Today I reached my boiling point, three times. Yes, it's hot out, but that's not what made my blood boil. Stupidity did. My Lord, we are surrounded by them! Yes, I suppose I've known that for some time, but I'm telling you, their numbers are increasing! And it's starting to affect not only the youth, but the middle-aged and seniors!! What brought on this rant? Well, let me tell you.

For a good many years I wasn't around when it came time to pay bills. At various times I was single, so I had a banker friend of mine handle my accounts, which he did admirably. And at the times I was married, the spouse always handled things for me while I was gone, and most of the time when I wasn't. So when it became a fact that I was no longer going to be globe-trotting, I wanted to take on the responsibility of doling out my money. I had always provided that money, now I wanted to spend some of it instead of letting others have that pleasure. That's before I learned that it is certainly no pleasure to have to spend that money! But I digress. Today, as I have done for several years now between the first and the fifth, I left the house in a merry mood on my way to make five payment stops and one prescription stop. At my first stop, I asked what my payoff was, since I am taking advantage of an interest free deal on some purchases and want to pay it off before I get hit with any interest. The clerk couldn't tell me. He had to get a supervisor. He couldn't figure it out either, so he called the store manager over. He had to call corporate to get me the figure and the last interest free date, but he didn't think to write it down. All I can say is it's a good thing I still have an excellent memory. Anyway, a five minute stop turned into twenty-five minutes, during which I did my best to remain calm, and was marginally successful. Until they stopped me on the way out trying to sell me something else. I practically had to smack the manager in the mouth to get out the door! That only served to warm me up, I got hot later.

Stop two, I had two payments, my annual homeowners insurance and windstorm insurance. I immediately asked for two copies of the receipts, the original and one copy. The "lady" said, "Sure, no problem." She took my checks, and printed out one receipt for each. I said, "I need two copies, like I said when I first came in." She looked at me like I was daft, "Sir, I'm only allowed to print one receipt." By now I'm starting to lose it. "Ma'am, do you have a copy machine?" "Yes." "Then do you think you can get up, walk over to it and make me a copy of each receipt?" "Well, I suppose." "Good, then I'll have TWO COPIES, WON'T I?! DOOOH!!" Needless to say, the rest of my visit there was quite cool, and I didn't even get a thank you for spending over $1200 with them. But that's okay, I'll see if they still come in the lowest again next year, and hope they run her ignorant butt off in the meantime.

Step three. Yes, it gets better. Off to actually pay off another of those interest free deals. I had called in to get the payoff amount before I left the house, and written the check. I don't like carrying a checkbook, so I normally write out the checks for all my hand delivered payments before I leave home. Well, I hand them the check, and, lo and behold, it's $8.85 over the actual payoff amount. And they don't have a clue what to do about it. A visit from the finance department manager, two assistant store managers, and two calls to corporate later, they suggest I go home and bring them another check. I ask who is going to pay for the gas, and get a deer in the headlights look. So I explain that it will take me over a gallon of gas at $3.599 a gallon to make the round trip, and ask why they can't just dole out the $8.85 in cash, which will balance the drawer at the end of the day. You'll never guess their answer. And it took another call to corporate to get that! "We need to make sure your check clears before we can give you any refund, but we'll mail one out to you in about three to four weeks." Yes, I went ballistic. I even had the audicity, in their little minds, to ask how I could be sure their check would be any good, and if I was going to get interest on my money!! Needless to say, they lost a customer today, and for life!!

Now off the the drugstore. You'd think a pharmacist would be fairly intelligent, wouldn't you? Well, I guess I got that one druggist that proves they will graduate anybody who shows up for four years. With my insurance, I have a very low co-pay, so imagine my surprise when I was told my two scripts was going to cost $841! I was dumbfounded. All I could do was ask why. She told me, you're gonna love this, that since my doctor was on vacation and another doctor had called the scripts in, my insurance wouldn't cover it. I asked to borrow the phone, ready to tear into my insurance company! Then I stopped for a minute, turned to her, and asked if they had tried to run the scripts on my account. She said no, they hadn't, because it wasn't my regular doctor. I held my tongue, and told her assistant to run the scripts. The pharmacist told her not to, that I had to pay first. I then told the assistant to call the store manager. He shows up, runs the scripts and guess what? They clear, my insurance company pays and all I owe is my co-pay. I encouraged the pharmacist to leave my sight immediately, and I wasn't very quiet or polite in the way I said it. I paid my tab, and was escorted out by the store manager, who was actually apologizing all the way, clear to my car door. I thought he was going to crawl in for the rest of my trip, but he finally went back inside. I did manage to tell him that he needed to fire that %)*(^*^$)*Y_ (+)&^% (*^()*^ (%^)(& (&^^)(*(*) druggist!!

I haven't gotten over the next stop enough to talk about it yet, so that's the end of the line on this rant. I will tell you that I didn't make that last stop - the wife is out there now taking care of it for me, and I'm sitting here drinking iced tea. It's probably safer for me, and it's definitely safer for those morons who can't put two and two together and get anything but one!

9 comments View Entry

I saw this as a bulletin earlier today, and felt it needed a rebuttal. Mainly because it is mostly hogwash, and is grossly incorrect. In fact, only one portion is even close to the real truth of things. That being we need to get rid of the FedRes. But I'll let you read it and decide for yourself. Yes, this is a long post, but I think you'll be able to get through it just fine, especially since so much is at stake, mainly the future of our country.

Cut, Cap and Balance: A Chicken Tale

by Karen Kwiatkowski

Excerpts.......

".....The latest spectacle of the chickens who run our country comes from the so-called conservatives in the House – who are currently pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to "balance the federal budget," as part of a "Cut, Cap and Balance" package that doesn’t cut, raises the borrowing cap, and continues the ongoing and unsustainable imbalance in government spending. Little of what these Congressmen are doing today, or have been doing for the past twenty years has been even remotely constitutional, so it isn’t clear why amending the Constitution is ever necessary. Most Congressmen haven’t completely read it, don’t understand what they did read, and believe it is a prop best used during election campaigns. Most don’t believe it is the law or binding in any way on their votes and actions.

