Bill Bennett and Ron Bachman discuss the Deficit Bill and basically the joke that it is and Congress pulling the wool over the citizenship one more time: http://www.radiosandysprings.com/podcasts/HealthCareAug01.2011.mp3
About RONALD E. BACHMAN, F.S.A., M.A.A.A., President and CEO, Healthcare Visions, Inc. http://www.healthcarevisions.net/page/page/2317990.htm
About Bill Bennett: http://www.radiosandysprings.com/showpages/healthcare.php
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Capitalism for Humanity to Support and Fund 'Text Ministries' Venture
Capitalism for Humanity is excited to support and fund a new venture called Text Ministries. This is a platform that allows you to create, fund and manage your own ministry - while participating in the funding of many causes directly supported through text messaging revenue and donations made possible by Text Ministries. More about the exciting work at Text Ministries soon. In the meantime, to learn more, visit www.TextMinistries.com or www.textministries.blogspot.com.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama's spending in 'tea-party' demonstration
Up to two million people marched to the U.S. Capitol today, carrying signs with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" as they protested the president's health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.
The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency.
People were chanting "enough, enough" and "We the People." Others yelled "You lie, you lie!" and "Pelosi has to go," referring to California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
Read more
Monday, July 6, 2009
Happy (Late) Independence Day!
It is always interesting to review the Declaration of Independence and the discourse that followed leading up through the Article of Confederation and finally to the U.S.. Constitution and Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the Constitution). What were two of the driving fears of these great men – fear of government and fear of the people. Both still hold true.
As the founders knew, unrestrained power in either a central government or a democratized electorate who destroy the American experiment. Remember until 1776, no form of republic had survived.
Why were the founders afraid of the people – mob rule and fear of the uneducated (or better said uncommitted) voter. As Benjamin Franklin said (paraphrasing) ‘as soon as the people realize they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, the democracy will no longer stand’. I am not derogatory in my use of uneducated, but sincere – America is a complex system of government and requires an understanding of it and more importantly an investment in the American form of government. It was not hard to be a citizen of 18th century England – you did what the King said. Think of that - in America we (have to) trust that the electorate (our peers) understand why they are voting, the impact of their vote and that they believe (at a systemic level) in the ideals of those men in hot Philadelphia 233 years ago.
Interestingly enough Adams and his cohorts that risked all in this declaration, never envisioned celebrating national sovereignty. They feared national sovereignty and a strong federal government. In their estimation a movement to a strong centralized form of government suppresses individual freedoms and by its very nature violates Jefferson’s words (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.)
If you look at the Treaty of Paris which ended the war it was express in its intent:
“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”
Couple of interesting facts –
As the founders knew, unrestrained power in either a central government or a democratized electorate who destroy the American experiment. Remember until 1776, no form of republic had survived.
Why were the founders afraid of the people – mob rule and fear of the uneducated (or better said uncommitted) voter. As Benjamin Franklin said (paraphrasing) ‘as soon as the people realize they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, the democracy will no longer stand’. I am not derogatory in my use of uneducated, but sincere – America is a complex system of government and requires an understanding of it and more importantly an investment in the American form of government. It was not hard to be a citizen of 18th century England – you did what the King said. Think of that - in America we (have to) trust that the electorate (our peers) understand why they are voting, the impact of their vote and that they believe (at a systemic level) in the ideals of those men in hot Philadelphia 233 years ago.
Interestingly enough Adams and his cohorts that risked all in this declaration, never envisioned celebrating national sovereignty. They feared national sovereignty and a strong federal government. In their estimation a movement to a strong centralized form of government suppresses individual freedoms and by its very nature violates Jefferson’s words (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.)
If you look at the Treaty of Paris which ended the war it was express in its intent:
“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”
Couple of interesting facts –
- Did you know the US is the only country in THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD to have won wars and not seized territory, but allowed the conquered territory to be returned to their people?
- The founders did not want freedom from religion, they wanted freedom of religion
MOUNTAIN OF DEBT: Rising debt may be next crisis
Jul 4, 12:36 AM (ET)
By TOM RAUM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Founding Fathers left one legacy not celebrated on Independence Day but which affects us all. It's the national debt.
