Olympic Gymnastics
Saturday was a hit for the men's U.S. gymnastic team. They had their problems, but overall, they did well. However, yesterdays performance left the team wondering, what happened? The men started out great, as the first competitor on the floor seemed to set the tone that the U.S. was going to be a strong contender. However, that changed as the second and third competitiors took the floor, then the palma horse, and so on. Even the team seemed genuinely shocked at their performance. Even so, the U.S. team may not have been as shocked as the Ukraine.
The Ukraine had beaten Japan, thought they were going to be standing on the podium with a bronze medal. However, that medal was not meant to be. Apparently, a judging error was brought to light, and it was revealed that Japan would win bronze, by .7.
So, the men have had their share of drama, what about the women on Sunday evening? The favored world champion, Jodyn Wieber did not score enough to go into the all-around. Even though, overall, she was in fifth place! Wieber was shocked, in tears, and at the same time happy for her teammates, but her dream of competing in the all around was broken.
Of course, it was mainly broken due to the new rules the Olympic committee has decided to put forth. I like to call it, the "fairness rule" or let's give everyone a trophy, so no one feels left out rule. In the past, the top scoring 24 gymnast have competed in the all around, but this year, the top two from each country are competing in the all around.
To many, this just does not seem right. It is also a look in to how trying to be fair to everyone, ends up being unfair to others who deserve to receive recognition. It's understandable that the Olympics wants to showcase all countries, but is it really fair that a gymnast who is in the top 24 (5th overall) is out of the all around because of the committee's desire to be fair to all countries? As awful as it is that she will not be competing in the all around, she is still a team member and everyone is hoping for a medal in women's gymnastics. As one story put it, she will "come out fighting," and she will not let her team or chances of winning a medal go.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
United SteelWorkers Union Seek Out "Secret" Romney Campaign Dinner
The United Steel Workers Union is apparently upset over the fact that Mitt Romney is having a high dollar dinner in London, as a way to raise campaign funds. The dinner is $25,000 to $75,000 a head. The Union has decided to offer a reward to anyone who can find the location of this secretive dinner.
Apparently, it's okay for Obama to have lavish campaign dinners throughout the country, especially in Hollywood. His dinners are always $35,000 or $40,000 and up a head. However, when a Republican has a similar dinner, it is an outrage! Of course, when the unions (of all sorts) are using their member's money to pay for Obama's and many other Democrats campaigns, they want their member's money to go to good use and to see those people win. Otherwise, that was money wasted for them (hear the sarcasm).
Overall, this is a double standard. It is okay to so many liberals and unions that Obama out spends and goes over budget and has his campaign dinners. However, it is just wrong for Romney to do this, and it is wrong if Romney gets more money than Obama. The only reason the Unions want Obama, is because they know Obama will play into their hands, whereas Romney will not.
The United Steel Workers Union is apparently upset over the fact that Mitt Romney is having a high dollar dinner in London, as a way to raise campaign funds. The dinner is $25,000 to $75,000 a head. The Union has decided to offer a reward to anyone who can find the location of this secretive dinner.
Apparently, it's okay for Obama to have lavish campaign dinners throughout the country, especially in Hollywood. His dinners are always $35,000 or $40,000 and up a head. However, when a Republican has a similar dinner, it is an outrage! Of course, when the unions (of all sorts) are using their member's money to pay for Obama's and many other Democrats campaigns, they want their member's money to go to good use and to see those people win. Otherwise, that was money wasted for them (hear the sarcasm).
Overall, this is a double standard. It is okay to so many liberals and unions that Obama out spends and goes over budget and has his campaign dinners. However, it is just wrong for Romney to do this, and it is wrong if Romney gets more money than Obama. The only reason the Unions want Obama, is because they know Obama will play into their hands, whereas Romney will not.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Obama's Business Statement and His True Campaign
The attack ads just keep getting worse from the President who, in 2008, said he wanted to run a clean campaign. Even though, his campaign then was not so clean (seeing as how many who should not have voted did so and then the famous ACORN organization mysteriously vanished after helping get votes for him). However, 2012 has proven to be a different story. Since Obama cannot run on his terrible record as President, he has decided to go with the punches and be the true politician he is, while giving elegant speeches full of hope and promise that will never happen.
In Obama's world, everything is a handout when it comes to benefits and it seems like those with money never run out of it and can keep giving to those who want it. He also thinks people of America are happy with government welfare programs being extended and doing little to encourage working, finding a career, or a job that will help build their skills (not minimum wage employment, good employment for people who are truly qualified) and get moving on making or continuing a career. Whereas Romney at least believes these people who are on Food Stamps (SNAP) or unemployment and other programs want to find good, decent paying jobs. He believes that people genuinely want to work to earn their own living and have their own opportunities instead of just collecting a check and then complaining if it's not extended because they really aren't looking for employment but they still deserve the handout.
The difference is definitely the mindset that each of these men have, Obama believes in spreading the wealth and that handouts and government control works just fine, and Romeny understands people want to be given opportunities and handouts are not opportunity and government control is not the answer. A major difference may be that Romney actually believes the in the American people and Obama has done little in his first term as President to prove he really does.
It was made obvious what Obama's view really is in his statement talking of Bain capital, "If you've got a business-you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Something that wasn't emphasized as he kept talking about not getting to where one is on one's own (which is true to an extent) was his main point of the topic, "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. " So, with that statement of all the things listed that governments helped create but Americans (many during the Depression who were in desparate need of jobs) helped build those and without them, they wouldn't be.