One side of the Janus-state – the so-called left side, is angry that the Cut, Cap and Balance may interfere with their political base and agendas, while failing to raise tax collections on that part of the country that they do not claim. The so-called right side of the Janus-state believes that as long as defense spending for the corporate empire is nurtured, preserved and expanded, their proposal will appear "conservative" and be welcomed as titillating foreplay for the November elections....

....There are many ways to critique and chuckle at the proposals by Cantor and Goodlatte to somehow rein in federal spending by making a law, but there is one staring God-awful gap in the proposed amendment. No version of the law, past of present, deals with or even mentions the existence and processes of bank of the federal government, the Federal Reserve. For the liars in Washington, D.C., both on the left and right, this failure to address the Federal Reserve is a very good thing. Running out of money? We’ll "do you a favor" and print more!

In 1994, the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was the bank’s Bifrons. Feared and powerful, moving corpses here and there, scaring all the chickens. It is unthinkable that a balanced budget amendment in 1994 would have addressed the Fed. Only Ron Paul, writing of gold and liberty and transparency, boldly spoke of the Bifrons, then and now. Today, a less impressive Bifrons exists, and Dr. Paul chairs the financial services subcommittee. He routinely takes on the corpse carrier – but still, Cantor and Goodlatte and the rest of the chicken-hearted, bird-brained "conservatives" in Congress cannot bring themselves to address the Fed in the language of the Cut, Cap and Balance Amendment.

Our feathered friends in Congress do enjoy their water drip and their never-ending free lunch. There is a solution, and it starts by not listening to dim-witted chickens trying to buy you one more drink before the bar closes. End the Fed and its interest rate fixing, repeal the 16th Amendment, repeal the 17th Amendment, bring the troops home, end the empire. Start with just these things, and watch the country’s economy and its attitude soar, the young delighted that they actually have a hopeful and peaceful future, the old embraced and cared for, the middle generations employed and empowered. In parts and pieces, we can take back our country, and most of us will survive when the empire ends. I find myself oddly reminded of Hoover’s purported campaign promise, and FDR’s four freedoms. I, too, see chicken on the menu."

Read in entirety: lewrockwell.com

Now to read this, you'd think the House of Representatives, specifically the members elected by the TEA Party, is a bunch of real dummies. Ms. Kwiatkowski even states "Most Congressmen haven’t completely read it, don’t understand what they did read, and believe it is a prop best used during election campaigns. Most don’t believe it is the law or binding in any way on their votes and actions." Personally, I didn't find that to be the case at all. I spent a good deal of time on the phone today, speaking to members of the House AND the Senate. They all understand it perfectly, though the libs are dead set against it because they simply don't want anything to cut their little tax and spend game. Serioulsy, this bill is only a few pages long, and quite simple in nature. And while it is true that it doesn't deal with eliminating the Federal Reserve, which I, too, believe to be necessary in the future, it does put a cap on the debt limit, forces cuts to government spending, and installs the language to establish a balanced budget amendment. While I'd like to see the Fed gone, no one, and I mean no one, has come up with a reasonable solution, and I don't believe it's possible until we can get control of the budget, and consequently the debt and deficit. As it stands now, we, as a nation, have nothing of enough value to replace this fiat money and return to a value based currency. There is no easily obtainable natural resource, mineral or liquid that will equal our debt, let alone the amnount of currency currently in circulation. And until there is, we are stuck with what we have, though it is possible to place controls on the Fed and rein in their rampant financial activities. But, again, we must get control of our overspending government, and balance the budget. Oh, and just so you know I actually read HR 2560 ~ Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011, here it is in its entirity. (By the way, it passed the House with every D and 8 R's voting against it. Notably, Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann voted against it.)

A BILL

To cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011'.

TITLE I--CUT

SEC. 101. MODIFICATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.

Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting at the end the following:

`SEC. 316. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

`(a) In General- It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that would cause the discretionary spending limits as set forth in this section to be exceeded.

`(b) Limits- In this section, the term `discretionary spending limits' means for fiscal year 2012: for the discretionary category, $1,019,402,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,224,568,000,000 in outlays.

`(c) Adjustments- After the reporting of a bill or joint resolution relating to the global war on terrorism described in subsection (d), or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of a conference report thereon--

`(1) the chair of the House or Senate Committee on the Budget may adjust the discretionary spending limits provided in this section for purposes of congressional enforcement, the budgetary aggregates in the concurrent resolution on the budget most recently adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives, and allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, by the amount of new budget authority in that measure for that purpose and the outlays flowing therefrom; and

`(2) following any adjustment under paragraph (1), the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations may report appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection.

`(d) Global War on Terrorism- If a bill or joint resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal year 2012 that provides funding for the global war on terrorism, the allowable adjustments provided for in subsection (c) for fiscal year 2012 shall not exceed $126,544,000,000 in budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom.

`SEC. 317. CERTAIN DIRECT SPENDING LIMITS.

`(a) In General- It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause total direct spending, except as excluded in subsection (b), to exceed the limits specified in subsection (c).

`(b) Exempt From Direct Spending Limits- Direct spending for the following functions is exempt from the limits specified in subsection (c):

`(1) Social Security, function 650.

`(2) Medicare, function 570.

`(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.

`(4) Net Interest, function 900.

`(c) Limits on Other Direct Spending- The total combined outlays for all direct spending not exempted in subsection (b) for fiscal year 2012 shall not exceed $680,730,000,000.'.

SEC. 102. STATUTORY ENFORCEMENT OF SPENDING CAPS THROUGH SEQUESTRATION.

Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after section 317 the following new section:

`SEC. 318. ENFORCEMENT OF DISCRETIONARY AND DIRECT SPENDING CAPS.

