Who Won the Second Debate
As much as this blogger wants to give the second debate win to Romney, it's hard to say. Romney was doing an excellent job, but kept rambling and going on and on about certain subjects when he really should have made his statement and moved on. Even so, Obama was not doing much better. He seemed like a little kid who wanted to just be like, "told you so, see," especially after liberal moderator Crowley made her statement on Libya (which was so wrong and anyone who knew anything about the whole ordeal and how long it took for President Obama to say it was a terrorist attack knew she was wrong). However, did this hurt Romney, no and here's why.
Everyone knows these town hall debates are staged and the questions are known by much of the news crew before hand. Which makes it no more real than if Obama had his teleprompter in front of him. Having said that, the first question was about jobs. Romney's answer was good, but he needed to improve on explaining more specifics about his plan on job creation (of course, it's technically not the governments job to create jobs, its their job to make sure business's are able to come in and create jobs which is what Romney was essentially saying). Obama talked about manufacturing plants, and the first thought going through my head was, we go to college to get jobs outside of manufacturing plants (unless you're an engineer, in business management or human resources). If college students wanted manufacturing jobs, they would not be in college.
Throughout the debate, Obama continued to bring up points he mentioned in 2008. Points on how he will turn the economy around, and what about that girl's question on women's rights in the work place? Women are out of work thanks to the job fall out and in ability to afford childcare during Obama's Presidency, and Romney's "binder" statement has been taken way out of context. Also, what was that statement about the gas prices about. The gas prices were low because the country was going into a recession? What a stupid statement, but the worst was definitely when Crowley butted in about Libya. Although, even her help can't hide the fact that Obama was lying and continuously trying to campaign like he had a clean record.
Overall, after rereading many reports, watching excerpts from the debate and thinking about how each candidate answered, Romney may have won. Even so, does it really matter? The big debate on foreign policy is Monday and this is the debate to watch but for the most part, doesn't everyone know where these candidates stand?
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Friday, October 5, 2012
Jobless Rate Falls
The big news is, the jobless numbers dropping below 8%. The real news, jobless numbers for graduating college students, unchanged. More than 45 million are still on food stamps. Annual wage increase has dropped. It is being reported that layoffs be delayed until after the elections (especially those involving the military and Department of Defense contractors). IT has also been noted that the numbers are contradictory, and many wonder how it is that only 114,000 jobs were added when the Government is saying over 800,000 found work. Of course, it is also important to remember those who have given up the job search or who are considered by the census not to be actively seeking employment, and that contractors do not count (however, it seems seasonal jobs count alot because this seems to happen around this time of year). Another reason being reported for the fall is due to the number of people who "left the workforce," and that many jobs were part-time (showing the desperate need for jobs).
On a personal note, many of my college friends are asking, where are these jobs? There are several people I know with Master degrees and a great job history that have not even had a job for a year or more. Some have had temp or part time jobs that pay way below what they were making before their job hunt began. Others, with Masters degrees, have decided to go back to college for another Bachelors degree in a field that seems to be popular when looking for jobs. On top of that, it can be noted that there are areas of the country where it is evident that jobs are scarce, and many who are considered over qualified are overlooked or not even considered. If the market is really growing, where is it growing? Also, where are the wage increases. There are people who have been working for the same amount of money for almost 2 years now, as they watch the price of food and gas sky rocket.
The real jobless number is well over 10% and there is still a huge discrepancy in the numbers. Could this be a campaign thing? Of course. It's funny how the numbers just seem to work out the month before the election, and after a debate in which the President totally didn't show up for.
Reference:
Seidl, J. October surprise: Unemployment drops to 7.8%-but skeptics abound. The Blaze, October 5, 2012.
The big news is, the jobless numbers dropping below 8%. The real news, jobless numbers for graduating college students, unchanged. More than 45 million are still on food stamps. Annual wage increase has dropped. It is being reported that layoffs be delayed until after the elections (especially those involving the military and Department of Defense contractors). IT has also been noted that the numbers are contradictory, and many wonder how it is that only 114,000 jobs were added when the Government is saying over 800,000 found work. Of course, it is also important to remember those who have given up the job search or who are considered by the census not to be actively seeking employment, and that contractors do not count (however, it seems seasonal jobs count alot because this seems to happen around this time of year). Another reason being reported for the fall is due to the number of people who "left the workforce," and that many jobs were part-time (showing the desperate need for jobs).