The country first got into debt to help pay for the Revolutionary War. Growing ever since, the debt stands today at a staggering $11.4 trillion - equivalent to about $37,000 for each and every American. And it's expanding by over $1 trillion a year.
The mountain of debt easily could become the next full-fledged economic crisis without firm action from Washington, economists of all stripes warn.
Full Article
By TOM RAUM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Founding Fathers left one legacy not celebrated on Independence Day but which affects us all. It's the national debt.
The country first got into debt to help pay for the Revolutionary War. Growing ever since, the debt stands today at a staggering $11.4 trillion - equivalent to about $37,000 for each and every American. And it's expanding by over $1 trillion a year.
The mountain of debt easily could become the next full-fledged economic crisis without firm action from Washington, economists of all stripes warn.
Full Article
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
From Russian Publication Pravda - American capitalism gone with a whimper
Interesting perspective from Russian journalist on American capitalism
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Cavuto Rips This Socialist Congressman Who Wants To Pass a Law That Opens the Door to Government Control of Pay - Looks Like Communism to Me
Nice work Cavuto! Thanks for passionately standing up for our freedom!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbVA__DwqAQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbVA__DwqAQ
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
"How Would You Fix the Economy?" -St. Petersburg Times
This was from an article in The St. Petersburg Times and shows the magnitude and absurdity of government bailouts. Sadly, this idea is about as rational as what's being implemented by the current administration.
The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?"
One reader responded with the following:
Dear Mr. President,
Concerning Patriotic retirement:
There's about 40 million people over 50 in the work force;
pay them $1 million apiece severance with three stipulations:
1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.
3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage- Housing Crisis fixed.
All National financial problems fixed!!!
Sincerely,
A Fellow American
The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?"
One reader responded with the following:
Dear Mr. President,
Concerning Patriotic retirement:
There's about 40 million people over 50 in the work force;
pay them $1 million apiece severance with three stipulations:
1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.
3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage- Housing Crisis fixed.
All National financial problems fixed!!!
Sincerely,
A Fellow American
Video of Bush Warning of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac in 2001
This video clearly shows that George Bush tried to warn Congress starting in 2001, that this economic crisis was coming if something was not done. But Congress refused to listen, along with the arrogant Congressman, Barney Frank. This video says it all. The liberal media reportedly did not want this video on You Tube; it was removed. As a result, this link link has been routed through Canada: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
Classroom lesson on Socialism
This is a great lesson for advocates of Communism, Socialism, Income Equalization, Spreading the Wealth, Egalitarianism, Soft Tyranny or whatever you want to call it. . . Take away the incentives to excel and this is what you get. . .
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Couldn't be any simpler than that...
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Couldn't be any simpler than that...
Monday, March 30, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Governor Sanford: Why South Carolina Doesn't Want 'Stimulus'
This is the kind of rational thinking that represents our country's best hope. Governor Sanford, we at Capitalism for Humanity salute your dissent and pray your stewardship and resolve will play a defining role in the restoration of our nation's integrity.
Full Article
Full Article
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
HANSON: Maxing out a crisis card (The Washington Times)
COMMENTARY:
Imagine that last fall before being elected, Barack Obama had outlined the positions he has embraced since being inaugurated as president. An honest campaign speech could have gone something like this —
”As we approach Election Day, the American people should not waste the crisis we find ourselves in.
“Consequently, if elected, I promise to get us over the Bush financial meltdown with a stimulus program that will borrow $787 billion - which, of course, will add to the already sizable budget deficit (nearly $500 billion) projected in the Bush administration's last budget.
“By March of next year, my new $3.6 trillion budget will include a spending bill with more than 8,500 budget earmarks to target in-need constituents.
“In addition to the stimulus/borrowing plan, I intend to devote $634 billion to fund a new supplementary national health-care system. But that is not all. Unfortunately, the initial Bush bank bailout of some $700 billion also may well have to be augmented by an additional $750 billion.