`(a) Implementation- The sequesters shall be implemented as follows:

`(1) DISCRETIONARY SPENDING IMPLEMENTATION- For the discretionary limits in section 316 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, pursuant to section 251(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 with each category sequestered separately.

`(2) DIRECT SPENDING IMPLEMENTATION- (A) The sequestration to enforce this section for direct spending shall be implemented pursuant to section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

`(B) Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Control Act of 1985 shall not apply to this section, except that payments for military personnel accounts (within subfunctional category 051), TRICARE for Life, Medicare (functional category 570), military retirement, Social Security (functional category 650), veterans (functional category 700), net interest (functional category 900), and discretionary appropriations shall be exempt.

`(b) Modification of Presidential Order-

`(1) IN GENERAL- At any time after the Director of OMB issues a sequestration report under subsection (a) and section 319(c) the provisions of section 258A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall apply to the consideration in the House of Representatives and the Senate of a bill or joint resolution to override the order if the bill or joint resolution, as enacted, would achieve the same level of reductions in new budget authority and outlays for the applicable fiscal year as set forth in the order.

`(2) POINT OF ORDER- In the House of Representatives or Senate, it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution which waives, modifies, or in any way alters a sequestration order unless the chair of the House or Senate Committee on the Budget certifies that the measure achieves the same levels of reductions in new budget authority and outlays for the applicable year as set forth in the order.'.

TITLE II--CAP

SEC. 201. LIMIT ON TOTAL SPENDING.

(a) Definitions- Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking paragraph (4), redesignating the succeeding paragraphs accordingly, and adding the following new paragraph:

`(19) The term `GDP', for any fiscal year, means the gross domestic product during such fiscal year consistent with Department of Commerce definitions.'.

(b) Caps- The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after section 318 the following new section:

`SEC. 319. ENFORCING GDP OUTLAY LIMITS.

`(a) Enforcing GDP Outlay Limits- In this section, the term `GDP outlay limit' means an amount, as estimated by OMB, equal to--

`(1) projected GDP for that fiscal year as estimated by OMB, multiplied by

`(2) 21.7 percent for fiscal year 2013; 20.8 percent for fiscal year 2014; 20.2 percent for fiscal year 2015; 20.1 percent for fiscal year 2016; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2017; 19.7 percent for fiscal year 2018; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2019; 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2020; and 19.9 percent for fiscal year 2021.

`(b) GDP Outlay Limit and Outlays-

`(1) DETERMINING THE GDP OUTLAY LIMIT- The Office of Management and Budget shall establish in the President's budget the GDP outlay limit for the budget year.

`(2) TOTAL FEDERAL OUTLAYS- In this section, total Federal outlays shall include all on-budget and off-budget outlays.

`(c) Sequestration- The sequestration to enforce this section shall be implemented pursuant to section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

`(d) Exempt Programs- Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and Control Act of 1985 shall not apply to this section, except that payments for military personnel accounts (within subfunctional category 051), TRICARE for Life, Medicare (functional category 570), military retirement, Social Security (functional category 650), veterans (functional category 700), and net interest (functional category 900) shall be exempt.'.

SEC. 202. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES UNDER THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974.

(a) Enforcement- Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding after section 319 the following new section:

`SEC. 320. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.

`It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that would cause the most recently reported current GDP outlay limits set forth in section 319 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to be exceeded.'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 315 the following new items:

`Sec. 316. Discretionary spending limits.

`Sec. 317. Certain direct spending limits.

`Sec. 318. Enforcement of discretionary and direct spending caps.

`Sec. 319. Enforcing GDP outlay limits.

`Sec. 320. Enforcement procedures.'.

TITLE III--BALANCE

SEC. 301. REQUIREMENT THAT A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT BE SUBMITTED TO STATES.

(a) In General- The Secretary of the Treasury shall not exercise the additional borrowing authority provided under subsection (b) until the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res. 1 in the form reported on June 23, 2011, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced on March 31, 2011, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced on April 7, 2011, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, that contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification.

(b) Amendment to Title 31- Effective on the date the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res 1 in the form reported, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification, section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting $16,700,000,000,000.

Well, what do you think? Does this bill really address the issues, or is it simply fluff?

17 comments View Entry

Enough hyperbole, let's talk truth. Some reporter from the LSM (Lame Stream Media) started this BS, and others have carried it on as gospel. But it's a lie. Obama WON'T be the first US president to have a default on the US national Debt on his record. That happened in 1790, under Washington, and as a result of the war debt from the Revolution. Though not a Federal default, 9 states defaulted in 1841-42, and another 10 were in default from 1873 to 1884. There was also a default, but only for a few days, in 1919, and due to the costs of WWI, but you'll be hard pressed to verify that fact. No, you won't find it online, you'll need to go to your local library and do the research. The same thing can be said about the default of 1947, and the costs of WWII forcing a default of just a few days. And many will try to downplay the default of 1933, as it was caused by taking us off gold and forcing paper money to be accepted for debts of the US. But a default it was, and under another socialist president, FDR. That's not to say there haven't been other US defaults, like the one in 1979.

Terry Zivney and Richard Marcus describe the default in The Financial Review - "Investors in T-bills maturing April 26, 1979 were told that the U.S. Treasury could not make its payments on maturing securities to individual investors. The Treasury was also late in redeeming T-bills which become due on May 3 and May 10, 1979. The Treasury blamed this delay on an unprecedented volume of participation by small investors, on failure of Congress to act in a timely fashion on the debt ceiling legislation in April, and on an unanticipated failure of word processing equipment used to prepare check schedules."

According to the Chinese, we have already defaulted.

"In our opinion, the United States has already been defaulting," said Guan Jianzhong, president of Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. Ltd., reports AFP, describing that organization as "the only Chinese agency that gives sovereign ratings."