On a personal note, many of my college friends are asking, where are these jobs? There are several people I know with Master degrees and a great job history that have not even had a job for a year or more. Some have had temp or part time jobs that pay way below what they were making before their job hunt began. Others, with Masters degrees, have decided to go back to college for another Bachelors degree in a field that seems to be popular when looking for jobs. On top of that, it can be noted that there are areas of the country where it is evident that jobs are scarce, and many who are considered over qualified are overlooked or not even considered. If the market is really growing, where is it growing? Also, where are the wage increases. There are people who have been working for the same amount of money for almost 2 years now, as they watch the price of food and gas sky rocket.
The real jobless number is well over 10% and there is still a huge discrepancy in the numbers. Could this be a campaign thing? Of course. It's funny how the numbers just seem to work out the month before the election, and after a debate in which the President totally didn't show up for.
Reference:
Seidl, J. October surprise: Unemployment drops to 7.8%-but skeptics abound. The Blaze, October 5, 2012.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Schools Teach Anti-American Views
A story on The Blaze, describes why American students hate capitalism and the American form of government. Anyone who has been through the public schools or to college in the past 25-30 years knows how liberal the system is. For any student going through this line of liberal progressive learning, it is no wonder by the time they are about to graduate college, their views and knowledge of America are skewed.
The biggest disappointment in what students are learning about capitalism and history is, it is being presented to them as fact. Many teachers or professors allow students to truly research and argue an opposing view. If the student does argue an opposing view, most educators will grade them down or tell them they are wrong. To say this does not happen is wrong, and it happens more often than one may think.
Students are constantly hearing how bad America is, and what America has done wrong. Meanwhile, they learn how wonderful Marx, communism, and socialism are, but how bad America's Founding Father's and capitalism is. They also learn lies about the U.S. Constitution, such as "separation of church and state" is in there, and honestly, there are not many teachers who truly teach what's in the constitution and the documents and people that inspired it. On top of all this, students are taught that America is a white man's world (which is absolutely ridiculous seeing as how the country now has a black President and numerous leaders who are considered minorities, and there were black senators and congressmen in the 19th century that are never taught of).
American educators and the education system is doing an injustice to students and themselves. The truth is only half taught and bias. Students are not learning about the documents, people, and why America is still considered a country in which many want to live. Which is great for the education system which says they want students to develop their own views, but in reality the school system makes students and teachers focus on what they want taught by way of mandatory tests.
Over the years, it has become painfully obvious that the education system is more in line with liberal government than with teaching truth. The sad thing is, students are being done an injustice. They leave high school and college with such misconstrued views of America, that they believe the only way for America to be fixed is by creating a system that is somewhere between socialism and communism. The worse part is, many students just accept what is taught as fact, much like adults who accept the news or what is told as fact without actually looking into it.
A story on The Blaze, describes why American students hate capitalism and the American form of government. Anyone who has been through the public schools or to college in the past 25-30 years knows how liberal the system is. For any student going through this line of liberal progressive learning, it is no wonder by the time they are about to graduate college, their views and knowledge of America are skewed.
The biggest disappointment in what students are learning about capitalism and history is, it is being presented to them as fact. Many teachers or professors allow students to truly research and argue an opposing view. If the student does argue an opposing view, most educators will grade them down or tell them they are wrong. To say this does not happen is wrong, and it happens more often than one may think.
Students are constantly hearing how bad America is, and what America has done wrong. Meanwhile, they learn how wonderful Marx, communism, and socialism are, but how bad America's Founding Father's and capitalism is. They also learn lies about the U.S. Constitution, such as "separation of church and state" is in there, and honestly, there are not many teachers who truly teach what's in the constitution and the documents and people that inspired it. On top of all this, students are taught that America is a white man's world (which is absolutely ridiculous seeing as how the country now has a black President and numerous leaders who are considered minorities, and there were black senators and congressmen in the 19th century that are never taught of).
American educators and the education system is doing an injustice to students and themselves. The truth is only half taught and bias. Students are not learning about the documents, people, and why America is still considered a country in which many want to live. Which is great for the education system which says they want students to develop their own views, but in reality the school system makes students and teachers focus on what they want taught by way of mandatory tests.
