less draconian in the United States during the last 100 years ... which helps to explain our overcrowded prisons. I saw a statistic today claiming that the USA incarcerates 180,000 times the number of people that China does ... and if you think you know WHY, raise your hand. If you said, "China has a much, much higher execution rate than the USA", you are correct. And, if that statistic is accurate, it would mean that in the entire nation of China there are fewer than 16 people in prison (everybody who believes that, please leave the room!).
But, returning to my subject ... we, the people, are supposedly guaranteed "equal protection under the law", yet we have several classes of citizens who are more equal than most of us. Citizens with special protections. They are protected by crimes against race (unless that race is caucasian), religion (unless that religion is Christian), ethnicity (unless you are a WASP born in the United States), sexual orientation (unless your orientation is heterosexual), and disability (I hope that one, at least , cuts in all directions). Our liberal, activist judges have already marginalized freedom of speech by classifying the use of some words as hate crimes (whatever happened to "sticks and stones"?). I certainly don't encourage the use of those words, but they are just words! Can you call a 300 pound man "lard ass", but not call him a "lard ass faggot" if he's gay without going to jail? If the word is the only crime, then its use should carry no greater punishment than a jay-walking ticket ... "Twenty-five dollar fine for using an offensive word! Next case." If the crime is more serious, like murder, and the person was killed specifically for being a black, Jewish, wheel-chair bound, Malaysian lesbian, then prove 'the willful taking of a human life without just cause' in court. Then sentence the convict to die, and execute them. What will we do about the 'hate' part of the crime? Remove the TV from their cell? Take away their birthday? Execute them a second time? Serious crimes already provide for serious punishments! No matter how bad an attitude is, the attitude itself should not be a crime. It's the intentional physical act that may constitute a crime. It's not the word used, it's the deed carried out. Where will the dilution and erosion of our Constitution end ... before or after it no longer exists in any recognizable form?
When I say 'always,' I can only refer back as far as beginnings of recorded human history. Hammurabi, the ruler of Babylon from 1795-1750BC, was credited with the creation of the oldest known written set of laws. These laws were known as Hammurabi's Code or, alternatively, as the Code of Hammurabi (a rose by any other name, etc ...). Numbering a mere two hundred and eighty-two items, the Code was obviously written for much simpler times, and the punishments were also much simpler. Hammurabi's Code prescribed death as the preferred method of punishment for the majority of violations. Harsh? Perhaps by today's standards, but we must look at everything in its historical perspective. Life itself was harsh - from the beginning of time until the 19th century (for 'civilized' nations, anyway). Until the mid-1800s slavery was an accepted way of life throughout the world! Penalties have become much less draconian in the United States during the last 100 years ... which helps to explain our overcrowded prisons. I saw a statistic today claiming that the USA incarcerates 180,000 times the number of people that China does ... and if you think you know WHY, raise your hand. If you said, "China has a much, much higher execution rate than the USA", you are correct. And, if that statistic is accurate, it would mean that in the entire nation of China there are fewer than 16 people in prison (everybody who believes that, please leave the room!).
But, returning to my subject ... we, the people, are supposedly guaranteed "equal protection under the law", yet we have several classes of citizens who are more equal than most of us. Citizens with special protections. They are protected by crimes against race (unless that race is caucasian), religion (unless that religion is Christian), ethnicity (unless you are a WASP born in the United States), sexual orientation (unless your orientation is heterosexual), and disability (I hope that one, at least , cuts in all directions). Our liberal, activist judges have already marginalized freedom of speech by classifying the use of some words as hate crimes (whatever happened to "sticks and stones"?). I certainly don't encourage the use of those words, but they are just words! Can you call a 300 pound man "lard ass", but not call him a "lard ass faggot" if he's gay without going to jail? If the word is the only crime, then its use should carry no greater punishment than a jay-walking ticket ... "Twenty-five dollar fine for using an offensive word! Next case." If the crime is more serious, like murder, and the person was killed specifically for being a black, Jewish, wheel-chair bound, Malaysian lesbian, then prove 'the willful taking of a human life without just cause' in court. Then sentence the convict to die, and execute them. What will we do about the 'hate' part of the crime? Remove the TV from their cell? Take away their birthday? Execute them a second time? Serious crimes already provide for serious punishments! No matter how bad an attitude is, the attitude itself should not be a crime. It's the intentional physical act that may constitute a crime. It's not the word used, it's the deed carried out. Where will the dilution and erosion of our Constitution end ... before or after it no longer exists in any recognizable form?
Friday, June 27, 2008
No Child Left Behind
It's a wonderful sentiment! But, it is also a sad reality that not all children are capable of keeping up. Some are simply destined to be left behind, regardless of the best efforts of parents, educators, and the Federal Government. Education is like any other competition, there are some winners and some losers. Just as all children are not equipped with the physical strength, speed and stamina to win a foot race, not all children are equipped to excel at intellectual endeavors. To increase the chances of the slower students reaching some acceptable level of academic achievement, our government has instituted an unrealistic policy of "No Child Left Behind". The implementation of this policy is simply nothing more than "special" education, and another unwarranted lowering of the educational standards by which we used to measure varying levels of achievement. We are falling short of much of the world in the areas of science and mathematics. Our educational system, with the able assistance of the Federal Government, has reduced the emphasis on what were once referred to as "the hard sciences", and insinuated classes on various "diversities" instead. Education is gradually being replaced by indoctrination.
Who pays the ultimate price for this folly? The high school graduates themselves, and the business world into which they are thrust, or the institutes of higher learning.
Businesses complain that high school graduates are not prepared to enter the work force, because they lack the basic skills to be successful. The business world must either "go begging" for acceptable employees, or invest large sums of money in remedial education for new hires, or 'in-source' employees from outside the country. Colleges have lowered the minimum acceptable SAT entry scores for certain "minority groups", and must provide even more basic 101-level (perhaps 100-level?) courses, to insure that many students stand even the slightest chance of completing their degree.