So what got us here, besides overspending for the last 10 decades in DC? Yeah, yeah, I know you libs are blaming Bush II and REagan. But let's be real. In 1976, the US National Debt was $653,544,000,000, but at the end of 1980 it was $930,210,000,000, people were out of work and the economy was in the straits. Yes, at the end of 1988 it was $2,684,392,000,000, and at the end of 1992 it was $4,177,009,000,000, but the economy was great, and it looked like it would go on forever. It did pretty well under Clinton, who used the "excess" in the Social Security Trust Fund, the part that Congress hadn't already stolen, and debt growth was only marginal, going up to a mere $5,662,216,013,697 by 2000. 2001 changed us forever, and, with the war debt, natural disaters and dire economics caused by many different problems, the debt jumped. (One of those problems was the failure of the mortgage market, and their shady dealings, to sustain itself under the Community Reinvestment Act first made law under Carter, and strengthened under Clinton. And even though Bush and members of his admninistration warned of failure, they were shouted down by the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Chriss Dodd and Barney Frank, and that failure came.) In 2008, the debt had grown to $10,699,804,864,612 on the heels of government bailouts and teh continuing war effort. Now the debt is at a ridiculous $14,498,980,000,000+ and growing fast, very fast. That's a 74% increase in just two and a half years.

Okay, back to what got us here. The failure of the US Senate (controlled by the Democrats for the last 3.5 years), in violation of the Constitution (not that they know what that is anyway), to pass a budget for the last 806 days is the primary cause for this. Add to it passing another entitlement program that the people didn't want, Obamacare (though I call it Husseincare), and can't afford, along with a decrease in the number of taxpayers (only 51% of Americans pay taxes) and a dismal economy rife with unemployment, and we have the perfect recipe for financial disaster.

But what good does it do to examine the problem without a solution, you ask? No problem, I have an idea. The Dems are trying to put the blame on the R's as a way of getting out of passing a budget, along with the Ayatollah Hussein threatening millions of seniors and military members with not paying them on time. But the R's are, at least on the surface, trying to do something about reducing the debt AND WITHOUT passing a debt limit increase. BUT WE STILL HAVE NO BUDGET! So, let's go ahead and raise the debt limit by $100,000,000,000, but cap it with the date of 2 October of this year, and insist on an equal amount in governmment spending cuts over the same period. That will pay the interest and keep us out of any threat of default along with making sure the military and seniors get their pay. Then, as a way to prevent future threats of default, repeal Husseincare in its entirity. That actually would take the threat of default off the table right now! but one more thing needs to be included in this deal, Congress MUST pass a budget for October, just as is normally done. That will get the Senate off their blame and buck passing butts and force them to follow the Constitution. Then let the Ayatollah veto it so the American public can see how much he really cares. Or more precisely, that he cares more about Hussiencare than he does about saving this nation. The House has already passed a budget, which was rejected by the Senate, but they didn't offer their own for negotiation. They only blasted that passed by the House, and between they and the LSM told lies and made false claims about it. And where is the Ayatollah's budget? Traditionally, the president sends one to Congress, and they work it over, pass it, and send it back for a for signature, and thus law. And in the meantime, we need Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment, or we'll be the next Greece.

15 comments View Entry

Only in America can a person dream of attaining great wealth, and, with dedication, perserverance, talent, hard work and a bit of luck, actually make it. But once they do, they suddenly become "evil", money-grubbing, tax cheating, corporate jet flying anti-Americans. They are criticized for making huge profits, even if their profit margins are less than Wal-Mart or State Farm, and told they need to pay more of that income in taxes to help the "less fortunate". (The truth is that the "less fortunate" government wants to help is themselves!) No matter that they were once among the "working class", they are now labeled as bad, greedy people. We have the highest corporate tax structure in the world, yet some expect the owners of these corporations to pay even more. Even if one adds in all the subsidies and tax breaks the government doles out, these corporations still pay more than they do in any other nation around the globe.

But here's the thing. The "owners" of many of these corporations are the common people who have invested in stocks, either on their own or via investment groups, 401k's, etc. And these same corporations employ more Americans than anyone except the government. So if we cut their profit margins by raising taxes on them, they will just lay off more people, or leave for a more friendly tax environment. But let's go back to the amount of Americans employed by government. Isn't that the real problem, the size of government? And the cost of running that government?

Now certainly I don't appreciate the exorbitant spending done by many corporations on huge bonuses and salaries and all the other perks that go along with their control positions, but more because it isolates them from the realities outside their own businesses and industries. As much as I hate "reality shows" that are as far from reality as one can get, "Undercover Boss" has displayed exactly what I'm talking about, even if the "corporations" showcased on the show are among the smaller companies and corporations being included in the "evil" category of "tax cheats". Once these deans of business are out there in their field, most can't do the simple tasks they expect their employees to do on a daily basis. Why? Because they've lost touch with what their businesses are really all about; people.

Back to the problem of government. Why is it that they just don't understand that the reason this nation is in trouble is because of their spending, not ours? We don't have a taxing problem in Washington, we have a spending problem. They are talking about a plan to reduce spending by $4 trillion over the next decade. That's not even close to what we need from government. When you consider that every year, we are presented with Federal budgets that spend $1.5 trillion more than they take in, that makes $15 trillion over the next decade, and a cut of $4 trillion in the same period still leaves us with a negative of $11 trillion more in debt, which will bring our total national Debt to $25 trillion. Where is that a good thing, especially when you consider what we're paying right now in interest only payments on our current debt (approximately $500 billion this year)?

So here's the deal. We don't need to be crawling all over the corporations. We need to be crawling down the throats of those in Washington. We need a balanced budget amendment that includes a long range plan for not only reducing our debt, but eliminating it. Yes, it will take several years to get such an amendment ratifies by all the states, and probably that long to get one passed by Congress and signed into law by a sitting president. But this Congress and administration could easily begin to follow the principles set up by our Constitution and radically reduce the current scope of government. Except that the Democrats and the Ayatollah Hussein aren't interested in doing anything of the such.