Over the years, it has become painfully obvious that the education system is more in line with liberal government than with teaching truth. The sad thing is, students are being done an injustice. They leave high school and college with such misconstrued views of America, that they believe the only way for America to be fixed is by creating a system that is somewhere between socialism and communism. The worse part is, many students just accept what is taught as fact, much like adults who accept the news or what is told as fact without actually looking into it.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Chicago Teacher Strike
Performance reviews and longer days, oh my! Not performance reviews and 7 or 7 1/2 hour school day, run for your lives, take to the street. Worse yet, performance reviews? We went into this job for tenure, not performance reviews, and seeing as how we are so distraught over these two things and would rather take a two week break to strike than do a job proves it is not the students who are coming first.
Teachers in Chicago happen to be up in arms over the fact that their work day is to be lengthened and they might have performance reviews which may cause job loses. Granted, being a teacher is not easy and anyone who says it is has never had to develop unit plans, teach to a test, deal with parents and students, and much more. Even so, teachers go into this profession knowing it is not easy and it takes work, compassion, and is a career that is suppose to be focused on learning and on the students. However, like all careers, it is not always what it is cracked up to be.
Teachers have to keep in mind, they are going into a thankless career at times. Parents do expect their kids to be taught everything at school, because they are to busy or in some cases lazy (it's true) to teach the kids themselves. Teachers get frustrated because learning does not stop once the child leaves the class and if communities are not supportive than students will not be committed, which creates more tension and stress for the teacher who can only do so much. However, that does not mean teacher's should give up on the students and it does not mean that Unions (who are control hounds) should encourage these strikes (mainly because if there are school closings they loose due money to give to their political parties). Also, as unfortunate as it may be for some teachers, it might better serve the community to close some schools and get rid of incompetent staff.
Unfortunately, school is more of a business than a service in many ways, and that is what Unions continuously encourage it to be. Of course, one area that is understandable in this strike is, health insurance compensation. In this economy, health insurance is crucial and that is probably one of the only areas that it is understandable to strike against.
Performance reviews and longer days, oh my! Not performance reviews and 7 or 7 1/2 hour school day, run for your lives, take to the street. Worse yet, performance reviews? We went into this job for tenure, not performance reviews, and seeing as how we are so distraught over these two things and would rather take a two week break to strike than do a job proves it is not the students who are coming first.
Teachers in Chicago happen to be up in arms over the fact that their work day is to be lengthened and they might have performance reviews which may cause job loses. Granted, being a teacher is not easy and anyone who says it is has never had to develop unit plans, teach to a test, deal with parents and students, and much more. Even so, teachers go into this profession knowing it is not easy and it takes work, compassion, and is a career that is suppose to be focused on learning and on the students. However, like all careers, it is not always what it is cracked up to be.
Teachers have to keep in mind, they are going into a thankless career at times. Parents do expect their kids to be taught everything at school, because they are to busy or in some cases lazy (it's true) to teach the kids themselves. Teachers get frustrated because learning does not stop once the child leaves the class and if communities are not supportive than students will not be committed, which creates more tension and stress for the teacher who can only do so much. However, that does not mean teacher's should give up on the students and it does not mean that Unions (who are control hounds) should encourage these strikes (mainly because if there are school closings they loose due money to give to their political parties). Also, as unfortunate as it may be for some teachers, it might better serve the community to close some schools and get rid of incompetent staff.
Unfortunately, school is more of a business than a service in many ways, and that is what Unions continuously encourage it to be. Of course, one area that is understandable in this strike is, health insurance compensation. In this economy, health insurance is crucial and that is probably one of the only areas that it is understandable to strike against.
Governor Romney Does Not Apologize For Comments
Four months ago, Romney made a comment about the 47% who were still planning to vote for Obama. He said those 47% "were dependent on Government." Of course, the liberal media (and media in general) has jumped on this opportunity to make Romney seem like he does not care about Americans. When in all honesty, Romney wants to turn the country around to make it a place where people do not need to rely on Government funds and will be more secure in themselves.
In a way, Romney is right. There are people who will vote for Obama because they do not want to give up what they are getting, and they do not want to stop getting what is being given. On top of that, many of these people believe "spreading the wealth" will benefit them greatly, but even William Bradford wrote that this leads to greater poverty (morally and monetarily). If this group of voters vote for Romney, they know these things will end or become harder to receive. Therefore, Romney is correct in the fact that there is a group like this that will not vote for him.