Potential employers want people who can do the job they are being paid to do. If the employees feel good about themselves that's an added bonus, but it's not what they're being paid for - ability is what they need to bring to the workplace. Whether or not Heather has six mommies, and Tommy has 3 dads doesn't mean diddly-squat to the people who pay the wages and salaries!
What they want, require, and deserve, is a good return on their investment in the employee.
All people are NOT created equal! Accept that as a fact, and perhaps we can get back in the education game. Only a few will be captains of industry, several will attain upper management positions, quite a few will be middle management, many will achieve supervisory status, and the vast majority will be production workers. Our society needs more blue collar workers than we do white collar workers. We need mechanics, police officers, military personnel, mail carriers, custodians, farmers, ranchers, sales associates, bus drivers, truckers, and technicians of all types. Our society needs them much worse than we need politicians, CEO's and CFO's. It is the production worker that keeps our country mobile, fed, healthy, entertained, and communicating! But, those production workers must have a practical education. They need to master those hard sciences in order to be effective in their chosen field(s) of endeavor!
But, complacency seems to be the motto of the majority of Americans. Social indoctrination is the order of the day, and education has been relegated to the category of "nice to have, if we can work it in". Nothing is free, and we will soon pay the price of complacency.
Who pays the ultimate price for this folly? The high school graduates themselves, and the business world into which they are thrust, or the institutes of higher learning.
Businesses complain that high school graduates are not prepared to enter the work force, because they lack the basic skills to be successful. The business world must either "go begging" for acceptable employees, or invest large sums of money in remedial education for new hires, or 'in-source' employees from outside the country. Colleges have lowered the minimum acceptable SAT entry scores for certain "minority groups", and must provide even more basic 101-level (perhaps 100-level?) courses, to insure that many students stand even the slightest chance of completing their degree.
Potential employers want people who can do the job they are being paid to do. If the employees feel good about themselves that's an added bonus, but it's not what they're being paid for - ability is what they need to bring to the workplace. Whether or not Heather has six mommies, and Tommy has 3 dads doesn't mean diddly-squat to the people who pay the wages and salaries!
What they want, require, and deserve, is a good return on their investment in the employee.
All people are NOT created equal! Accept that as a fact, and perhaps we can get back in the education game. Only a few will be captains of industry, several will attain upper management positions, quite a few will be middle management, many will achieve supervisory status, and the vast majority will be production workers. Our society needs more blue collar workers than we do white collar workers. We need mechanics, police officers, military personnel, mail carriers, custodians, farmers, ranchers, sales associates, bus drivers, truckers, and technicians of all types. Our society needs them much worse than we need politicians, CEO's and CFO's. It is the production worker that keeps our country mobile, fed, healthy, entertained, and communicating! But, those production workers must have a practical education. They need to master those hard sciences in order to be effective in their chosen field(s) of endeavor!
But, complacency seems to be the motto of the majority of Americans. Social indoctrination is the order of the day, and education has been relegated to the category of "nice to have, if we can work it in". Nothing is free, and we will soon pay the price of complacency.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
NObama in Wonderland
Barak NObama's latest cure for the USA's ever-increasing fuel cost problem is simple: ADD A 50 CENT PER GALLON TAX TO THE PRICE! This is a man who is obviously not in touch with the problems of working-class America. He believes that by making it even more costly, the American public will drive less, thereby reducing our demand for this OPEC commodity. What he FAILS to understand is that many of us who have to work for a living, unlike our elected officials, are already being crippled by the escalating cost of fuels. We must fuel our vehicles to get us to our work, that we may earn a living and support our families ... and our government! We're paying more at the pump daily, and so are those who transport goods to our retail outlets. Consequently, everything we need to live is costing us more.
Everything from the cost of groceries at the supermarket, to clothing, to the delivery of the evening newspaper to rural areas. In fact, home delivery to rural/unincorporated areas may become a thing of the past, since the delivery person is paying an exorbitant price for fuel, and may not even be making minimum wage. Other services will be forced to increase their prices as well, in order to make a reasonable profit and remain in business.
The challenge for our next elected leader will be to minimize the impact of the downward slide of the US dollar. Our government needs to tap into our own fuel reserves, and resurrect our refineries. Let the 'greenies" whine! The survival of this nation, and it's people, is far more important than a spotted owl becoming temporarily homeless. The owls can move ... and they won't burn a drop of fuel doing it!
NObama's solution sounds familiar though ... it reminds me of the French phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", or, "Let them eat cake." (For anybody who may not remember the consequences of that statement, it fueled the French Revolution, and the subsequent beheading of Marie Antoinette in 1793 for treason.) How far can the American people be pushed before we revolt? That has yet to be seen - and I hope not to see it in my lifetime, but ...
We deserve the leadership we elect ... and may God save us from our emotions! Use your intellect to vote, not your emotions.
I'm Gil, and I approve this Blog!
Everything from the cost of groceries at the supermarket, to clothing, to the delivery of the evening newspaper to rural areas. In fact, home delivery to rural/unincorporated areas may become a thing of the past, since the delivery person is paying an exorbitant price for fuel, and may not even be making minimum wage. Other services will be forced to increase their prices as well, in order to make a reasonable profit and remain in business.
The challenge for our next elected leader will be to minimize the impact of the downward slide of the US dollar. Our government needs to tap into our own fuel reserves, and resurrect our refineries. Let the 'greenies" whine! The survival of this nation, and it's people, is far more important than a spotted owl becoming temporarily homeless. The owls can move ... and they won't burn a drop of fuel doing it!
NObama's solution sounds familiar though ... it reminds me of the French phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", or, "Let them eat cake." (For anybody who may not remember the consequences of that statement, it fueled the French Revolution, and the subsequent beheading of Marie Antoinette in 1793 for treason.) How far can the American people be pushed before we revolt? That has yet to be seen - and I hope not to see it in my lifetime, but ...