Before completely buying into what Obama says, think about his intent and his bad record (even as a Senator). Also, why is Obama asking for more documents from Romney, why was it like pulling teeth to get his birth certificate and why doesn't he release lists of his donors and documents from colleges, schools, and other things. Not only is this election proof that Obama is not a "clean" politician, it's also proof that he has got nothing to run on except to make someone else look worse than him.
The attack ads just keep getting worse from the President who, in 2008, said he wanted to run a clean campaign. Even though, his campaign then was not so clean (seeing as how many who should not have voted did so and then the famous ACORN organization mysteriously vanished after helping get votes for him). However, 2012 has proven to be a different story. Since Obama cannot run on his terrible record as President, he has decided to go with the punches and be the true politician he is, while giving elegant speeches full of hope and promise that will never happen.
In Obama's world, everything is a handout when it comes to benefits and it seems like those with money never run out of it and can keep giving to those who want it. He also thinks people of America are happy with government welfare programs being extended and doing little to encourage working, finding a career, or a job that will help build their skills (not minimum wage employment, good employment for people who are truly qualified) and get moving on making or continuing a career. Whereas Romney at least believes these people who are on Food Stamps (SNAP) or unemployment and other programs want to find good, decent paying jobs. He believes that people genuinely want to work to earn their own living and have their own opportunities instead of just collecting a check and then complaining if it's not extended because they really aren't looking for employment but they still deserve the handout.
The difference is definitely the mindset that each of these men have, Obama believes in spreading the wealth and that handouts and government control works just fine, and Romeny understands people want to be given opportunities and handouts are not opportunity and government control is not the answer. A major difference may be that Romney actually believes the in the American people and Obama has done little in his first term as President to prove he really does.
It was made obvious what Obama's view really is in his statement talking of Bain capital, "If you've got a business-you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Something that wasn't emphasized as he kept talking about not getting to where one is on one's own (which is true to an extent) was his main point of the topic, "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. " So, with that statement of all the things listed that governments helped create but Americans (many during the Depression who were in desparate need of jobs) helped build those and without them, they wouldn't be.
Before completely buying into what Obama says, think about his intent and his bad record (even as a Senator). Also, why is Obama asking for more documents from Romney, why was it like pulling teeth to get his birth certificate and why doesn't he release lists of his donors and documents from colleges, schools, and other things. Not only is this election proof that Obama is not a "clean" politician, it's also proof that he has got nothing to run on except to make someone else look worse than him.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
The United Nation and Gun Control
So, while Syria and Saudi Arabia and other UN countries are violating multiple human rights and constantly encouraging violence, the United Nations has decided that it should pair with Iran and create gun control against America. Mainly, against American gun owners. Apparently, the UN and Iran want records of gun owners to be given to foreign countries. Is this not a violation of human rights and especially America's 2nd Amendment right? Of course, considering all the laws that have been passed which go against the Constitution, why not let this happen? It's only the lives of Americans that may be endangered and controlled by foreign countries, but especially the UN.
It should not be a surprise that something like this would come from the UN because the UN really has not done a good job in encouraging human rights in middle eastern countries what so ever. Of course, it shouldn't be surprising that Iran would encourage such a thing, but for the UN to go along with it is a bit strange. As the head of the NRA put it, Americans do not want to be in a "nanny state." Especially in such a state involving the UN or other countries, and it does restrict our rights that are written and spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
There is a lot of concern about what this could do and the dangers it could cause for the U.S. Hopefully, it will not happen and the current administration will fight it.
So, while Syria and Saudi Arabia and other UN countries are violating multiple human rights and constantly encouraging violence, the United Nations has decided that it should pair with Iran and create gun control against America. Mainly, against American gun owners. Apparently, the UN and Iran want records of gun owners to be given to foreign countries. Is this not a violation of human rights and especially America's 2nd Amendment right? Of course, considering all the laws that have been passed which go against the Constitution, why not let this happen? It's only the lives of Americans that may be endangered and controlled by foreign countries, but especially the UN.
It should not be a surprise that something like this would come from the UN because the UN really has not done a good job in encouraging human rights in middle eastern countries what so ever. Of course, it shouldn't be surprising that Iran would encourage such a thing, but for the UN to go along with it is a bit strange. As the head of the NRA put it, Americans do not want to be in a "nanny state." Especially in such a state involving the UN or other countries, and it does restrict our rights that are written and spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
There is a lot of concern about what this could do and the dangers it could cause for the U.S. Hopefully, it will not happen and the current administration will fight it.
Unions Spend Billions and More on Campaigns
Surprise, surprise (not really). A new report (from the Wall Street Journal) shows that unions are spending more on elections and lobbying than once thought, on Democratic candidates. Why this is a news story is more shocking than the fact its self. It has been apparent for years that unions are always throwing money at a candidate or a political position, and trying to control the vote of their members by doing so. Mainly because of promises that they may benefit from, or just the fact they are for one party over the other because of the benefits.
The money spent is not just at the national level, but also state and local. The biggest story out of this is probably the pull unions have with swaying the vote, and the fact that it is so hypocritical for the left to yell about Republicans campaign funds when the Democrats have been receiving much more from other businesses, unions, private donors, and so on for years.
Unions have a huge hold on their members. Of course, a member could pretend that they would vote for one candidate just to make the union happy but vote for the other. The unions may not really control their members so much as influence them.