“Although my new spending proposals may raise the federal deficit in my first year to $1.75 trillion, I promise the American people that by the end of my first term, I will halve the federal deficit - albeit adding another $3 trillion to $5 trillion to the national debt.
”Those savings can be accomplished by upping the federal income tax to about 40 percent on those rich 5 percent of Americans who currently pay only 60 percent of our aggregate income taxes - as well as lifting Social Security caps on their payroll taxes and cutting out many of their tax deductions.
Full Article
Imagine that last fall before being elected, Barack Obama had outlined the positions he has embraced since being inaugurated as president. An honest campaign speech could have gone something like this —
”As we approach Election Day, the American people should not waste the crisis we find ourselves in.
“Consequently, if elected, I promise to get us over the Bush financial meltdown with a stimulus program that will borrow $787 billion - which, of course, will add to the already sizable budget deficit (nearly $500 billion) projected in the Bush administration's last budget.
“By March of next year, my new $3.6 trillion budget will include a spending bill with more than 8,500 budget earmarks to target in-need constituents.
“In addition to the stimulus/borrowing plan, I intend to devote $634 billion to fund a new supplementary national health-care system. But that is not all. Unfortunately, the initial Bush bank bailout of some $700 billion also may well have to be augmented by an additional $750 billion.
“Although my new spending proposals may raise the federal deficit in my first year to $1.75 trillion, I promise the American people that by the end of my first term, I will halve the federal deficit - albeit adding another $3 trillion to $5 trillion to the national debt.
”Those savings can be accomplished by upping the federal income tax to about 40 percent on those rich 5 percent of Americans who currently pay only 60 percent of our aggregate income taxes - as well as lifting Social Security caps on their payroll taxes and cutting out many of their tax deductions.
Full Article
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Obama's fiscal house is built on gimmicks - Karl Rove (WSJ)
[Obama's budget] assumes the cost of the surge in Iraq will extend for a decade. This brazenly dishonest trick was done to create phony savings down the line.
Mr. Obama's budget downplays some programs' true cost. For example, his vaunted new college access program is funded for five years and then disappears (on paper); the children's health insurance program drops (on paper) from $12.4 billion in 2013 to $700 million the next year. Neither will happen; the costs of both will be much higher and so will the deficits.
Mr. Obama's budget also assumes the economy declines 41% less this year and grows 52% more next year and 38% more the year after than is estimated by the Blue Chip consensus (a collection of estimates by leading economists traditionally used by federal budget crunchers). If Mr. Obama used the consensus forecasts for growth rather than his own rosy scenarios, his budget would be $758 billion more in the red over the next five years.
Then there's discretionary domestic spending, which grows over the next two years by $238 billion, the fastest increase ever recorded. Mr. Obama pledges it will then be cut in real terms for the next nine years. That's simply not credible.
Then there's his omnibus spending bill to fund the government for the next six months, laden with 8,500 earmarks and tens of billions in additional spending above the current budget. What happened to pledges for earmark reform and making "meaningful cuts?"
Full Article
Mr. Obama's budget downplays some programs' true cost. For example, his vaunted new college access program is funded for five years and then disappears (on paper); the children's health insurance program drops (on paper) from $12.4 billion in 2013 to $700 million the next year. Neither will happen; the costs of both will be much higher and so will the deficits.
Mr. Obama's budget also assumes the economy declines 41% less this year and grows 52% more next year and 38% more the year after than is estimated by the Blue Chip consensus (a collection of estimates by leading economists traditionally used by federal budget crunchers). If Mr. Obama used the consensus forecasts for growth rather than his own rosy scenarios, his budget would be $758 billion more in the red over the next five years.
Then there's discretionary domestic spending, which grows over the next two years by $238 billion, the fastest increase ever recorded. Mr. Obama pledges it will then be cut in real terms for the next nine years. That's simply not credible.
Then there's his omnibus spending bill to fund the government for the next six months, laden with 8,500 earmarks and tens of billions in additional spending above the current budget. What happened to pledges for earmark reform and making "meaningful cuts?"