On the other hand, it is probably not fair to say all 47% are dependent on Government. There is sure to be a percentage that can do well without Government help, but then again, if some of those are paying into social security or other Government programs, maybe they could be considered dependent (as many could in that case).
Overall, the media is going to continue to make this a bigger deal than it is, much like trying to make a big deal that some You Tube video starting the protests in Libya and Egypt (which is beyond ridiculous and such a load of ....). This was a golden opportunity for the Obama loving media to try to paint Romney as uncaring, when in all rights he does care and at least he is true to who he is.
Four months ago, Romney made a comment about the 47% who were still planning to vote for Obama. He said those 47% "were dependent on Government." Of course, the liberal media (and media in general) has jumped on this opportunity to make Romney seem like he does not care about Americans. When in all honesty, Romney wants to turn the country around to make it a place where people do not need to rely on Government funds and will be more secure in themselves.
In a way, Romney is right. There are people who will vote for Obama because they do not want to give up what they are getting, and they do not want to stop getting what is being given. On top of that, many of these people believe "spreading the wealth" will benefit them greatly, but even William Bradford wrote that this leads to greater poverty (morally and monetarily). If this group of voters vote for Romney, they know these things will end or become harder to receive. Therefore, Romney is correct in the fact that there is a group like this that will not vote for him.
On the other hand, it is probably not fair to say all 47% are dependent on Government. There is sure to be a percentage that can do well without Government help, but then again, if some of those are paying into social security or other Government programs, maybe they could be considered dependent (as many could in that case).
Overall, the media is going to continue to make this a bigger deal than it is, much like trying to make a big deal that some You Tube video starting the protests in Libya and Egypt (which is beyond ridiculous and such a load of ....). This was a golden opportunity for the Obama loving media to try to paint Romney as uncaring, when in all rights he does care and at least he is true to who he is.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Attacks and Protest "Arab Spring" In Libya and Egypt
While Americans remembered the fallen and those who survived the September 11, 2001 attacks, Islamic radicals in the Middle East were preparing an attack against the west on home soil. An American Ambassador and three other Americans were brutally killed by the so called peaceful Muslim Brotherhood in Libya. Meanwhile, attacks on the embassy in Egypt were rapid and the American flag was torn down, and put one up that read, "No God but God and his prophet Mohammad," and spray painted "U.S. of Muslim." As the attacks occurred and heightened, people in the street were chanting, "I am a terrorist."
While all this occurred and surfaced, the media responded by saying it was over a YouTube video poking fun at Muslims. Did it ever occur to them that it may be more that? Did the media think the fact that it was 9/11 had anything to do with it? To top it all, the response from the White House was about as shallow as could be when it came to what happened, and said the Embassy did not condone what happened "to hurt the religious freedoms of Muslims." First off, nothing about this attack was about hurting a Muslims religious freedom, and the glorification of the Islam YouTube video by the media, that no one really knew of to start with until this happened, along with the fact that these countries have not moved into the 21st century gracefully and have a vast amount of people that are illiterate and hold to tradition rather than fact, have been ignored along with may other facts) in an attempt by the media to promote the thought that some stupid video caused this.
While talking about stupid video's, I just want to mention how these radical Islamists almost seem to get a slap on the hand by our administration for what they have done. Meanwhile, there is another video out there of an American hostage who has been ignored by the administration and nothing has been mentioned about his religious or citizen rights. Yet, the administration's comment on the the attacks were swift and apologetic to Islam ad really did nothing to condemn what happened. In fact, one of the best statements was actually given by the Conservative Islamists who did condemn the attacks, asks for the U.S. Government to stop being so apologetic, and is asking for Muslims in the Middle East to be more educated on America and their own freedoms.
To say this attack was solely based on a YouTube video is wrong. Any American with a brain can connect the dots and realize it was not coincident that this happened on 9/11. Just to note, Obama and the Administration were warned of a possible attack but Obama was too busy to deal with public affairs and decided to keep his appointments with the media, but not make time for things that really matter.