As for the hypocrisy of the money, it is not a shocker. Everyone, or at least everyone with common sense, knows that the money flows in from all sorts of places for candidates. For a while Democrats have said that private donors should be made public, but when Obama's campaign did that a few weeks ago, it ended up hurting some of Romney's donors and causing them to be placed so much in the public eye that they received a lot of backlash for the candidate of their choice. If the Romney campaign had done that to Obama's donors, it would have been a National crisis. Of course, everyone knows who gives to Obama, Hollywood and unions (to mention two), two very influential sources. The hypocrisy comes in the fact that Democrats constantly get up in arms over big spending on campaign, when they are the biggest spenders and control addicts.
So, as it's always been known, Dems can get billions and get away with it but if the Republicans get millions, then it's just too much being spent on the election. As for those unions supporting candidates that their members may not necessarily support, go ahead and thank them for continuing to chip in to your agenda.
Surprise, surprise (not really). A new report (from the Wall Street Journal) shows that unions are spending more on elections and lobbying than once thought, on Democratic candidates. Why this is a news story is more shocking than the fact its self. It has been apparent for years that unions are always throwing money at a candidate or a political position, and trying to control the vote of their members by doing so. Mainly because of promises that they may benefit from, or just the fact they are for one party over the other because of the benefits.
The money spent is not just at the national level, but also state and local. The biggest story out of this is probably the pull unions have with swaying the vote, and the fact that it is so hypocritical for the left to yell about Republicans campaign funds when the Democrats have been receiving much more from other businesses, unions, private donors, and so on for years.
Unions have a huge hold on their members. Of course, a member could pretend that they would vote for one candidate just to make the union happy but vote for the other. The unions may not really control their members so much as influence them.
As for the hypocrisy of the money, it is not a shocker. Everyone, or at least everyone with common sense, knows that the money flows in from all sorts of places for candidates. For a while Democrats have said that private donors should be made public, but when Obama's campaign did that a few weeks ago, it ended up hurting some of Romney's donors and causing them to be placed so much in the public eye that they received a lot of backlash for the candidate of their choice. If the Romney campaign had done that to Obama's donors, it would have been a National crisis. Of course, everyone knows who gives to Obama, Hollywood and unions (to mention two), two very influential sources. The hypocrisy comes in the fact that Democrats constantly get up in arms over big spending on campaign, when they are the biggest spenders and control addicts.
So, as it's always been known, Dems can get billions and get away with it but if the Republicans get millions, then it's just too much being spent on the election. As for those unions supporting candidates that their members may not necessarily support, go ahead and thank them for continuing to chip in to your agenda.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Abortion is Not So Bad
A news story popped up on The Blaze about a new internet site showing that abortion is not as bad as it is made out to be. It was created by a woman who had an abortion at six weeks and wants to show the world that it is not bad, and try to show a more realistic view of abortion besides the ones depicted by religious groups and conservatives. Of course, it seems kind of hard to do that when one of the pictures on the site is that of a thing of blood from an unborn child that was selfishly aborted and now being exploited.
The woman, using the name "Jane," claims that, this is not about her (obviously not about her aborted child either). Jane says, "the power is in the collective." In other words, it is those who will cooperate and come together to share this new discovered view of what abortion really is, and rally together to support it and fight against the Pro-lifers (cause they are so bad for wanting to save the life of a baby).
Of course, one of the reasons she created this came out during an interview. She admits to making the site because it is an elcetion year and women's rights should be a focus. "Women's rights are human rights." Really Jane? What about the human being you aborted, does he or she not have any human rights just because you think your rights are more important then theirs? What would this Jane consider her aborted baby to be when she talks about her human rights but not that of the childs?
Of course, the blaze makes an excellent point as to "how much faith" it takes to believe this woman and her site. However, the fact that it encourages killing human beings while advocating for a woman's human rights, is very contradictive and wrong.
A news story popped up on The Blaze about a new internet site showing that abortion is not as bad as it is made out to be. It was created by a woman who had an abortion at six weeks and wants to show the world that it is not bad, and try to show a more realistic view of abortion besides the ones depicted by religious groups and conservatives. Of course, it seems kind of hard to do that when one of the pictures on the site is that of a thing of blood from an unborn child that was selfishly aborted and now being exploited.
The woman, using the name "Jane," claims that, this is not about her (obviously not about her aborted child either). Jane says, "the power is in the collective." In other words, it is those who will cooperate and come together to share this new discovered view of what abortion really is, and rally together to support it and fight against the Pro-lifers (cause they are so bad for wanting to save the life of a baby).
Of course, one of the reasons she created this came out during an interview. She admits to making the site because it is an elcetion year and women's rights should be a focus. "Women's rights are human rights." Really Jane? What about the human being you aborted, does he or she not have any human rights just because you think your rights are more important then theirs? What would this Jane consider her aborted baby to be when she talks about her human rights but not that of the childs?
Of course, the blaze makes an excellent point as to "how much faith" it takes to believe this woman and her site. However, the fact that it encourages killing human beings while advocating for a woman's human rights, is very contradictive and wrong.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Job Numbers Down, Disability Numbers Up
While sitting in economic class last Thursday, the professor made an astonishing announcement about the job numbers. He said, the job numbers were looking really good. Of course, the first thought was, what job report is this guy looking at? Then, as always, a look at the actual job numbers were not so optimistic.
As of June, only 80,000 jobs were added, that is not much of an improvement in jobs. Nor is it really an improvement when there are people who have been unemployed for so long that they are not even counted or they just don't claim unemployment. Of course, jobs may be down, but disability went up. Which is just another way of realizing how bad the job market has really gotten.