Full Article
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Great explanation for why Capitalism for Humanity was born
From an Alan Greenspan authored article in the WSJ – His points on the perils of government intervention in a free marketplace are at the heart of why C4H was born.
“How much does it matter whether the bubble was caused by inappropriate monetary policy, over which policy makers have control, or broader global forces over which their control is limited? A great deal.
If it is monetary policy that is at fault, then that can be corrected in the future, at least in principle. If, however, we are dealing with global forces beyond the control of domestic monetary policy makers, as I strongly suspect is the case, then we are facing a broader issue.
Global market competition and integration in goods, services and finance have brought unprecedented gains in material well being. But the growth path of highly competitive markets is cyclical. And on rare occasions it can break down, with consequences such as those we are currently experiencing. It is now very clear that the levels of complexity to which market practitioners at the height of their euphoria tried to push risk-management techniques and products were too much for even the most sophisticated market players to handle properly and prudently.
However, the appropriate policy response is not to bridle financial intermediation with heavy regulation. That would stifle important advances in finance that enhance standards of living. Remember, prior to the crisis, the U.S. economy exhibited an impressive degree of productivity advance. To achieve that with a modest level of combined domestic and borrowed foreign savings (our current account deficit) was a measure of our financial system's precrisis success. The solutions for the financial-market failures revealed by the crisis are higher capital requirements and a wider prosecution of fraud -- not increased micromanagement by government entities.
Any new regulations should improve the ability of financial institutions to effectively direct a nation's savings into the most productive capital investments. Much regulation fails that test, and is often costly and counterproductive. Adequate capital and collateral requirements can address the weaknesses that the crisis has unearthed. Such requirements will not be overly intrusive, and thus will not interfere unduly in private-sector business decisions.
If we are to retain a dynamic world economy capable of producing prosperity and future sustainable growth, we cannot rely on governments to intermediate saving and investment flows. Our challenge in the months ahead will be to install a regulatory regime that will ensure responsible risk management on the part of financial institutions, while encouraging them to continue taking the risks necessary and inherent in any successful market economy.”
Full Article
“How much does it matter whether the bubble was caused by inappropriate monetary policy, over which policy makers have control, or broader global forces over which their control is limited? A great deal.
If it is monetary policy that is at fault, then that can be corrected in the future, at least in principle. If, however, we are dealing with global forces beyond the control of domestic monetary policy makers, as I strongly suspect is the case, then we are facing a broader issue.
Global market competition and integration in goods, services and finance have brought unprecedented gains in material well being. But the growth path of highly competitive markets is cyclical. And on rare occasions it can break down, with consequences such as those we are currently experiencing. It is now very clear that the levels of complexity to which market practitioners at the height of their euphoria tried to push risk-management techniques and products were too much for even the most sophisticated market players to handle properly and prudently.
However, the appropriate policy response is not to bridle financial intermediation with heavy regulation. That would stifle important advances in finance that enhance standards of living. Remember, prior to the crisis, the U.S. economy exhibited an impressive degree of productivity advance. To achieve that with a modest level of combined domestic and borrowed foreign savings (our current account deficit) was a measure of our financial system's precrisis success. The solutions for the financial-market failures revealed by the crisis are higher capital requirements and a wider prosecution of fraud -- not increased micromanagement by government entities.
Any new regulations should improve the ability of financial institutions to effectively direct a nation's savings into the most productive capital investments. Much regulation fails that test, and is often costly and counterproductive. Adequate capital and collateral requirements can address the weaknesses that the crisis has unearthed. Such requirements will not be overly intrusive, and thus will not interfere unduly in private-sector business decisions.
If we are to retain a dynamic world economy capable of producing prosperity and future sustainable growth, we cannot rely on governments to intermediate saving and investment flows. Our challenge in the months ahead will be to install a regulatory regime that will ensure responsible risk management on the part of financial institutions, while encouraging them to continue taking the risks necessary and inherent in any successful market economy.”
Full Article
Capitalism gives us freedom and prosperity
Capitalism = Individual Choice = Freedom = Competition = Productivity = Jobs = Income = Prosperity
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Great quote passed along by a fellow capitalist...