We deserve the leadership we elect ... and may God save us from our emotions! Use your intellect to vote, not your emotions.
I'm Gil, and I approve this Blog!
Saturday, June 21, 2008
United Nations - Those Who Would Rule The World
Our left-wing loonies, most of whom worship at the temple of the United Nations in New York City, are supporting the following, extracted from the United Nations "Declaration of Human Rights" (emphasis added to Article 29 (3)):
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
I'm not claiming that there are no good aspects to the UN's UDoHR, there are many ... but they are, for the most part, vaguely worded and easily interpreted in any manner the reader desires. Am I the only person who has wondered (sometimes aloud to others) if the EU, and NAFTA (the obvious precursor to the North American Union, or perhaps just the American Union) are the first two steps to world domination by the UN? The third, and final step, would be the formation of the Asian Union - which, given the significant antagonism and distrust between most of the Asian countries, will be the greatest challenge of this unification project. It is much easier to exercise control over 3 entities than 192 independent ones. BUT, once the Asian Union has been accomplished through 'diplomacy' (read: intimidation and ostracism), there is only one obvious Puppet Master. What controlling body would be more apparent than the UN? There would be only one independent state left in the world - The Vatcian - assuming the UN allows them to retain their independent status , rather than incorporating the Vatican into Italy. You can use your own imagination for drawing further conclusions ... my imagination is fatigued!
NObama Ahead (Liberal Liars Can Figure Too)
A recent Newsweek poll reports that, "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican John McCain two weeks after he clinched the nomination, a new poll published on Friday showed." The left-inclined mainstream media is doing all that it can to deter Republicans and conservatives from either voting at all (by instilling the , "with NObama having such a serious lead why bother to vote for McCain?" thoughts), or by attempting to influence them into jumping ship and joining the left-wing, Kumbaya/America Last crowd.
If conservative-traditionalists and Republicans can't see through this ploy by the mainstream media, and fail to turn out in record numbers for the election, it will prove to be the darkest day in American history. A day many of us may not live to regret!
I'm Gil, and I approve this Blog!
If conservative-traditionalists and Republicans can't see through this ploy by the mainstream media, and fail to turn out in record numbers for the election, it will prove to be the darkest day in American history. A day many of us may not live to regret!
I'm Gil, and I approve this Blog!
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Change For Change Sake
My primary concern is that our citizens will elect a person who really doesn't seem to care for the country as the 'head caretaker' should. Every time we hold a national election history is made. But this election is unusually significant, in that the Democrats presented voters with the first opportunity to select either a female or a ... what ... not white, not black ... I suppose the most accurate way to describe Obama would be "a man of color" as their candidate for the highest office in the land. Okay, fine. They have proven that we are neither conclusively sexist or racist in our selection of candidates - that it is possible for a woman, or a non-white/non-black, to come to the forefront of politics in our country. Unfortunately, in making that point, they have also proven that people vote with their emotions rather than their brains.
Change is the only constant in our world. But, to put our country in jeopardy simply to initiate a change is totally irresponsible. Not all changes are good, nor are all changes bad. But, when you have serious pre-election indicators that Candidate "X" would not be a strong supporter of our culture and our Constitution, voting for such a person is (at least in the moral sense) an act of treason! If the security, integrity, and prosperity of the American citizen is not foremost in the mind and heart of the candidate, then that candidate should be summarily dismissed as a viable prospect for the office of President of the United States of America. People should not feel compelled to vote for anybody just because the election of that person would be a "first." Prior to 1992 we hadn't had a President who was elected based on charisma alone, and who looted the White House upon departure. Until 2000 we hadn't had a mentally insufficient President, but we have since had firsts in both those categories.
Some day this country will have a non-white or female President, but we must not feel obligated to elect the first one offered by any political party! Condoleeza Rice would probably make an excellent President - she has Cabinet-level government experience, she's brilliant, and she's both female and black! But, she did not run for President. Who did? A woman who could not control her own husband (yet thought she could control an entire government), and a non-white male who apparently thinks there are 60 United States (and shows no outward signs of affection, or even respect for our great nation). And where did those additional 10 states come from ... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria perhaps?!?
Obama is an inspiring orator ... much of the time. Like ALL politicians, he panders to the audience he faces, saying the words they want to hear, even though those words may be diametrically opposed to what he said in the last speech he made. Repeat after me - "silver-tongued Devil" - it's more than just a phrase, it's a statement about character! We don't know exactly what he does stand for, because he usually votes "Present" in the Senate ... which is the same as not voting at all! But, we can be fairly certain of what he doesn't stand for - honesty and integrity in government, and security and prosperity for Americans. When you go to the polls this November, VOTE FOR AMERICA!!
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
Change is the only constant in our world. But, to put our country in jeopardy simply to initiate a change is totally irresponsible. Not all changes are good, nor are all changes bad. But, when you have serious pre-election indicators that Candidate "X" would not be a strong supporter of our culture and our Constitution, voting for such a person is (at least in the moral sense) an act of treason! If the security, integrity, and prosperity of the American citizen is not foremost in the mind and heart of the candidate, then that candidate should be summarily dismissed as a viable prospect for the office of President of the United States of America. People should not feel compelled to vote for anybody just because the election of that person would be a "first." Prior to 1992 we hadn't had a President who was elected based on charisma alone, and who looted the White House upon departure. Until 2000 we hadn't had a mentally insufficient President, but we have since had firsts in both those categories.
Some day this country will have a non-white or female President, but we must not feel obligated to elect the first one offered by any political party! Condoleeza Rice would probably make an excellent President - she has Cabinet-level government experience, she's brilliant, and she's both female and black! But, she did not run for President. Who did? A woman who could not control her own husband (yet thought she could control an entire government), and a non-white male who apparently thinks there are 60 United States (and shows no outward signs of affection, or even respect for our great nation). And where did those additional 10 states come from ... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria perhaps?!?