Of course, the reasons for no real major job growth is many, and now that Obamacare has passed, employers are waiting to see what happens and on top of that regulations have always been a problem. Once again, on top of that, the number of people looking for jobs is HUGE! It isn't just teenagers, new grads, and 30 somethings, it is everyone from 16 and up. The job market is so competitive because of the need for people to work, and for those in a somewhat decent or a great job, they will not be leaving any time soon.
Overall, one knows the numbers are bad when even Robert Gibbs says so. Hopefully, there will be some hope in the numbers and the gas prices will not go up too bad to boot.
While sitting in economic class last Thursday, the professor made an astonishing announcement about the job numbers. He said, the job numbers were looking really good. Of course, the first thought was, what job report is this guy looking at? Then, as always, a look at the actual job numbers were not so optimistic.
As of June, only 80,000 jobs were added, that is not much of an improvement in jobs. Nor is it really an improvement when there are people who have been unemployed for so long that they are not even counted or they just don't claim unemployment. Of course, jobs may be down, but disability went up. Which is just another way of realizing how bad the job market has really gotten.
Of course, the reasons for no real major job growth is many, and now that Obamacare has passed, employers are waiting to see what happens and on top of that regulations have always been a problem. Once again, on top of that, the number of people looking for jobs is HUGE! It isn't just teenagers, new grads, and 30 somethings, it is everyone from 16 and up. The job market is so competitive because of the need for people to work, and for those in a somewhat decent or a great job, they will not be leaving any time soon.
Overall, one knows the numbers are bad when even Robert Gibbs says so. Hopefully, there will be some hope in the numbers and the gas prices will not go up too bad to boot.
Friday, July 6, 2012
"NOBAMA" For Brad Pitt's Mom
Apparently, Brad Pitt's mom is none too happy with the current President. She responded to a note in a local paper that criticized Romney. More particularly, it criticized his religious views, and the writer seems to believe that any vote for Romney is anti-Christian. Mrs. Pitt, does not share the same thought.
In her letter to the writer, she claims, "any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama — a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage."
This is a surprise to many who follow Actor Brad Pitt and who know him and especially his wife, Angelina, to be rather liberal. However, his mom is absolutely right. It is so upsetting to listen to people make Romney out to be worse or just as bad as Obama. He is not. It is also important for all the Reagan fans who were not originally Romney supporters, to remember how much Reagan changed and how well he did. Romney is no Obama.
As it was pointed out by Mrs. Pitt, Romney has not sat through a preacher who is speaking against America and promoting hate. Romney is honest about his religion, where as Obama says one thing but does not seem to practice it. In fact, no one knows what he believes but to say he is Christian but okay with abortion and is willing to fund so many, is a little odd to some and not very Christian when it comes to the lives of innocent infants. As she stated, Obama did not even "hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer." What so called Christian President does that? His morals and values seem to be few, and all one can do is pray that he changes.
Also, something that is not mentioned, Obama is obviously not a President who wants to uphold the Constitution, but change it. Not only change it, but change it to match what him and people like Pelosi and other liberal Dems want. At times it seems like they have little respect for the document, whereas other President's and his opponent actually have values and morals that are more in line with upholding the law and not imposing their own upon the American people.
Overall, thank you Mrs. Pitt, it takes lots of courage and thank you for standing up for what you believe.
This is the Pro-Christian, Anti-Obama & Anti-Gay Marriage Letter That Actor Brad Pitt's Mom Wrote To A Local Paper, July 6, 2012. Viewed, July 6, 2012
Also,
Apparently, Brad Pitt's mom is none too happy with the current President. She responded to a note in a local paper that criticized Romney. More particularly, it criticized his religious views, and the writer seems to believe that any vote for Romney is anti-Christian. Mrs. Pitt, does not share the same thought.
In her letter to the writer, she claims, "any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama — a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage."
This is a surprise to many who follow Actor Brad Pitt and who know him and especially his wife, Angelina, to be rather liberal. However, his mom is absolutely right. It is so upsetting to listen to people make Romney out to be worse or just as bad as Obama. He is not. It is also important for all the Reagan fans who were not originally Romney supporters, to remember how much Reagan changed and how well he did. Romney is no Obama.
As it was pointed out by Mrs. Pitt, Romney has not sat through a preacher who is speaking against America and promoting hate. Romney is honest about his religion, where as Obama says one thing but does not seem to practice it. In fact, no one knows what he believes but to say he is Christian but okay with abortion and is willing to fund so many, is a little odd to some and not very Christian when it comes to the lives of innocent infants. As she stated, Obama did not even "hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer." What so called Christian President does that? His morals and values seem to be few, and all one can do is pray that he changes.
Also, something that is not mentioned, Obama is obviously not a President who wants to uphold the Constitution, but change it. Not only change it, but change it to match what him and people like Pelosi and other liberal Dems want. At times it seems like they have little respect for the document, whereas other President's and his opponent actually have values and morals that are more in line with upholding the law and not imposing their own upon the American people.
Overall, thank you Mrs. Pitt, it takes lots of courage and thank you for standing up for what you believe.