Tackling Social Security and Medicare isn't the answer, other than to make reforms eliminating the providing of benefits to those who haven't paid in, or their underage beneficiaries and all the forms of fraud perpetrated against the system. Reducing the size of the Federal government, and Federal government spending, is the only real answer. And as a part of that reduction and debt retirement, Congress needs to stop "borrowing" from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and start paying off the Treasury notes, including the interest on those notes, instead of simply creating another new note which includes the interest on the old note they are replacing. Continuing to stack IOU's one on top of another will only create enough paper for a really, really big bonfire. So until those in Washington start to really get serious about doing anything about this burgeoning debt, I'll keep turning a deaf ear to anything they have to say about it. It's all hyperbole and re-election speak, and I'm pretty tired of all that BS.

13 comments View Entry

This blog isn't going to make some of you very happy. Too bad. The truth is often very uncomfortable. And so is the intentional destruction of this country. From the moment the European set foot on this continent, the balance of nature was disturbed. And it continued to be destroyed through all the expansion of this nation. And it was further destroyed as more and more people began crossing this land, building cities and towns, tearing through the earth to make farms and ranches and roads and railroads. Yes, there were those who preserved areas of wilderness, and even some animals who were destined for extinction. But the reality of nature is this; animals were becoming extinct long before man and his influences became great enough to cause any of it.

We know all about the "dumbing down" of our youth, but another reality is that it began well before the current generation of those youth. It started back in the thirties. We are only now beginning to see the effects of that original movement. And the "dumbing down" of our government began long before the thirties. Progressives have been infiltrating our government for well over 150 years, gaining in number and power with each passing decade. They have used our own guilt over any number of things as weapons against us in their advancement of agendas that are in direct conflict with our Constitution, and our laws. They have caused laws to be written that counteract every single one of the Bill of Rights. So many laws that there isn't a single person alive that can possibly begin to understand how they all work when they are so much in conflict with each other.

But worse than the laws we are expected to abide by are the regulations created and enforced without congressional or presidential approval; each agency, department, bureau, administration, commission and service writing rules and regulations as they see fit for their own purposes. On occassion in this country, we foolishly elect someone with an active, even subversive, agenda as our leader, our president, and those leaders appoint people just like them. If they even begin to believe the Senate may not confirm their choices to head this myriad of bureaucracies, they make recess appointments to circumvent the process. Some administrations have been worse than others, but the effects of those appointments aren't always felt immediately. Sometimes it takes years before we feel the aftereffects of their decisions. Such is the case today within many areas of government, and, coupled with rushed decisons and new rules and regulations of the latest set of appointees, we are suffering a terrible recession, quite possibly nearing a depression that will make the last one look like a picnic. The Fed is only one example of this. The Departments of Education, Transportation, the Interior, Agriculture, Energy, Labor, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, State and Commerce along with the EPA, OSHA, etc. etal are out of control, doing things that make no real sense, and very often directly counter the efforts of the others. Let's take Obama's decision to shut down all drilling projects in the Gulf. We are definitely feeling the end results of that at the pump and on the unemployment lines now! And that's only a small part of the damage that decision made; the long term effects won't be seen for another 2 to 3 years from now. But another issue is much more on my mind because the decisions that brought it on were made well over 30 years ago, and the devestation and loss of life and livelihood caused by those decisions will be felt for the next 30-40 years.

So what is this issue I'm hot about? The environmentalists who have infiltrated government offices and encouraged the Army Corps of Engineers to change the way the dams in the Missouri River Basin are utilized. For many years after the building of those dams, they created hydro-electric energy. Now you'd think the "enviros" would be happy about this renewable source of energy. But no, they are more interested in returning the Basin to its "natural state", even though that natural state hasn't existed in well over 100 years. The natural state would grow the wetlands, and take away what is now farmland, most of it farmed by small and family farmers, and the end result of that is more dependence on foreign food supplies. During the last few decades, the Army Corps of Engineers has slowly let less and less water out during the Fall and Winter months, thus increasing the water stored behind those dams, which in turn created the current situation that brought on the flooding, loss of life and property in the Dakotas, Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska. If the reservoirs had been lowered as they were designed to be, the bulk of the flood waters from the above average rain along with the higher than normal snowmelt would have been contained in those reservoirs, and the levees, which are in sad disrepair from neglect due to "environmental concerns", may have been able to hold back the overflow.

The latest flooding on the Mississippi is the result of the same scenario in it's Eastern tributaries, and the end result of the combined flooding, along with the flooding coming down the Missouri into the Mississippi as you read this, is going to be devastating to the fisheries and estuaries of the Mississippi River Delta Region. Remember, it isn't just the water that's coming down the river. Sewage and other contaminants and toxins have been swept away in the flood waters upstream, and will be deposited in the deltas and bayous at the river's mouth. And what isn't deposited there will be dumped into the Gulf. Let's see who they blame for that fiasco, especially since they were so quick to jump on the oil companies for damage that ended up being far less than they projected. Any bets on whether or not they'll still find a way to blame the oil companies for their own idiocy? And remember, this is just one example of what the environmentalists have brought about in destroying this nation while saying they are "saving" it.

Please take a moment to consider how many of the states and areas having damaging events are "red" states, and please feel free to list issues of your own knowledge and concern about what our own government is doing to us in the name of "protecting" us, and our nation.