Obama is an inspiring orator ... much of the time. Like ALL politicians, he panders to the audience he faces, saying the words they want to hear, even though those words may be diametrically opposed to what he said in the last speech he made. Repeat after me - "silver-tongued Devil" - it's more than just a phrase, it's a statement about character! We don't know exactly what he does stand for, because he usually votes "Present" in the Senate ... which is the same as not voting at all! But, we can be fairly certain of what he doesn't stand for - honesty and integrity in government, and security and prosperity for Americans. When you go to the polls this November, VOTE FOR AMERICA!!
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
Monday, June 16, 2008
And Then There's This ...
Watch Texas Senator Kirk Watson squirm. The question Chris Matthews asks has yet to be answered by anyone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o
- Accomplishments? NONE!
- Promises? Many.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Obama Will Dismantle Our Military - Goodbye USA
The Democrat who desires to be our next President, Barak HUSSEIN Obama, has promised to reduce our military defense capability, to something roughly equivalent to that of Jamaica. The only thing he hasn't said is to whom he plans to surrender our country.
For details click -->> http://msunderestimated.com/2008/03/01/obamas-plans-for-our-military-video/
How unbelievably stupid are we Americans, that this man could ever even be considered for our country's highest office, much less nominated, by one of the two larger political parties?? Does the phrase "sleeper cell" not come to mind? Would the last one to leave please close the doors and turn off the lights ...
For details click -->> http://msunderestimated.com/2008/03/01/obamas-plans-for-our-military-video/
How unbelievably stupid are we Americans, that this man could ever even be considered for our country's highest office, much less nominated, by one of the two larger political parties?? Does the phrase "sleeper cell" not come to mind? Would the last one to leave please close the doors and turn off the lights ...
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Where Is Kuwait?
We saved Kuwait when Iraq invaded and started burning their oil wells, where are they now that OPEC is burning our economy?
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
Your Congress In Action
Along the same lines as my last post, our Congress continues their sellout of the American worker! In 6 years (2014) we, the citizens of the United States, will be required by law to use "energy-saving light bulbs". Now, on the surface that doesn't seem like a big deal, right? Most of us are willing to make some adjustments in order that we may:
We've all seen "energy-saving light bulbs" in the stores. They're those odd-looking, twisty fluorescent bulbs that resemble a Dairy Queen cone, and claim increased light for less power consumption. The package usually says something like, "Get 70 watts of light for only 25 watts of power", or words to that effect. And they carry the names of well-known, repsected American manufacturers, such as General Electric and Sylvania, among others. These bulbs are classed as Compact Fluorescent Lamps, or CFL's, and although they cost more than twice as much as a similar incandescent bulb, they claim a useful life of 6,000 or more hours - which could easily offset the initial purchase cost ... until you break one!
One person, in Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at an unforeseen expense of about $2,004.28 - which is the price quoted for cleanup by the U.S. Department of Environmental Protection. The CFL's are filled with mercury, which is a pollutant, and there are specific laws covering the cleanup of pollutants.
There is only one place in the world where these CFL's are made - CHINA! Aren't we using enough things that are made in China? Pet foods that kill our pets, toys with lead-based paints, and toxic toothpastes aren't enough of a clue to Chinese manufacturing quality to make us choose to do something different? I'd rather burn candles, or oil lamps ... or ignite stock certificates for GE & Sylvania, than use more crap made in China! And here's where you can find the details ...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg . This YouTube post is NOT something that a kid created from some herb-induced state of mind - it's a video taken on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, and it's worth seeing and hearing!
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
- reduce our personal expenses for utilities.
- do what we can to help to conserve available energy resources.
We've all seen "energy-saving light bulbs" in the stores. They're those odd-looking, twisty fluorescent bulbs that resemble a Dairy Queen cone, and claim increased light for less power consumption. The package usually says something like, "Get 70 watts of light for only 25 watts of power", or words to that effect. And they carry the names of well-known, repsected American manufacturers, such as General Electric and Sylvania, among others. These bulbs are classed as Compact Fluorescent Lamps, or CFL's, and although they cost more than twice as much as a similar incandescent bulb, they claim a useful life of 6,000 or more hours - which could easily offset the initial purchase cost ... until you break one!
One person, in Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at an unforeseen expense of about $2,004.28 - which is the price quoted for cleanup by the U.S. Department of Environmental Protection. The CFL's are filled with mercury, which is a pollutant, and there are specific laws covering the cleanup of pollutants.
There is only one place in the world where these CFL's are made - CHINA! Aren't we using enough things that are made in China? Pet foods that kill our pets, toys with lead-based paints, and toxic toothpastes aren't enough of a clue to Chinese manufacturing quality to make us choose to do something different? I'd rather burn candles, or oil lamps ... or ignite stock certificates for GE & Sylvania, than use more crap made in China! And here's where you can find the details ...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg . This YouTube post is NOT something that a kid created from some herb-induced state of mind - it's a video taken on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, and it's worth seeing and hearing!
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Shades of 1929!
The government won't make it official, because that would reflect poorly on the administration, but we are in a recession - bordering on another depression. It's been almost 80 years since the beginning of the "Great Depression" of 1929, which lasted until 1941, so we were about due for one. We had four lesser-known (except to economists and historians) depressions in the 1800's, each of which lasted between five and seven years. So, in a relative sense, the 20th century was a much smoother one, depression-wise. One biggie, but no roller coaster rides.