This is the Pro-Christian, Anti-Obama & Anti-Gay Marriage Letter That Actor Brad Pitt's Mom Wrote To A Local Paper, July 6, 2012. Viewed, July 6, 2012
Also,
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Talk Show Host "Hates" America
It is no surprise when a liberal makes a statement against America, but this one seemed to stick out. It is really not shocking that far left liberals cannot stand America or the Constitution or anything to do with freedom as the Founders intended it. So, to hear these words come out of a liberals mouth (who is FREE to MOVE out of America if she hates it so much) is not surprising.
Apparently a liberal radio host was recounting her experience of having to pay a $2000 doctor bill, and said, she "hates this G..D.... country," and cannot stand living in a place that allows people to go bankrupt because of getting sick. The funny thing is, she only spent two hundred dollars because she has insurance.
First of all, if she hates it, move. Second of all, health care is expensive for many of us who have had to pay for the actual visits (especially dental health and that is an area that should be looked into). Third of all, why is she complaining about having insurance? Fourthly, she has insurance but is for Obamacare, the why to that is a mystery, maybe she thinks she'll get it for free, but she will really be fitting the bill for everyone else (including illegal aliens who are exempt from the tax in the bill) to have care, because she makes enough money to afford it. Finally, she is promoting Obamacare but has insurance that possibly helped her more than she even knows (do not get this wrong, insurance is a pain but Obamacare is going to be a much bigger pain). She even says it is "not a human right."
So, if she really hates the system here, please.....please....move. Also, if she doesn't think health care is a human right, then how does she agree with Obamacare, and she should realize her taxes through that bill will help her do what she and so many other well off liberals want to do, share the wealth. So, when she goes broke and really can't afford a doctor's visit, she can feel good about sharing the wealth.
Source:
Liberal Talk Show Host: I Hate This Goodd-n Country, July 4, 2012. Viewed July 5, 2012.
It is no surprise when a liberal makes a statement against America, but this one seemed to stick out. It is really not shocking that far left liberals cannot stand America or the Constitution or anything to do with freedom as the Founders intended it. So, to hear these words come out of a liberals mouth (who is FREE to MOVE out of America if she hates it so much) is not surprising.
Apparently a liberal radio host was recounting her experience of having to pay a $2000 doctor bill, and said, she "hates this G..D.... country," and cannot stand living in a place that allows people to go bankrupt because of getting sick. The funny thing is, she only spent two hundred dollars because she has insurance.
First of all, if she hates it, move. Second of all, health care is expensive for many of us who have had to pay for the actual visits (especially dental health and that is an area that should be looked into). Third of all, why is she complaining about having insurance? Fourthly, she has insurance but is for Obamacare, the why to that is a mystery, maybe she thinks she'll get it for free, but she will really be fitting the bill for everyone else (including illegal aliens who are exempt from the tax in the bill) to have care, because she makes enough money to afford it. Finally, she is promoting Obamacare but has insurance that possibly helped her more than she even knows (do not get this wrong, insurance is a pain but Obamacare is going to be a much bigger pain). She even says it is "not a human right."
So, if she really hates the system here, please.....please....move. Also, if she doesn't think health care is a human right, then how does she agree with Obamacare, and she should realize her taxes through that bill will help her do what she and so many other well off liberals want to do, share the wealth. So, when she goes broke and really can't afford a doctor's visit, she can feel good about sharing the wealth.
Source:
Liberal Talk Show Host: I Hate This Goodd-n Country, July 4, 2012. Viewed July 5, 2012.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Healthcare Law Passes: Is Considered "Constitutional"
Orignially published on hubpages on June 28, 2012-decided to move it back here-also, please listen to the radio clip at the end, to hear more about what is really in the law and who it does and does not affect (it definitely effects the middle class and even lower middle class, and illegals are exempt-which isn't surprising).
Today is a victory for Obama and the democrats who have been pushing Obamacare. Today, the Supreme court ruled the Healthcare law as constitutional. However, the court says it violates the "Commerce Clause," but it was considered Constitutional by 1 vote.
The mandate law is also upheld. So, for those who can afford to buy healthcare (whatever the number made is considered able to afford) they must buy. For those who do not have it, they will be covered. For those who can afford it and more, they may be paying for those who cannot afford to pay for it. After all, healthcare is not cheap and it is naive to think that this bill is not some sort of tax increase or that it will lower cost of payments by any means.
It is also crazy to believe that the healthcare law will help Americans. There should be questions about what will happen under the law for certain conditions, and is it true people will not be turned away from certain types of care. Will individual rights, the way one live, be taken away because of this law? Most of all, why did it pass when it is obvious that it will increase taxes, and how will it truthfully affect the doctor one visits? This law is too questionable to pass, but it did, without one mention of taxes. Even though, the subject was discussed in Congress.
What is amazing is, under the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8), this is unconstitutional. The legislative branch, the Federal Government, does not have the right-at least in this case-to "regulate commerce" when it comes to the individual mandate or telling people they have to have it.
Of course, this is also coming from the court that recently decided it is not illegal to lie to employers about military service and honors. However, the vote was 5-4, with Robert's as the final say. Just to note-the tax will be 1% of an individual's income for the first year and goes up after that. It may not sound like much, but when living on a budget and being told by the government that this is mandatory, which means more taxes for the federal government, as well as other taxes paid to whatever state one lives and county, it's getting to be too much.
http://www.rogerhedgecock.com/story/18919206/list-of-obamacares-new-taxes
Please read and listen to this clip
Eric Allen Bell: A Change in View
Eric Allen Bell had been a liberal filmmaker working alongside Michael Moore for years. It wasn't until he was living in Murfreesboro, TN (a couple of hours from Asheville and located where most would call the boonies or middle of nowhere) that his views on Islam and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq began to change. In fact, it seems as if his whole view changed.