12 comments View Entry

The year 1776 is a year blazed into the annals of history, and the minds of many Americans. It is the official year of our independence from England, and the beginning of the history of a people living in liberty that has changed the face of the world forever. Possibly it was also the beginning of the end, as all Republics and Democracies before it. But until the day comes that this nation is no longer a Republic, or ceases to exist, many of us will continue to fight against tyrany and despotism, both foreign and domestic. But July the 4th, 1776 isn't the only important day in our nation's history that particluar year. 1776 was filled with historic events, both before the 4th and after. The following is a list of some of those events.
Jan 1st - Gen. George Washington hoists Continental Union Flag
Jan 2nd - 1st revolutionary flag displayed
Jan 5th - Assembly of New Hampshire adopts its 1st state constitution
Jan 10th - "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, published
Jan 16th - Continental Congress approves enlistment of free blacks
Jan 24th - Henry Knox arrives at Cambridge, Massachusetts with the artillery that he has transported from Fort Ticonderoga.
Feb 17th - 1st volume of Gibbon's "Decline & Fall of Roman Empire" published. (While this event is not necessarily of historicl importance to out nation, it is still of importance when considering the decline of this nation.)
Mar 2nd - Americans begin shelling British troops in Boston
Mar 3rd - US commodore Esek Hopkins occupies Nassau Bahamas
Mar 4th - The American War of Independence: The Americans capture "Dorchester Heights" dominating the port of Boston, Massachusetts.
Mar 17th - British forces evacuate Boston to Nova Scotia during Revolutionary War
Mar 25th - Continental Congress authorized a medal for George Washington
Apr 3rd - Washington receives honorary Ll.D. degree from Harvard College
Apr 7th - Captain John Barry and the USS Lexington captures the Edward.
Apr 12th - Halifax resolution for independence adopted by North Carolina
May 2nd - France & Spain agreed to give weapons to American rebels
May 4th - Rhode Island declares independence from England
Jun 7th - Richard Lee (VA) moves Declaration of Independence in Continental Congress
Jun 10th - Continental Congress appoints a committee to write a Declaration of Indepencence
Jun 11th - Continental Congress create a committee to draft Declaration of Independence Jun 12th - Virginia adopts Declaration of Rights
Jun 23rd - Final draft of Declaration of Independence submitted to US Congress
Jun 28th - Charleston, SC repulses British sea attack
Jun 29th - Virginia state constitution adopted & Patrick Henry made governor
Jul 1st - 1st vote on Declaration of Independence
Jul 2nd - NJ gave all adults who could show a net worth of 50 pounds right to vote
Jul 2nd - Continental Congress resolves "these United Colonies are & of right ought to be Free & Independent States"
Jul 4th - Declaration of Independence-US gains independence from Britain
Jul 6th - Declaration of Independence announced on front page of "PA Evening Gazette"
Jul 8th - Col John Nixon gave 1st public reading of Declaration of Independence (Phila)
Jul 9th - Declaration of Independence is read to George Washington's troops (NY)
Aug 2nd - Formal signing of Declaration of Independence
Aug 10th - American Revolutionary War: word of the United States Declaration of Independence reaches London.
Aug 27th - British defeat Americans in Battle of Long Island
Aug 29th - Americans withdraw from Manhattan to Westchester
Aug 30th - US army evacuates Long Island/falls back to Manhattan, NYC
Sep 6th - 1st (failed) submarine attack (David Bushnell's "Turtle" attacks British sailboat "Eagle" in Bay of NY)
Sep 9th - Continental Congress renames "United Colonies," "US"
Sep 10th - George Washington asks for a spy volunteer, Nathan Hale volunteers
Sep 12th - Nathan Hale leaves Harlem Heights Camp (127th St) for spy mission
Sep 15th - British forces capture Kip's Bay Manhattan during Revolution
Sep 21st - 5 days after British take NY, a ¼ of city burns down
Sep 21st - Nathan Hale, spied on British for American rebels, arrested
Oct 11th - Brig Gen Arnold's Lake Champlain fleet defeated by British
Oct 12th - British Brigade begins guarding Throgg Necks Road in Bronx
Oct 18th - Battle of Pelham: Col John Glover & Marblehead regiment meet British Forces in Bronx
Oct 26th - Benjamin Franklin departed from America for France on a mission to seek French support for the American Revolution
. Oct 28th - Battle of White Plains; Washington retreats to NJ
Nov 16th - 1st gun salute - for US Andrea Doria at Ft St Eustatius
Nov 16th - British troops captured Fort Washington during American Revolution
Nov 18th - Hessians capture Ft Lee, NJ
Dec 8th - George Washington's retreating army crosses Delaware River from NJ
Dec 19th - Thomas Paine published his 1st "American Crisis" essay, in which he wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls."
Dec 23rd - Continental Congress negotiates a war loan of $181,500 from France
Dec 25th - Washington crosses Delaware & surprises & defeats 1,400 Hessians
Dec 26th - Battle of Trenton-major British defeat - George Washington defeats Hessians at Trenton
Dec 31st - Rhode Island establishes wage & price controls to curb inflation: Limit is 70 cents a day for carpenters, 42 cents for tailors

While we celebrate the 4th of July every year, the reality of it is that the Declaration of Independence wasn't official until it was signed on the 2nd of August that year. And even then our government wasn't established in the form it resembles today. We were under the Articles of Federation when George Washington called the "Federal Convention" to order in 1787. Calling it a "Constitutional Convention" is actually a misnomer, as the convention was actually called to make corrections to the Articles of Federation. However, the "Founding Fathers" had something else in mind that 25th Day of May. Technically, we weren't even the United States of America until Jun 20th when Oliver Ellsworth moved at the Federal Convention to call the government the United States of America. And it wasn't until the 17th of September, 1787 that the Constitution was adopted. It was the 21st of June, 1788 when New Hampshire finally made it official by being the ninth state of the original thirteen to ratify the Constitution.

Sadly, many of these facts are lost in academia today, and our youth never hear of them let alone learn them. And it's also sad that so many of our fellow citizens never stop to appreciate what, and how many years, fortunes and lives, it took to form this great nation, let alone why. Nor do they stop to think about all those who have sacrificed so much since then just to try to keep us free. BBQ's, picnics, ball games and all sorts of activities fill this weekend, along with celebratory parades and Veteran's events, and in areas where it isn't too dry we'll see the obligatory fireworks. But how many know that those fireworks are tied to the images of the British attack on Ft. Henry? That's right, the same battle that caused Francis Scott Key to pen what became our "Star Spangled Banner".

So please do me a favor this long weekend. Take a moment to thanks our troops past and present for their willingness to risk their all so that we can celebrate. Then say a prayer for all those currently in harm's way on our behalf, whether you agree with their mission or not, and all those who have given their all from one end of this globe to the other. Oh, and when you see our flag flying in the breeze, no matter where or when, give it all the respect it deserves, because it represents every single one of us and the nation that made us We, the People!