The root causes of the Great Depression are still uncertain, but a drop in the Gross Domestic Product (our ability to sell what we manufacture) initiated a high unemployment rate in the United States. The unemployment rate represents what is not produced that could be produced. The unemployment rate, these days, is a misleading statistic anyway. An individual is counted as unemployed if the individual is over the age of 16 and is actively looking for a job, but cannot find one. Students, those individuals who choose to not work, and retirees are therefore not counted in the unemployment rate. Nor are the under-employed (those who desire full-time employment but cannot find it), or those who are not drawing unemployment compensation from the government (those who have not filed for unemployment, or have exhausted their unemployment benefit). In 1929 the unemployment rate in the USA was 3.2%. In 1930 it had more than doubled at approximately 8.5%., and by 1933 our unemployment rate had hit 25%. (Source: www.sjsu.edu) That means that one person in four who was capable of working, and actively seeking employment was just S.O.L.! Keep in mind also, that at that time in our history, the labor force was over 90% male. Women may not have even been included in the statistics.
So, what's going on today? In August of 2001 our unemployment rate was 4.9%, based on:
(Source: www.econedlink.org)
But, that was seven years ago. Today we have offshore outsourcing of American jobs, combined with in-sourcing of technical and professional people, added to the reported 12,000,000 (and constantly growing) illegal aliens. And we have an ever-increasing export deficit, and we are becoming more dependent on overseas sources - many of which are less-than-friendly to the United States - for goods and services. Where is our unemployment today? As of May 2008 our national unemployment stands at 5.5% - 2.3 percentage points above 1929, yet roughly 3 percentage points below 1930. We now have a "civilian population" of 154.5 million - that's slightly over 51% of our total population of 301 million - for a decline of 57,635,000. Where did those 57.6 million people go? Did they die? Surely mortality rates would be offset by those coming of age.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1990 there were 16.7 births per 1,000 population (those would be the people who will be 18 at some point in 1908). In 2007, the last year available from the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 8.1 deaths per thousand. That's less than ½ the number of people who had been in the employable age range for the previous 2 years. (I could find no figures giving specific numbers of either births or deaths, nor could I find statistics showing the number of people in the 16-30 age range who would have been excluded from the "civilian population" due to education, military or institutional status.) How do you have a birth rate twice that of the death rate, and lose 57.6 million people from the workforce? I am amazed at the number of things in this world that I just simply do not understand.
Our GDP has remained fairly stable since 2006 reflecting a growth of approximately $1 billion, which is a good sign. Although that amount is significantly larger than my monthly check, $1 billion is not a lot of money when your talking about a total GDP of $14,000,000,000,000 ($14 TRILLION). To review we have a 5.5% (official, if not totally accurate) unemployment rate, and a stagnant GDP. Then add over 5,000,000 welfare/Medicaid recipients (whose only skill seems to be spreading their legs and letting the taxpayers pick up the tab), and corporate offshore outsourcing of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Now OPEC is actively engaged in driving our economy further and faster down the road to ruination, and transportation costs are killing us at the gas pump, retail stores, and others offering goods and services. Additionally, the U.S. dollar has been devalued by half around the world! Does the inevitable outcome escape our elected representatives in Washington D.C.? Let me spell it out for them - D.E.P.R.E.S.S.I.O.N.! And what gifts does the depression bring? Civil disturbances, increased crime rates, and perhaps rioting ... or possibly even another revolution. I do not wish to see any of these things happen, but I fear that unless the government changes the course our country has taken in the last 50 years, these will be the consequences of our inaction.
I hope that someday I can say, "That prediction I made back in 2008 was wrong! Our government finally grew a set, and re-directed our economic policies. Today our country is as prosperous as it was in the 1950s, our borders are secure, and we depend on nobody outside the United States for our fuel needs!"
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
The root causes of the Great Depression are still uncertain, but a drop in the Gross Domestic Product (our ability to sell what we manufacture) initiated a high unemployment rate in the United States. The unemployment rate represents what is not produced that could be produced. The unemployment rate, these days, is a misleading statistic anyway. An individual is counted as unemployed if the individual is over the age of 16 and is actively looking for a job, but cannot find one. Students, those individuals who choose to not work, and retirees are therefore not counted in the unemployment rate. Nor are the under-employed (those who desire full-time employment but cannot find it), or those who are not drawing unemployment compensation from the government (those who have not filed for unemployment, or have exhausted their unemployment benefit). In 1929 the unemployment rate in the USA was 3.2%. In 1930 it had more than doubled at approximately 8.5%., and by 1933 our unemployment rate had hit 25%. (Source: www.sjsu.edu) That means that one person in four who was capable of working, and actively seeking employment was just S.O.L.! Keep in mind also, that at that time in our history, the labor force was over 90% male. Women may not have even been included in the statistics.
So, what's going on today? In August of 2001 our unemployment rate was 4.9%, based on:
| Description | ||
| Total civilian population | 212,135,000 | (excluding those under 16, members of the military, and persons in institutions) |
| - Not in Labor force | 70,785,000 | (retired, students, individuals choosing not to work) |
| = Labor force | 141,350,000 | (total population minus those not in labor force) |
| - Employed | 134,393,000 | (individuals with jobs) |
| = Unemployed | 6,957,000 | (individuals without a job and actively searching) |
But, that was seven years ago. Today we have offshore outsourcing of American jobs, combined with in-sourcing of technical and professional people, added to the reported 12,000,000 (and constantly growing) illegal aliens. And we have an ever-increasing export deficit, and we are becoming more dependent on overseas sources - many of which are less-than-friendly to the United States - for goods and services. Where is our unemployment today? As of May 2008 our national unemployment stands at 5.5% - 2.3 percentage points above 1929, yet roughly 3 percentage points below 1930. We now have a "civilian population" of 154.5 million - that's slightly over 51% of our total population of 301 million - for a decline of 57,635,000. Where did those 57.6 million people go? Did they die? Surely mortality rates would be offset by those coming of age.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1990 there were 16.7 births per 1,000 population (those would be the people who will be 18 at some point in 1908). In 2007, the last year available from the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 8.1 deaths per thousand. That's less than ½ the number of people who had been in the employable age range for the previous 2 years. (I could find no figures giving specific numbers of either births or deaths, nor could I find statistics showing the number of people in the 16-30 age range who would have been excluded from the "civilian population" due to education, military or institutional status.) How do you have a birth rate twice that of the death rate, and lose 57.6 million people from the workforce? I am amazed at the number of things in this world that I just simply do not understand.