Apparently, Bell moved from California to Tennessee in order to take a rest from the documentary film business. While attending a meeting in 2010, about the newly proposed plans for a 53,000 square foot mosque, he heard Christians speaking out against the plans and heard phrases he had never heard growing up in southern CA. Being curious, he decided to follow the story and eventually, decided everything he thought he knew was wrong or at least not documented correctly.
At first, as he put it in his story, I "fanatical Evangelicals bullying a peaceful Muslim population, which had been in the community for over 30 years without there ever being any trouble." So, he decided to film the story and make a documentary about the event, in order to show the world how Muslims were being bullied by Evangelicals. He attended a parade that was protesting the mosque, filmed Christians praying and holding signs that read, "Stop Homegrown Terrorism," did interviews, placed liberals throughout the crowd to protest against the Christians, "court proceedings," and documented over "300 hours" of footage.
Of course, Bell was not the only one filming or reporting the event. News stations rushed to the scene in order to make the town look like back woods hillbillies who do not know anything about religion except that they are told. Which, when people are spelling "Muslim" wrong, that may be true, but they know enough to understand that many of these Islamic groups are wrong. Islamic blogs raced with reports, and Bell seemed to eat it up, even though he was suppose to be taking a break.
Then, the change over started. While filming and after collecting hundreds of hours of footage, Bell was approached by CNN producers of Soledad O'Brien, who wanted to use some footage of what he was titling "Not Welcome!" Bell got a tip that the news company wanted more than a few hours just for a news story, and when the documentary "Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door" aired, he realized he had been tricked and decided after all that had happened (all the threats, siding with the Islamic group, and then the news documentary) he was leaving a film crew behind and going to finish editing in California.
After going back to L.A., work on the project continued, he got picked up for a film deal, and begin blogging for Moore and the Daily Kos. It wasn't until he was back in Tennessee, in a cab in Nashville, talking to his driver from Egypt, that he realized, Islam is not the peaceful religion he thought it was.
Now, taking a break from this, as someone who has talked to many former Islams and some who still practice the religion, it has been apparent for years that this is not the religion the Islamic world or media paints it to be. In many cases, due to corrupt leaders and terrorists groups who run the countries and political actions more so than the leaders at times, former Muslims have admitted to leaving the practice because of the corruption in their country, how their lives and their families lives were in danger if they did not agree with certain groups, ways, or people, and realizing that it was not the religion they thought they knew (granted, this is not in all areas, and some did not feel as threatened depending on areas or depending on whether or not they were a convert outside of the middle east, as was the case with a woman from Denmark and a man from Michigan). Also, after studying the Koran in depth and the prophet Mohammad, it has always been apparent that this is not the religion that the media makes it to be.
As Bell began his journey to truth about what was really happening, he started paying much more attention to the news. He learned the stories of the Muslim Brotherhood, the fear of his cab driver being played out in front of him, the horrible treatment of women who had really done nothing wrong, and the capture of a man in an Islamic country for updating his facebook status as, "there is no god." It was at this time he took the words and the suggestion of a pastor from Murfreesboro seriously and even read the book, "Mohammad in America," and the Koran. He quickly altered his filming, finding that his crew and liberal friends were less than thrilled, changed his views, and when he placed his factual findings in front of everyone after deciding to tell the truth, he was told to take a break.
After writing a series of blogs about radical Islam, loonwatch, and the Islam religion on the Daily Kos, responses calling him names and telling him he was "right winged" pour in (it happens to most who tell the truth, way to go Bell!). He found himself one of the feature stories in Loowatch the next day, and it seems as if it was a threatening story as well. He also realized the truth that most people on his or his former side of the isle did not want to know or hear the truth. He tried writing article after article, receiving hateful comments and condemnation, until he was thrown off the Daily Kos. His article on "Human Rights" was the last straw and even facebook friends dropped him (typical).
Although, he is not really conservative, his views have definitely changed. His life has changed drastically because of his change of mind. Friends and co-workers dropped him just because of his view, even though they are constantly encouraging freedom of speech and the right to have whatever view one wants. He is simply trying to point out that Islam is not the "religion of peace" it is painted to be, and he is trying to raise awareness to how it hurts human rights and how news stations should focus more on some of these stories and on the rise of Islamic extremists in America. Even so, as he says, he still supports the building of the mosque but this view has changed as of late.
He now, firmly believes, the mosque is a continuation of Islam's "threat to human rights." All the same, it is great that he has realized the dangers of extreme Islam and is promoting awareness for it.
Read his story, it is a great insight to his journey "The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam," Feb. 10th, 2012, viewed July 3, 2012.
Eric Allen Bell had been a liberal filmmaker working alongside Michael Moore for years. It wasn't until he was living in Murfreesboro, TN (a couple of hours from Asheville and located where most would call the boonies or middle of nowhere) that his views on Islam and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq began to change. In fact, it seems as if his whole view changed.
Apparently, Bell moved from California to Tennessee in order to take a rest from the documentary film business. While attending a meeting in 2010, about the newly proposed plans for a 53,000 square foot mosque, he heard Christians speaking out against the plans and heard phrases he had never heard growing up in southern CA. Being curious, he decided to follow the story and eventually, decided everything he thought he knew was wrong or at least not documented correctly.