8 comments View Entry

I've seen enough. I've spoken out about any number of topics over the last thirty years, but sadly my words generally fell on deaf ears. The most discouraging of the topics I've discussed is the total subversion of our nation, and much of what I warned of is now coming about. Step by step, with one government program after another, our nation has been destroyed by those pretending to care the most. I warned of Osama bin Laden and al Qaida thirty years ago this month, but my voice was not only ignored, my reports were tossed in file thirteen. Twenty-three years ago next month, I warned of Saddam Hussein's desire to move on Kuwait, but was ignored until after the fact. Twenty years ago I warned of an al Qaida attack on our soil after repeatedly warning of other attacks against our embassies and other interests as well as ships for many years prior to that. Yet no one seemed to listen until it was entirely too late. That is with the exception of Reagan, whom I was called on to see personally, who took to heart my warnings. He, however, was unable to get his own administration and the other powers that be to listen to what I was seeing happen around the globe, and here at home. He did manage to effect some changes to how field intel was gathered, and presented, instead of it being totally rewritten to fit the mind's eye of those in charge at Langley and the Pentagon. Alas, that all disappeared when Clinton arrived on the scene. HillBilly managed to shut down the operations that would have prevented the first WTC attack, as well as those that would have prevented many other attacks, both then and future. And he finished the job of gutting the top echeleon at Langley, reducing it to nothing more than a sounding board for the NSA, both of which became a hotbed of liberal attitudes with little or no experience in intel other than what they had read in a book in college.

All this created a vacuum at the top, and in the field, as operatives were sent home, into forced retirement, or simply were hung out to dry and rendered useless. They were replaced with people with agendas that matched the powers that be at that time; agendas that were not good for America, or our already dismal foreign stature. Political agendas are never the best solution for foreign policies. Rather, a set agenda blended with impervious and unquestionable intel based on a mutual desire of the countries involved designed to affect both with equal and effective goals is the only real way to handle foreign diplomacy. Allies can be of great assistance in developing more cooperation between nations, but should never be relied upon entirely because they have their own agendas as well, and those aren't always the same as ours. For example, working with Israel should be a no brainer, but that certainly isn't the case these days. On the other hand, both Mexico and Pakistan are serious threats to our national security yet this administration seems to bend over backwards to align themselves with both countries, including funding them as though those monies will somehow buy loyalty. Continuing to reach out to countries who have shown a propensity to behave badly toward us isn't going to accomplish anything but creating a false sense of security here at home, that is until it all explodes in our faces.

As one would imagine from a conservative, I don't have a lot of use for Hollywood, or the liberals who seem to populate the film and stage industry. You'd think that they would begin to see the error of their ways when a cartoon like Cars 2 has the biggest box office receipts of any movie in the last ten years! But, sadly, they won't get it at all. Yet every now and then they stumble on greatness without even knowing it until we tell them with our dollars. "The Hurt Locker" was one of those, and so was "Green Zone". Though the second movie didn't get anywhere near the acclaim the first one did, it still presented something much closer to the truth than many would like to admit. For those of you who have yet to see it, I'll try not to spoil it for you; but forgive me if I do. It deals with the soldiers sent in to find the WMD's after our assault on Iraq and Saddam, and the faulty intel that said they were there. While it didn't really point fingers, the makers of "Green Zone" make a veiled attempt to lay it at Bush II's feet near the end of the flick. Now that the movie has broached the subject, I feel more comfotable revealing what I know about it. So here it is.

For the several years leading up to 9-11 there was a lot of speculation about whether or not Saddam had divested Iraq of WMD's, but no one really knew for certain. There were those of us who believed he still had stockpiles of them, but had ceased their manufacture after the Fourteenth Resolution from the UN. Three more Resolutions were handed down and, in anticipation of some sort of forceful action, Saddam managed to move them out into Syria and Iran. They are still there, along with a few minor amounts found in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. Why, you ask, would Saddam allow Iran, his arch rival in the area, to hide them? Simple. Both Syria and Iran are under Shi'a control, and were openly allied, but Syria had a good relationship with Iran as well. This is due to the fact that, even though Bashar al-Assad is of the Alawi sect of the Shi'a belief in Islam, both al-Assad and Saddam were members of the Ba'ath party. al-Assad then brokered the deal for Saddam, all while pretending to be friendly toward the US at that time. al-Assad also arranged the meeting in Jordan with certain NSA and Pentagon officials and a "high ranking" member of Saddam's military regime. Without revealing that the WMD's had actually been relocated, this Iraqi "official" told the US officials at the first meeting that there were WMD's, but at a later meeting WITHOUT Pentagon officials present, and only one member of the NSA staff there, he openly stated that there were no WMD's in Iraq. That info NEVER made it back to the CIA OR the Pentagon, let alone the White House.

As a result of the second and subsequent meetings, a plan was hatched to overthrow Saddam, all without letting the Iraqi "official" know. He was still somewhat loyal to Saddam, but also saw the handwriting on the wall and was looking to protect himself and have a place in the new Iraqi government that he knew would come someday. In fact, it was most likely his insistence that he have a place in any new government in his country that lit the spark creating the plan eventually created by the NSA. And the NSA had no plans for including this "informant" in anything having to do with the new government there. They had a "puppet" in mind, one that could, in their minds, be slipped right into power and kept there no matter who controlled Congress or the White House. But we all know how that turned out. Anyway, the CIA and Pentagon, along with many other agencies, some foreign, were spoonfed the "data" being presented by the small group at the NSA who hatched and grew their plan. Their "intel" was so detailed that nearly every intel agancy around the globe bought into it, and it was all sold to the world's leaders as gospel. The rest, shall we say, is history.