Sometimes I think every American wonders when the next attack on American soil will be, and many wonder if it will happen on 9/11. This attack was not on home soil, but it did take place on American citizens for no other reason than the fact they were Americans, and to get the Muslim populatin to join forces against the West. While America's Government tries to make these people seem "peaceful," citizens need to realize they are anything but and that they are religious radicals who want anyone to die that does not agree with them. There hearts are hard and due to lack of wanting to understand other religious or even being taught other ways of thinking, they choose to kill or destroy what they do not understand or want to hear.
While Americans remembered the fallen and those who survived the September 11, 2001 attacks, Islamic radicals in the Middle East were preparing an attack against the west on home soil. An American Ambassador and three other Americans were brutally killed by the so called peaceful Muslim Brotherhood in Libya. Meanwhile, attacks on the embassy in Egypt were rapid and the American flag was torn down, and put one up that read, "No God but God and his prophet Mohammad," and spray painted "U.S. of Muslim." As the attacks occurred and heightened, people in the street were chanting, "I am a terrorist."
While all this occurred and surfaced, the media responded by saying it was over a YouTube video poking fun at Muslims. Did it ever occur to them that it may be more that? Did the media think the fact that it was 9/11 had anything to do with it? To top it all, the response from the White House was about as shallow as could be when it came to what happened, and said the Embassy did not condone what happened "to hurt the religious freedoms of Muslims." First off, nothing about this attack was about hurting a Muslims religious freedom, and the glorification of the Islam YouTube video by the media, that no one really knew of to start with until this happened, along with the fact that these countries have not moved into the 21st century gracefully and have a vast amount of people that are illiterate and hold to tradition rather than fact, have been ignored along with may other facts) in an attempt by the media to promote the thought that some stupid video caused this.
While talking about stupid video's, I just want to mention how these radical Islamists almost seem to get a slap on the hand by our administration for what they have done. Meanwhile, there is another video out there of an American hostage who has been ignored by the administration and nothing has been mentioned about his religious or citizen rights. Yet, the administration's comment on the the attacks were swift and apologetic to Islam ad really did nothing to condemn what happened. In fact, one of the best statements was actually given by the Conservative Islamists who did condemn the attacks, asks for the U.S. Government to stop being so apologetic, and is asking for Muslims in the Middle East to be more educated on America and their own freedoms.
To say this attack was solely based on a YouTube video is wrong. Any American with a brain can connect the dots and realize it was not coincident that this happened on 9/11. Just to note, Obama and the Administration were warned of a possible attack but Obama was too busy to deal with public affairs and decided to keep his appointments with the media, but not make time for things that really matter.
Sometimes I think every American wonders when the next attack on American soil will be, and many wonder if it will happen on 9/11. This attack was not on home soil, but it did take place on American citizens for no other reason than the fact they were Americans, and to get the Muslim populatin to join forces against the West. While America's Government tries to make these people seem "peaceful," citizens need to realize they are anything but and that they are religious radicals who want anyone to die that does not agree with them. There hearts are hard and due to lack of wanting to understand other religious or even being taught other ways of thinking, they choose to kill or destroy what they do not understand or want to hear.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Democratic National Convention: "God and Values"
Was anyone else confused with the fact that the Democrats had to vote God and Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel back in to their platform? First of all, who votes God in or out of something? Second of all, I thought it is just a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Of course, that wasn't the weirdest thing about the convention. One of the strangest things was how the party tried to emphasis values, American values.
Out of no where, after speeches promoting abortions, the Democrats started ranting about "God and Country," and how their faith has kept them going. When did this happen? Where did all this God talk come from for the Democrats? Perhaps they realized they might actually need God's help?
Even so, the party does have values, just not the conservative American values they tried to play out at the convention. They claim to be, the "party of inclusion," and one that wants to coexist with everyone, but when the truth comes out (such as on the Jon Stewart show), it is obvious there is still a divide as to who is welcome in the party and who is not and what kind of values they really have.
It was just strange to see that a party is so nuts and desperate, that they tried to make it seem like they have Godly values. After all the abortion speeches by the celebrities, makes since.
Was anyone else confused with the fact that the Democrats had to vote God and Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel back in to their platform? First of all, who votes God in or out of something? Second of all, I thought it is just a fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? Of course, that wasn't the weirdest thing about the convention. One of the strangest things was how the party tried to emphasis values, American values.
Out of no where, after speeches promoting abortions, the Democrats started ranting about "God and Country," and how their faith has kept them going. When did this happen? Where did all this God talk come from for the Democrats? Perhaps they realized they might actually need God's help?