You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 - November 15, 2005) of Love Worth Finding Ministries, Pastor Emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church.
Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 - November 15, 2005) of Love Worth Finding Ministries, Pastor Emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church.
Non-profits and philanthropy as we know it are treatened by Obama's New Charity State
The Charity Revolt - Liberals oppose a tax hike on rich donors (WSJ) Full Article
Article Summary:
Article Summary:
- Administration turning philanthropy into a class issue
- Backlash from "rich liberals"
- Universities and charities "scored" by Obama's proposition to fund public welfare partly by reducing the tax benefit to private charity ($310 billion over 10 years)
- Estimates show annual giving could be reduced by 2%, or $9 billion
- A flat-tax incentive (that would create wealth for givers) would be ideal - but Obama quickly headed in the opposite direction
Mergers and Inquisitions - Health stocks are sending a message about Washington (WSJ)
Full Article
From a fellow capitalist:
This part is my biggest fear –
“The recent slow-down in the introduction of new blockbuster drugs is in part the delayed result of underinvestment in the 1990s -- the last time the political class toyed with national health insurance.
…The U.S. is the last major pharmaceutical market without universal price controls, and as such has been the world's main financier of new drug discoveries. In a world of government-run and -priced health care, biotech innovation will also be as much at risk as traditional drug development. The biggest price we may pay for a health-care system run from Washington are the therapies we never get as a result.”
Every decision we make in life is some sort of a Risk / Reward decision. People and businesses only take large risks if there is a huge upside. If you limit the upside, you limit the risks people are willing to take. Why would a drug company spend billions to try and stymie cancer when the upside is the same as if they spend 1/100 of the amount on fighting seasonal allergies. You’re right….they won’t…unless they are socialized (or nationalized if you prefer that name).
From a fellow capitalist:
This part is my biggest fear –
“The recent slow-down in the introduction of new blockbuster drugs is in part the delayed result of underinvestment in the 1990s -- the last time the political class toyed with national health insurance.
…The U.S. is the last major pharmaceutical market without universal price controls, and as such has been the world's main financier of new drug discoveries. In a world of government-run and -priced health care, biotech innovation will also be as much at risk as traditional drug development. The biggest price we may pay for a health-care system run from Washington are the therapies we never get as a result.”
Every decision we make in life is some sort of a Risk / Reward decision. People and businesses only take large risks if there is a huge upside. If you limit the upside, you limit the risks people are willing to take. Why would a drug company spend billions to try and stymie cancer when the upside is the same as if they spend 1/100 of the amount on fighting seasonal allergies. You’re right….they won’t…unless they are socialized (or nationalized if you prefer that name).
Monday, March 9, 2009
How Moral Is Capitalism? - Forbes.com
This is a great article and shows that while capitalism by itself is
not morally pure, it provides the foundation for achieving moral
excellence by enabling individuals to contribute productively to
wealth creation in society instead of having their success limited by
forced redistribution.
not morally pure, it provides the foundation for achieving moral
excellence by enabling individuals to contribute productively to
wealth creation in society instead of having their success limited by
forced redistribution.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Newsweek: We Are All Socialists Now
Sorry Newsweek, you are wrong! We are not all Socialists and we will defend against this mediocrity and loss of freedom. Do not suggest that we must resign ourselves to this fate. Click here
America's Most Generous Corporations
These firms made the greatest contributions to charitable causes.
Click here
Click here
Saturday, March 7, 2009
CHAVEZ CALLS ON OBAMA TO FOLLOW PATH OF SOCIALISM
Chavez, we don't need your help converting to socialism, Obama is doing just fine by himself. You know it's bad when this maniac thinks that we might want to follow his example.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashco.htm
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashco.htm
Friday, March 6, 2009
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow
(The Wall Street Journal) A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html
‘Obama Bear Market’ Punishes Investors as Dow Slumps
‘Obama Bear Market’ Punishes Investors as Dow Slumps... (Bloomberg) --President Barack Obama now has the distinction of presiding over his ...