At first, as he put it in his story, I "fanatical Evangelicals bullying a peaceful Muslim population, which had been in the community for over 30 years without there ever being any trouble." So, he decided to film the story and make a documentary about the event, in order to show the world how Muslims were being bullied by Evangelicals. He attended a parade that was protesting the mosque, filmed Christians praying and holding signs that read, "Stop Homegrown Terrorism," did interviews, placed liberals throughout the crowd to protest against the Christians, "court proceedings," and documented over "300 hours" of footage.
Of course, Bell was not the only one filming or reporting the event. News stations rushed to the scene in order to make the town look like back woods hillbillies who do not know anything about religion except that they are told. Which, when people are spelling "Muslim" wrong, that may be true, but they know enough to understand that many of these Islamic groups are wrong. Islamic blogs raced with reports, and Bell seemed to eat it up, even though he was suppose to be taking a break.
Then, the change over started. While filming and after collecting hundreds of hours of footage, Bell was approached by CNN producers of Soledad O'Brien, who wanted to use some footage of what he was titling "Not Welcome!" Bell got a tip that the news company wanted more than a few hours just for a news story, and when the documentary "Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door" aired, he realized he had been tricked and decided after all that had happened (all the threats, siding with the Islamic group, and then the news documentary) he was leaving a film crew behind and going to finish editing in California.
After going back to L.A., work on the project continued, he got picked up for a film deal, and begin blogging for Moore and the Daily Kos. It wasn't until he was back in Tennessee, in a cab in Nashville, talking to his driver from Egypt, that he realized, Islam is not the peaceful religion he thought it was.
Now, taking a break from this, as someone who has talked to many former Islams and some who still practice the religion, it has been apparent for years that this is not the religion the Islamic world or media paints it to be. In many cases, due to corrupt leaders and terrorists groups who run the countries and political actions more so than the leaders at times, former Muslims have admitted to leaving the practice because of the corruption in their country, how their lives and their families lives were in danger if they did not agree with certain groups, ways, or people, and realizing that it was not the religion they thought they knew (granted, this is not in all areas, and some did not feel as threatened depending on areas or depending on whether or not they were a convert outside of the middle east, as was the case with a woman from Denmark and a man from Michigan). Also, after studying the Koran in depth and the prophet Mohammad, it has always been apparent that this is not the religion that the media makes it to be.
As Bell began his journey to truth about what was really happening, he started paying much more attention to the news. He learned the stories of the Muslim Brotherhood, the fear of his cab driver being played out in front of him, the horrible treatment of women who had really done nothing wrong, and the capture of a man in an Islamic country for updating his facebook status as, "there is no god." It was at this time he took the words and the suggestion of a pastor from Murfreesboro seriously and even read the book, "Mohammad in America," and the Koran. He quickly altered his filming, finding that his crew and liberal friends were less than thrilled, changed his views, and when he placed his factual findings in front of everyone after deciding to tell the truth, he was told to take a break.
After writing a series of blogs about radical Islam, loonwatch, and the Islam religion on the Daily Kos, responses calling him names and telling him he was "right winged" pour in (it happens to most who tell the truth, way to go Bell!). He found himself one of the feature stories in Loowatch the next day, and it seems as if it was a threatening story as well. He also realized the truth that most people on his or his former side of the isle did not want to know or hear the truth. He tried writing article after article, receiving hateful comments and condemnation, until he was thrown off the Daily Kos. His article on "Human Rights" was the last straw and even facebook friends dropped him (typical).
Although, he is not really conservative, his views have definitely changed. His life has changed drastically because of his change of mind. Friends and co-workers dropped him just because of his view, even though they are constantly encouraging freedom of speech and the right to have whatever view one wants. He is simply trying to point out that Islam is not the "religion of peace" it is painted to be, and he is trying to raise awareness to how it hurts human rights and how news stations should focus more on some of these stories and on the rise of Islamic extremists in America. Even so, as he says, he still supports the building of the mosque but this view has changed as of late.
He now, firmly believes, the mosque is a continuation of Islam's "threat to human rights." All the same, it is great that he has realized the dangers of extreme Islam and is promoting awareness for it.
Read his story, it is a great insight to his journey "The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam," Feb. 10th, 2012, viewed July 3, 2012.
Monday, July 2, 2012
The "Unfair Campaign"
Sorry I'm White...
The University of Minnesota in Duluth, decided to start an ad campaign to let people know about racism. In the process, they have decided to make it seem like one race in particular is bad and is the cause of all problems. The ad campaign features white people with writing all over their faces. Some which read, "Is white skin really fair skin?"
According to the campaign ads, white people are priveleged. Anyonw who goes through a teaching, sociology, political science, or liberal history course (to name a few) will learn that white people are apparently, as a whole, more priveleged than any other race. Which, is absolutely untrue. Perhaps, these white people featured in the video are previleged enough to feel guilty about their race, but as for many others, they work and struggle and may have many of the same problems and more as any other race. To say that this university is trying to speak out against racism by promoting a theory that all whites are "priveleged" or better than other races, is racist.
As for better pay, better jobs, and better everything, perhaps these people do live in a priveleged area because most of us, even with college degrees, do not get those better pay and better jobs right off the bat. In fact, most have to work their rears off from the bottom of the pack in order to even get the pay one feels comfortable with. As for being a white female, priveleged is hardly the term one would use in the work place. In fact, most work places (especially office settings) are unforgiving to females in general, especially those who have families, and make it obvious that everything is about business and family emergencies or kids do not matter. In fact, females of all races are treated unfairly in the workforce in many cases because of gender. Perhaps, if these people really wanted to start an "unfair campaign," they could focus on the gender gap and not being racist in order to campaign against racism.