I hope that someday I can say, "That prediction I made back in 2008 was wrong! Our government finally grew a set, and re-directed our economic policies. Today our country is as prosperous as it was in the 1950s, our borders are secure, and we depend on nobody outside the United States for our fuel needs!"
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Illegal Aliens
Why is there any discussion over what to call those who are in the United States without the appropriate authorization or documentation?
il·le·gal
– adjective
Those who are in this country without having undergone the required education and/or background investigations are, by definition, and immediately upon setting foot on U.S. soil, illegal aliens. They are in violation of our national sovereignty and our national law! Granted, they are not necessarily hardened criminals, and most have committed no crime other than illegal entry into this country. But, committing one crime makes you a criminal. Calling them anything BUT "illegal aliens" (in our efforts to be PC, and not hurt their feelings or otherwise stigmatize them, or damage their self esteem) makes about as much sense as referring to car thieves as unregistered owners. The crime of embezzlement could then become known as "improper withdrawal of currency or other cash-convertible items", and murderers could be given the title of "unlicensed executioners" - and the list could just continue to grow, knowing that we were doing our part, at each and every step, to keep from traumatizing some scofflaw!
Next, we get into the unofficial benefit packages afforded to those who enter our country under less-than-legal conditions. The ability of foreign nationals to avail themselves of such things as: free medical treatment (thereby increasing the cost for those of us who don't get it for free); unemployment and welfare benefits (increasing the tax liability for those of us who do work); drivers licenses; voting privileges in some states (thereby skewing the results of our elections in favor of those who do not oppose an "open borders" concept), and now our beneficent government wants to include illegal aliens in our already beleaguered Social Security System! Why should those who are not even legally authorized to be in our country be allowed any benefits? Generally speaking, if an act is deemed "illegal" the is a concurrent penalty attached to that act. Where is the punishment? Where is the justice for citizens who do not have those same privileges? There are even some cities that are officially safe havens for illegals, issuing a governmental mandate of "don't ask, don't tell" to local law enforcement officials! I'm sorry, but we need to turn this country around. No, sorry isn't the right word ... incensed is the right word! The culture, traditions and ethics that allowed this country to thrive into the 1960's has been going steadily downhill ever since ... and we, the silent majority, sat idly by and watched it happen. If we continue to be the silent majority, we will eventually become the oppressed minority. Do your country a favor - attend those city council meetings and make your voice heard. Write, phone or email your elected representatives informing them of your desire to return to responsible - and responsive - government. Responsible for representing our citizens, and responsive to the desires of their constituency.
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
il·le·gal
– adjective | 1. | forbidden by law or statute. |
| 2. | contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc. al·ien - noun
|
Next, we get into the unofficial benefit packages afforded to those who enter our country under less-than-legal conditions. The ability of foreign nationals to avail themselves of such things as: free medical treatment (thereby increasing the cost for those of us who don't get it for free); unemployment and welfare benefits (increasing the tax liability for those of us who do work); drivers licenses; voting privileges in some states (thereby skewing the results of our elections in favor of those who do not oppose an "open borders" concept), and now our beneficent government wants to include illegal aliens in our already beleaguered Social Security System! Why should those who are not even legally authorized to be in our country be allowed any benefits? Generally speaking, if an act is deemed "illegal" the is a concurrent penalty attached to that act. Where is the punishment? Where is the justice for citizens who do not have those same privileges? There are even some cities that are officially safe havens for illegals, issuing a governmental mandate of "don't ask, don't tell" to local law enforcement officials! I'm sorry, but we need to turn this country around. No, sorry isn't the right word ... incensed is the right word! The culture, traditions and ethics that allowed this country to thrive into the 1960's has been going steadily downhill ever since ... and we, the silent majority, sat idly by and watched it happen. If we continue to be the silent majority, we will eventually become the oppressed minority. Do your country a favor - attend those city council meetings and make your voice heard. Write, phone or email your elected representatives informing them of your desire to return to responsible - and responsive - government. Responsible for representing our citizens, and responsive to the desires of their constituency.
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
Friday, June 6, 2008
OPEC Rip-Off
Here's a little math problem for you: Achmed has 42 US gallons of crude oil, which he sells to Exxon for $134. What is Exxon's cost per gallon? Just in case you suck at math, the answer is that Exxon is paying $3.92 per gallon for crude oil - that's the stuff that hasn't even been refined yet, much less delivered! Then, when you add in the utilities, payroll, taxes, and benefits for the pump jockeys, don't you have to wonder how the American Oil Cartel, made billions of dollars in profits last year. A cost of $4.25 per gallon at the pump starts to look like a pretty good deal! That's a markup of just slightly more than 10%.
Now let's look a little closer at those figures:
"The total volume of products made from crude oil based origins is 48.43 gallons on average - 6.43 gallons greater than the original 42 gallons of crude oil. This represents a "processing gain" due to the additional other petroleum products such as alkylates that are added to the refining process to create the final products."