A Reasonable Request
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters,
We've stuck together since the late 1950s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know that we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and just will not ever agree on what's right. So let's just end it right now while we can do it on friendly terms. We can smile, shake hands, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and each go our own way.
So here's a model separation agreement.
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a portion. That's going to be the difficult part, but I'm sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate taste. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can have those. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. And since you hate guns and you hate war, we'll take the firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. But you are going to be responsible for finding a biodiesel vehicle big enough to haul them around.
We'll keep the capitalism, the greedy corporations, the pharmaceutical companies; we will keep Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have the homeless, the homeboys, the hippies and illegal aliens. We will keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, the greedy CEOS and all of the rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and we'll let you have NBC and Hollywood.
You can be nice to Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer anybody that threatens us. You can have the peaceniks and the war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we will provide them with security. You won't have to worry about it. We will keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley Maclaine. You can also have the UN, but we will no longer pay the bill.
We will keep the SUVs, the pickup trucks and the oversize luxury cars. You can have the compacts, the subcompacts and every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everybody healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors. We will continue to believe that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. We will keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and the national anthem, and I am sure you will be happy to substitute in their place "Imagine." I'd like to teach the world to sing "Kumbaya" or "We are the world." We will practice trickle-down economics and you can give trickle-up poverty your best shot. And since it so offends you, we will keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots. And if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the friendly spirit of parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in about 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J Wall
Law student and an American University
P.S. You can also have Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda
Thursday, March 5, 2009
US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy
This video is a year old but is too important not to post here. We'd better all pay attention to this guy and start doing something about it. Market turmoil is largely the result of what he discusses in this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Rush is Right!
Need talking points and inspiration? This is so good...
- Rush Limbaugh - Speech To CPAC (Part 1)
- Rush Limbaugh - Speech To CPAC (Part 2)
- Rush Limbaugh - Speech To CPAC (Part 3)
- Rush Limbaugh - Speech To CPAC (Part 4)
- Rush Limbaugh - Speech To CPAC (Part 5)
- Rush Limbaugh - Speech To CPAC (Part 6)
- Rush Limbaugh - Speech To CPAC (Part 7)
- Rush Limbaugh - Speech To CPAC (Part 8)
- Rush Limbaugh - Speech To CPAC (Part 9)
- Rush Limbaugh - Speech To CPAC (Part 10)
How not to interpret numbers 101
Commentary from an esteemed C4H colleague:
Reading the WSJ today about a poll where more people believe the country is on the wrong track than the right -
“The survey shows that 41% of Americans say the country is headed in the right direction, up dramatically from 26% in mid-January, before Mr. Obama took office, and up from 12% before the election. The number who say the country is on the "wrong track" is still higher at 44%, but given the economic conditions, pollsters expected it to be much higher”
Guess what the headline was…"Obama Gets Strong Support in Poll"
Reading the WSJ today about a poll where more people believe the country is on the wrong track than the right -
“The survey shows that 41% of Americans say the country is headed in the right direction, up dramatically from 26% in mid-January, before Mr. Obama took office, and up from 12% before the election. The number who say the country is on the "wrong track" is still higher at 44%, but given the economic conditions, pollsters expected it to be much higher”
Guess what the headline was…"Obama Gets Strong Support in Poll"
Can you imagine what the headline would have been 2 years ago?
- Public Continues to Lack Faith in Bush
- Market and Polls say the Same Thing – Bush Stinks
- Poll Shows Country is Failing Thanks to Bush
We should be talking about an Accuracy Doctrine instead of the Fairness Doctrine. Sorry for the early morning rant. I really did sleep well. Here’s the whole article if you want to try and stomach it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123612000246123253.html
Bail-O-Matic to the Rescue!
Finally help for us in an iPhone application …
Web
http://www.bailomatic.com
iTunes
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=306382599
Web
http://www.bailomatic.com
iTunes
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=306382599
ODD - Obama Deficit Disorder
A fast-growing national disease... yes, the bar on the far right is the result of Obama just one month into his presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)