The website even includes focus videos, blogs, and information on how different races are treated. One information piece is called, "The Game of Life." The first stop is the doctor, where the group tries to emphasize that whites are generally in good health when they go to the doctor. There is nothing about unfair treatment, just about health, which seems to indicate that other races are not as healthy due their race or that perhaps, and somehow the university has turned it into a racial issue (and apparently not many of them have lost health insurance or ever had to worry about paying 100s or 1000s of dollars because of lack of insurance-both medical and dental- and coverage, which many white people end up doing).
The game goes on to focus on jobs, school, the store (which is nuts, because even though Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders might make a few thousand more than other groups, their cost of living is much more than those living in many states), on the highways, streets, and so on. Another feature is that of, what "standard of beauty" is placed on African American girls. REALLY? Is this really just a one race problem? So, no other race has standards of beauty that are emphasized via the media, marketing, local influence, and other factors?
Granted, there is a history of racism, not just in America but throughout the world. In fact, it was Portugal who actually started the slave trade, and if one really wants to go back in time, it was the Egyptians who enslaved the jews (people from the same geographic area as themselves) during Biblical times. Racism has been a problem from the beginning of time, but what this group is doing is another form of racism and stereotyping that they seem to be unaware of.
If this group truly believes they are overly priveleged, here's a suggestion, go somewhere in the world where you will not be the dominate skin color. Move to another country and put your actions where your mouth is. Become part of a society where it is believed that whites are not a dominate race nor will they be given special priveleges.
Of course, race is an area that is important and it is important to realize that there are people out there who are racist, but it is not confined to one race. Also, racism does not mean being judgemental due to skin color-it also means being prejudice against a person because of their area of origin, not just skin color.
Maybe UM Duluth is having trouble understanding race because of their lack of diversity, which is why they are running this campaign. Just because they are not considered diverse enough does not make them a racist school, it could possibly mean others are just not interested in going to the school. The school should also realize that this campaign is racial and that they should not be making anyone feel guilty about their race.
Sorry I'm White...
The University of Minnesota in Duluth, decided to start an ad campaign to let people know about racism. In the process, they have decided to make it seem like one race in particular is bad and is the cause of all problems. The ad campaign features white people with writing all over their faces. Some which read, "Is white skin really fair skin?"
According to the campaign ads, white people are priveleged. Anyonw who goes through a teaching, sociology, political science, or liberal history course (to name a few) will learn that white people are apparently, as a whole, more priveleged than any other race. Which, is absolutely untrue. Perhaps, these white people featured in the video are previleged enough to feel guilty about their race, but as for many others, they work and struggle and may have many of the same problems and more as any other race. To say that this university is trying to speak out against racism by promoting a theory that all whites are "priveleged" or better than other races, is racist.
As for better pay, better jobs, and better everything, perhaps these people do live in a priveleged area because most of us, even with college degrees, do not get those better pay and better jobs right off the bat. In fact, most have to work their rears off from the bottom of the pack in order to even get the pay one feels comfortable with. As for being a white female, priveleged is hardly the term one would use in the work place. In fact, most work places (especially office settings) are unforgiving to females in general, especially those who have families, and make it obvious that everything is about business and family emergencies or kids do not matter. In fact, females of all races are treated unfairly in the workforce in many cases because of gender. Perhaps, if these people really wanted to start an "unfair campaign," they could focus on the gender gap and not being racist in order to campaign against racism.
The website even includes focus videos, blogs, and information on how different races are treated. One information piece is called, "The Game of Life." The first stop is the doctor, where the group tries to emphasize that whites are generally in good health when they go to the doctor. There is nothing about unfair treatment, just about health, which seems to indicate that other races are not as healthy due their race or that perhaps, and somehow the university has turned it into a racial issue (and apparently not many of them have lost health insurance or ever had to worry about paying 100s or 1000s of dollars because of lack of insurance-both medical and dental- and coverage, which many white people end up doing).
The game goes on to focus on jobs, school, the store (which is nuts, because even though Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders might make a few thousand more than other groups, their cost of living is much more than those living in many states), on the highways, streets, and so on. Another feature is that of, what "standard of beauty" is placed on African American girls. REALLY? Is this really just a one race problem? So, no other race has standards of beauty that are emphasized via the media, marketing, local influence, and other factors?
Granted, there is a history of racism, not just in America but throughout the world. In fact, it was Portugal who actually started the slave trade, and if one really wants to go back in time, it was the Egyptians who enslaved the jews (people from the same geographic area as themselves) during Biblical times. Racism has been a problem from the beginning of time, but what this group is doing is another form of racism and stereotyping that they seem to be unaware of.
If this group truly believes they are overly priveleged, here's a suggestion, go somewhere in the world where you will not be the dominate skin color. Move to another country and put your actions where your mouth is. Become part of a society where it is believed that whites are not a dominate race nor will they be given special priveleges.
Of course, race is an area that is important and it is important to realize that there are people out there who are racist, but it is not confined to one race. Also, racism does not mean being judgemental due to skin color-it also means being prejudice against a person because of their area of origin, not just skin color.
Maybe UM Duluth is having trouble understanding race because of their lack of diversity, which is why they are running this campaign. Just because they are not considered diverse enough does not make them a racist school, it could possibly mean others are just not interested in going to the school. The school should also realize that this campaign is racial and that they should not be making anyone feel guilty about their race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)