The Oregon legislature mandated that all gasoline sold in Oregon must contain 10% ethanol, a non-petroleum-based additive (look at this as if it were Petroleum Helper - the fuel industry's version of Hamburger Helper), which increases the volume of finished motor gasoline from 21.59 gallons to 23.75 (rounded to nearest 2 decimal places). What is the cost per gallon of this bio-fuel additive? According to the state of Oregon "Because a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline, the production cost of ethanol must be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to make an energy-cost comparison with gasoline. This means that if ethanol costs $1.10 per gallon to produce, then the effective cost per gallon to equal the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is $1.65." So, that 21.59 gallons of gasoline just jumped from a cost of $2.01p/g to $3.66p/g as it leaves the refinery, but at the same time, increased in volume by 2.16 gallons to 23.75g. I know this math-dance can be a bit confusing - hell, I'm confused by it - but for me it means that the real price gouging is going on inside OPEC. I gave up trying to find the wellhead production cost per gallon, or even per barrel ... those figures appear to be extremely well hidden. This is just a guess, but I wouldn't expect that the OPEC production cost would be more than 10% of the per barrel price. Keep in mind that there are also hidden transportation costs for the American Oil Cartel. So, where do they make those billions in profit? Let me refer you back to the California Energy Commission chart - 48.6% of crude oil imports goes for the creation of other-than-automobile fuels, and that's where the remainder of those outrageous profits are created. It appears that OPECs goal is to ruin western economies ... the same economies that gave them their oil production capabilities in the first place.
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
Now let's look a little closer at those figures:
- As of today, $134 is the cost of one barrel of crude oil.
- One barrel of crude oil constitutes 42 gallons.
- According to the California Energy Commission, one barrel of crude oil produces:
| Product | Percent of Total |
|---|---|
| Finished Motor Gasoline | 51.4% |
| Distillate Fuel Oil | 15.3% |
| Jet Fuel | 12.3% |
| Still Gas | 5.4% |
| Marketable Coke | 5.0% |
| Residual Fuel Oil | 3.3% |
| Liquefied Refinery Gas | 2.8% |
| Asphalt and Road Oil | 1.7% |
| Other Refined Products | 1.5% |
| Lubricants | 0 |
"The total volume of products made from crude oil based origins is 48.43 gallons on average - 6.43 gallons greater than the original 42 gallons of crude oil. This represents a "processing gain" due to the additional other petroleum products such as alkylates that are added to the refining process to create the final products."
The Oregon legislature mandated that all gasoline sold in Oregon must contain 10% ethanol, a non-petroleum-based additive (look at this as if it were Petroleum Helper - the fuel industry's version of Hamburger Helper), which increases the volume of finished motor gasoline from 21.59 gallons to 23.75 (rounded to nearest 2 decimal places). What is the cost per gallon of this bio-fuel additive? According to the state of Oregon "Because a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline, the production cost of ethanol must be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to make an energy-cost comparison with gasoline. This means that if ethanol costs $1.10 per gallon to produce, then the effective cost per gallon to equal the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is $1.65." So, that 21.59 gallons of gasoline just jumped from a cost of $2.01p/g to $3.66p/g as it leaves the refinery, but at the same time, increased in volume by 2.16 gallons to 23.75g. I know this math-dance can be a bit confusing - hell, I'm confused by it - but for me it means that the real price gouging is going on inside OPEC. I gave up trying to find the wellhead production cost per gallon, or even per barrel ... those figures appear to be extremely well hidden. This is just a guess, but I wouldn't expect that the OPEC production cost would be more than 10% of the per barrel price. Keep in mind that there are also hidden transportation costs for the American Oil Cartel. So, where do they make those billions in profit? Let me refer you back to the California Energy Commission chart - 48.6% of crude oil imports goes for the creation of other-than-automobile fuels, and that's where the remainder of those outrageous profits are created. It appears that OPECs goal is to ruin western economies ... the same economies that gave them their oil production capabilities in the first place.
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
Thursday, June 5, 2008
And Then ... it is gone.
The chaotic, all-consuming whirlpool,
spiraling ever downward,
into an abyss ...
of nothingness.
spiraling ever downward,
into an abyss ...
of nothingness.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR TRANSPORTATION ~
I was chatting with some acquaintances the other day, about ways to improve our costs of transportation (people movers, commercial transportation, etc.), when I was reminded of something I saw published in the late-1950s in one of the premier technical magazines of the times. I can't recall exactly which one it was now, but it was probably either Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, or Road and Track - or something of that ilk. As I remember it, the article was about something called "electronic injection", which was significantly different from fuel injection, in that it used a standard carburetor that had been modified with an electronically controlled fuel metering device. Fuel vaporization and the fuel:air ratio was supposedly as close to perfect as one could get using the technology of the times. The stated advantage of such a fuel delivery system? Fuel consumption in the range of 90MPG in a V-8 engine! And, yes, that was the last I ever heard of it.
Today's technology is moving more toward the replacement of fossil fuels as our primary source of energy, especially for our ever-increasing transportation needs. Engineers are now looking at the possibility of extracting hydrogen from water, fuel cells, closed system refrigerants (i.e.: air conditioning), electricity, steam, and most recently, compressed air as alternative sources of fuel for our vehicles.
Now, everybody that believes that Mobil-Exxon (et al) will allow anything that they can't control the availability - or price - of to become a viable alternative to fossil fuels, raise your hand. I see a few hands raised ... but, the short bus is here to pick them up now. We're talking about tens of billions of dollars in profits!
How many of those billions of dollars (that's one of these -> $ followed by a positive integer and 9 zeros) of profits do you think the American Oil Cartel will spend to defeat such efforts? How much would YOU spend, if your $36,000,000,000 in profits were being threatened? One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) is a pittance when you're looking at the potential loss of billions of dollars. (Granted, the concept of a million of anything is extremely difficult for "Joe Average" to get his head around. It's a number for which most of us have no frame of reference. And a billion? Fuggeddaboudit! Simply counting to one million would take about 11 days, 24/7, and counting to one billion - roughly 30 years! A billion seconds ago it was 1959, and a billion minutes ago it was 193AD ... so, yes, these are unrealistically large numbers for the vast majority of us to try to realize.) And we revel in our complacency - trusting that our government, our elected officials, our neighbors will insure that we are treated fairly by our multi-national corporations. We don't mind that our government is leasing our roadways to foreign entities, who are charging us money to use the roads that our taxes built! Swiss cheese borders are of little to no concern to many of us. It is time for the "silent majority" to break its silence, and let the world know that we are fed up with what they've been feeding us. We aren't mushrooms! Remember the words of Edmund Burke, who said:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
I was chatting with some acquaintances the other day, about ways to improve our costs of transportation (people movers, commercial transportation, etc.), when I was reminded of something I saw published in the late-1950s in one of the premier technical magazines of the times. I can't recall exactly which one it was now, but it was probably either Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, or Road and Track - or something of that ilk. As I remember it, the article was about something called "electronic injection", which was significantly different from fuel injection, in that it used a standard carburetor that had been modified with an electronically controlled fuel metering device. Fuel vaporization and the fuel:air ratio was supposedly as close to perfect as one could get using the technology of the times. The stated advantage of such a fuel delivery system? Fuel consumption in the range of 90MPG in a V-8 engine! And, yes, that was the last I ever heard of it.