Trust me, this is a very short synopsis of what really happened, just covering the basics. The bottom line, Bush II was as fooled as all the world leaders who joined us in taking out Saddam. Did Saddam need to go? Without a doubt. Was the way it was done the right way? Probably not, but we can't cry over spilt milk. What's done is done, and the result is a country that may or may not be an ally in the future. Right now the bulk of the people of Iraq love us, with a roughly 28% that want us gone. Of that 28%, over half are militants who may end up destroying Iraq from within once we're out of there. But it will be up to the rest of Iraq's people to either beat them back or join them, much of it depending on how much corruption there is within the new Iraqi government. One thing is for sure, we need to stop financing our enemies abroad as well as at home. I just don't see it happening any time soon. And I firmly believe we can expect a serious event to take place before this year is out, no matter how well our agencies are doing at foiling them right now .At least that's my humble opinion.

Next up, how minority groups are stealing our rights and replacing them with their own, including destroying the middle of the country and killing fellow citizens, all without a word on the news about why it is happening. Here's a hint, according to the media climate change is the cause of all our nation's disasters, not government policies.

6 comments View Entry

A friend of mine asked me why government has gotten so big and out of hand, and why they need so much money to operate. He also wanted to know why I thought it was so hard to get Congress to understand that we don't need that many more laws or higher taxes. I told him it was not really all that complicated once a person understands the mindset of those in charge of all the bureaucracies. He was astonished when I mentioned that I saw the same thing going wrong with our major corporations, especially the banks and others who have taken "bailouts" from the government. We talked for well over an hour, between his questions and my answers, and at the end of our conversation he was not one bit happier about his understanding of things than when we started. He closed by asking me to write things down as I had explained them so he could use that info to combat his liberal neighbor who believes the government is the answer to everything, starting with one of my favorite quotes from Ben Franklin.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor (29 November 1766)

Throughout history one government after another, based on democracy or republic foundations, has failed to remember what made them great, their people. Today in our nation we are faced with many dilemnas that were faced by other grand nations and societies such as Greece and Rome, yet we appear not to have learned from their history, or their downfalls. The root of our current government predicament isn't greed, or selfishness, not even apathy, but bureaucracies. Think about it, what costs the most for our governments, from small to large, to operate? Well established bureaucracies. Sure, we can say entitlement programs, but what are they really? Bureaucracies. We can blame regulations, of which we have them galore. But who enforces all those regulations? That's right, bureaucracies. Ever hear of a government program that came in under budget, or cost less to implement than was projected. or saved us money? I haven't, and if you have I'd like to know which one it was. I can promise you it wasn't a Federal program, that's for sure!

So how is it that we can't seem to cut the size of these behemoths, or keep them under control once they are established? By their very nature they are designed to grow to fit the budgets they are given rather than attempt to save the taxpayer's dollars due to the language used to create them. And create them is what our Congress seems to do best. Estimates of operational costs are created from what many consider thin air, then padded, and added to and padded again and again until they exceed common sense. While the CBO is charged with trying to actually figure out what the costs will be, they are only allowed to use the format and rules set up for them to follow when determining costs. In other words, Congress simply doesn't want the truth about what they will cost once in operation.

Sorry, I'm getting a bit off topic. But that is part of the frustration I feel when looking at what goes on in DC. Back to the bureaucracies. Budgets are established, and the management of each bureaucracy is charged with fitting into that budget. If it appears they will not be able to spend it all, they automically go into hyper-spending mode by creating new line item expenses, increasing staff, and teaching that staff how to make sure they protect their jobs. Even if it means slowing down the stated process with they are charged, or taking on new, previously unlisted duties. That is only the beginning. The paperwork end of things is where they really begin to justify their existence, and their growth in size and budget. Ever fill out a government form? Then you know exactly what I mean. It takes a Philadelphia lawyer to get past the first paragraph, and that's usually the simplest part of any particular form. And just try to get a government employee to help you with it! HAH! If you enjoy being talked to like a red-headed stepchild, you'll really enjoy it. Of course they're well trained in each form, having spent several days in a seminar on our dime learing to maneuver through the many pages of data required so they can turn down your application. That is unless they're short of approved clients, then they'll bend over backwards, practically filling out the form for you.

And each time they push the envelope on the amount of clients they are handling, the more they can justify the need for a bigger budget and more expansion, which invariably leads to yet more growth and bigger and bigger budgets until they are so big only a complete collapse of government will dislodge them. Yet they seem to fail to understand that simple fact. Most on the Federal level are represented by one union or another, all geared toward growing their numbers, and their dues, to record levels, thus creating yet another bureaucracy forcing the first one to create bigger and bigger budgets by forcing higher wages and more benefits. Sadly, many of our corporations have fallen into the same type of bureaucratic trap. Each department manager tries their best to justify their growth, the only difference being that profit is the motivating factor. Trust me, there is never profit involved if it has anything to do with government. The only thing government can produce is debt, and more government is never the solution to getting out of that debt.

Franklin said in a speech to the attending members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." And so it seems Dr. Franklin was also capable of prophecy, for unless We, the people, can regain control of this Republic it is doomed. Franklin was asked when leaving the 1787 ConCon, "Well, Doctor, what have we got - a Republic or a Monarchy?" With yet another prophetic answer, he replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." My question to you is this. Can we keep it? Or is it simply too late?

12 comments View Entry

Over the last few weeks I've receieved a number of emails here, on my personal site, and on other social and political sites I frequent. I've been verbally assualted by liberals intent on calling me a racist, bigot, Nazi, etc., along with names not fit for print. I've debated with Libertarians and Republicans, Constitutionalists and Democrats with a variety of concepts, but none with any consistency. People of one party can't even agree with each other, so how are we expected to do so all across the land?

Now, since so many have attacked me without knowing where I stand on most things political while others have debated me with compassion, integrity and respect, I decided to repost an old blog on my site from the myspazz days. You can comment there without having to register simply by commenting as a guest, or you can restrict your comments to this site if you wish. Either way, I'd like to hear from you, and get your take on how you define yourself politically.

Conservative, or Progressive?

8 comments View Entry