Even so, the party does have values, just not the conservative American values they tried to play out at the convention. They claim to be, the "party of inclusion," and one that wants to coexist with everyone, but when the truth comes out (such as on the Jon Stewart show), it is obvious there is still a divide as to who is welcome in the party and who is not and what kind of values they really have.
It was just strange to see that a party is so nuts and desperate, that they tried to make it seem like they have Godly values. After all the abortion speeches by the celebrities, makes since.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Atheist Billboards Attack GOP Faith
Atheist Billboards have been placed around Charlotte in time for the Democratic National Convention. The billboards are being used to criticize and mock the Christian faith, as well as encourage people not to vote for Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon. The boards are extremely critical of God, with sentences such as, "Sadistic God, Useless Savior," and "Baptizes Dead People." If this isn't a flat out public attack on Jesus and the God of the Bible and hateful speech towards Christians and one's belief, then what is?
Instead of keeping the convention about politics, it has now become a fight against religion and personal conviction. This billbard is really meant to criticize Mormons, but it has been funded and put up by groups who obviously want to abolish all religion and believes, except their own (and yes, atheism can be considered a type of religion, even by an atheists definition of religion, althouh they would argue different). What's more telling of how driven the city of Charlotte is to allow such critic on a candidates personal beliefs is, the atheist group tried to put these up in Tampa for the RNC but was denied.
Of course, anyone who does know Christ will understand, this is not an all out attack on the "nonexistance of God, but on religion."At no point do these billboards say there is no God, they just say that the God of Mormonism is "an alien" and a few other things. So, they are not denying God's existence but showing, as they usually do, that they just want to get rid of specific religions and promote their own.
Atheist Billboards have been placed around Charlotte in time for the Democratic National Convention. The billboards are being used to criticize and mock the Christian faith, as well as encourage people not to vote for Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon. The boards are extremely critical of God, with sentences such as, "Sadistic God, Useless Savior," and "Baptizes Dead People." If this isn't a flat out public attack on Jesus and the God of the Bible and hateful speech towards Christians and one's belief, then what is?
Instead of keeping the convention about politics, it has now become a fight against religion and personal conviction. This billbard is really meant to criticize Mormons, but it has been funded and put up by groups who obviously want to abolish all religion and believes, except their own (and yes, atheism can be considered a type of religion, even by an atheists definition of religion, althouh they would argue different). What's more telling of how driven the city of Charlotte is to allow such critic on a candidates personal beliefs is, the atheist group tried to put these up in Tampa for the RNC but was denied.
Of course, anyone who does know Christ will understand, this is not an all out attack on the "nonexistance of God, but on religion."At no point do these billboards say there is no God, they just say that the God of Mormonism is "an alien" and a few other things. So, they are not denying God's existence but showing, as they usually do, that they just want to get rid of specific religions and promote their own.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
The "Dream University"
There is a new University that may be affordable, and offers students a chance to get a college education. Students could take online courses for as low as $2400 for up to 18 courses online! This is all happening at UCLA, and it is only for those that qualify under the "Dream Act" leaving those that do not truly dreaming.
Apparently, California is up to punishing those who are in the state's legally, by offering an opportunity to those who are illegal ($65 per credit hour, which would be awesome) while charging over $6000 for these online courses for Americans and legal immigrants. It is almost as if being legal in this country is some sort of crime and that those of us who are legal should feel bad, as we dish out over $9000 (now, probably $10,000), work to no end to get a degree, and hope that their is a job in the degree field once graduated just to pay off the ridiculous loans. However, on the plus side, there are grants and scholarships to those who qualify and those things are definitely something to be taken advantage of in this age of rising college tuition and lost opportunities for those who cannot afford it.
It could be said that situations such as this continue to drive a wedge between legals and illegals in America. Legal citizens feel like their being taken advantage of while they play by the college rules, while some illegals feel like their receiving a service that is beneficial to them (because it is) because it gives them a chance to further their hopes to achieve the American Dream. Even so, remember, there are many illegal immigrants who come into the country and follow the rules and there may be some who feel like this is another spot on how Americans view illegal immigrants. However, it's hard to get wholly upset at them, when it is schools and government that are giving them this opportunity.