Today's technology is moving more toward the replacement of fossil fuels as our primary source of energy, especially for our ever-increasing transportation needs. Engineers are now looking at the possibility of extracting hydrogen from water, fuel cells, closed system refrigerants (i.e.: air conditioning), electricity, steam, and most recently, compressed air as alternative sources of fuel for our vehicles.
Now, everybody that believes that Mobil-Exxon (et al) will allow anything that they can't control the availability - or price - of to become a viable alternative to fossil fuels, raise your hand. I see a few hands raised ... but, the short bus is here to pick them up now. We're talking about tens of billions of dollars in profits!
How many of those billions of dollars (that's one of these -> $ followed by a positive integer and 9 zeros) of profits do you think the American Oil Cartel will spend to defeat such efforts? How much would YOU spend, if your $36,000,000,000 in profits were being threatened? One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) is a pittance when you're looking at the potential loss of billions of dollars. (Granted, the concept of a million of anything is extremely difficult for "Joe Average" to get his head around. It's a number for which most of us have no frame of reference. And a billion? Fuggeddaboudit! Simply counting to one million would take about 11 days, 24/7, and counting to one billion - roughly 30 years! A billion seconds ago it was 1959, and a billion minutes ago it was 193AD ... so, yes, these are unrealistically large numbers for the vast majority of us to try to realize.) And we revel in our complacency - trusting that our government, our elected officials, our neighbors will insure that we are treated fairly by our multi-national corporations. We don't mind that our government is leasing our roadways to foreign entities, who are charging us money to use the roads that our taxes built! Swiss cheese borders are of little to no concern to many of us. It is time for the "silent majority" to break its silence, and let the world know that we are fed up with what they've been feeding us. We aren't mushrooms! Remember the words of Edmund Burke, who said:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ~
Okay, here’s what we, in the USA, are faced with in November. The three front-runners for their party’s nomination to become President of the United States have no experience running government at any level … none, nada, zip, zero, zed. However, all three have exposure to the operations of government at various levels and for significantly different periods of time.
One of them has been caught lying almost every time she opens her mouth – she is obviously a true politician! Another expects us to believe that he is either so naïve, or so inattentive, that he was unaware his “friend, pastor, and mentor” of 20-plus years stirred the pot of racial animosity with a very large paddle, while simultaneously condemning the Senator’s country for every human misdeed since the crucifixion. The last candidate - thus far - has only committed the unforgivable act of longevity.
Anybody who expects honesty from a politician probably sits patiently watching the hearth on Christmas Eve, waiting for “you know who”. It’s a given that politicians will attempt to satisfy the desires of their audience, and we expect them to play fast and loose with the truth. The Democratic hopefuls have turned fast and loose into an art form, and set a new land speed record for "fast".
So, without honesty or true experience, what trait is left upon which we may base our voting decision? Character. And that applies to all three … two ARE characters and one HAS character. Vote accordingly. Personally, I don’t think any are particularly worthy of the office. With slightly over 301,000,000 people, these 3 are the best we could come up with? There is obviously something seriously wrong with our selection system ...
A GOVERNMENT THAT DOESN'T PROTECT ITS OWN PEOPLE ~
Has President Bush lost what little mind he had? First it was allowing US Border Patrol Agents Compeon and Ramos to be incarcerated for doing the job the government hired them to do - protect our southern border. Then he goes begging OPEC for increased oil production, instead of increasing our own refinery production capabilities. Now he wants to prosecute an American soldier for target practice on some paper! Okay, so it was the Q'uran the soldier shot holes in ... so what? Call it "freedom of expression", which is constitutionally protected. It's still basically just a book with paper pages! It's not like he killed an Iraqi, cut off his head, set fire to his body, and dragged his smoldering remains through the streets of Baghdad!
Has President Bush lost what little mind he had? First it was allowing US Border Patrol Agents Compeon and Ramos to be incarcerated for doing the job the government hired them to do - protect our southern border. Then he goes begging OPEC for increased oil production, instead of increasing our own refinery production capabilities. Now he wants to prosecute an American soldier for target practice on some paper! Okay, so it was the Q'uran the soldier shot holes in ... so what? Call it "freedom of expression", which is constitutionally protected. It's still basically just a book with paper pages! It's not like he killed an Iraqi, cut off his head, set fire to his body, and dragged his smoldering remains through the streets of Baghdad!
What should be done? A Presidential Pardon for Compean and Ramos would be a good start. Follow that with an embargo against OPEC oil for about 2 weeks, which should get their attention. As for the soldier ... he was "punished" by being sent out of Iraq, and now Bush wants him prosecuted! Okay - give him an Article 32, a reduction in rank, deduct the cost of the ammunition - and for the replacement Koran we gave the Iraqi government - from his pay, and give him a Bad Conduct Discharge. When will our government officials stop puckering up every time some illegal alien or Muslim bends over? And when will they begin supporting Americans, instead of providing them as sacrificial lambs for some international barbecue?
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
Chaos ... for Fun and Profit
Okay ... so there's not much fun to it, and I have yet to figure a way to profit from chaos, but if chaos were fuel, I'd be bigger than OPEC!
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)