In the long run, citizens should be more upset at the fact that the government continues to allow this, and most understand why politicians allow it. People also get upset because the citizens are the ones paying the extra expense, and how can one blame somebody for taking advantage of this program to get ahead? If it's offered at a much lower cost, why would one not take advantage of it if it is considered okay by a University?
Overall, it's just another thing to make citizens feel like they are unappreciated and matter less. It is also unfair to those who have become legal residents, but then again, when has any government or school really been into fairness? It sounds good when spoken, but the truth is, nothing is truly fair.
There is a new University that may be affordable, and offers students a chance to get a college education. Students could take online courses for as low as $2400 for up to 18 courses online! This is all happening at UCLA, and it is only for those that qualify under the "Dream Act" leaving those that do not truly dreaming.
Apparently, California is up to punishing those who are in the state's legally, by offering an opportunity to those who are illegal ($65 per credit hour, which would be awesome) while charging over $6000 for these online courses for Americans and legal immigrants. It is almost as if being legal in this country is some sort of crime and that those of us who are legal should feel bad, as we dish out over $9000 (now, probably $10,000), work to no end to get a degree, and hope that their is a job in the degree field once graduated just to pay off the ridiculous loans. However, on the plus side, there are grants and scholarships to those who qualify and those things are definitely something to be taken advantage of in this age of rising college tuition and lost opportunities for those who cannot afford it.
It could be said that situations such as this continue to drive a wedge between legals and illegals in America. Legal citizens feel like their being taken advantage of while they play by the college rules, while some illegals feel like their receiving a service that is beneficial to them (because it is) because it gives them a chance to further their hopes to achieve the American Dream. Even so, remember, there are many illegal immigrants who come into the country and follow the rules and there may be some who feel like this is another spot on how Americans view illegal immigrants. However, it's hard to get wholly upset at them, when it is schools and government that are giving them this opportunity.
In the long run, citizens should be more upset at the fact that the government continues to allow this, and most understand why politicians allow it. People also get upset because the citizens are the ones paying the extra expense, and how can one blame somebody for taking advantage of this program to get ahead? If it's offered at a much lower cost, why would one not take advantage of it if it is considered okay by a University?
Overall, it's just another thing to make citizens feel like they are unappreciated and matter less. It is also unfair to those who have become legal residents, but then again, when has any government or school really been into fairness? It sounds good when spoken, but the truth is, nothing is truly fair.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Fashion: Michelle's $6800 Top Gets Cheers, Ann Romneys $990 Top Gets Jeers
The liberal media was basically drooling on themselves when describing how wonderful Mrs. Obama looked in her $6800 jacket. They said she out shined the queen and Kate Middleton, and that her "toned arms" looked fabulous as always. The praise was never ending, and neither was the hypocrisy.
In May, the liberal media willing to condemn Ann Romney for her $990 blouse. The media just couldn't help but point out how out of touch the Romney's were, so much so that she could afford a $990 blouse to wear on National television. However, how can the media describe the Obama's as being in touch with the American people? After all, they spend money (or someones money) on lavish vacations for themselves and their children, have $40,000 a plate fundraisers, buy ridiculously expensive clothes that makes one wonder how they can even afford, and much more.
Of course, one also wonders how much some of the liberal media pays for their clothes and could ask why it's okay for them to shop at stores like Neiman Marcus (where a plain white shirt can run over $100, easily) and other fashion retailers and figures, and yet, target a specific group to criticize if they do the same thing. It's all hypocrisy.
The liberal media was basically drooling on themselves when describing how wonderful Mrs. Obama looked in her $6800 jacket. They said she out shined the queen and Kate Middleton, and that her "toned arms" looked fabulous as always. The praise was never ending, and neither was the hypocrisy.
In May, the liberal media willing to condemn Ann Romney for her $990 blouse. The media just couldn't help but point out how out of touch the Romney's were, so much so that she could afford a $990 blouse to wear on National television. However, how can the media describe the Obama's as being in touch with the American people? After all, they spend money (or someones money) on lavish vacations for themselves and their children, have $40,000 a plate fundraisers, buy ridiculously expensive clothes that makes one wonder how they can even afford, and much more.
Of course, one also wonders how much some of the liberal media pays for their clothes and could ask why it's okay for them to shop at stores like Neiman Marcus (where a plain white shirt can run over $100, easily) and other fashion retailers and figures, and yet, target a specific group to criticize if they do the same thing. It's all hypocrisy.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)